RADİCALISM AND DEMOCRACY

While supporting Islamic movements against communism, USA also laid the foundations of its future plans and also it blackened the future of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Especially, with the outbreak of ‘unsuccessfulness’ in Afghanistan and with the increase in American antagonism, radical and extremist Islamic parties started to gain power in Pakistan. While being supported by only a small portion of people until 2002, the conditions challenged for Islamic parties with the invasion of Afghanistan by USA.3 Especially in some places, which are close to Afghanistan borders of Pakistan, sympathy for Taliban increased enormously in many places in Pakistan. During the first stages of the invasion USA and Pakistan President P.Musharraf, who took the power with a coup in 1999 were collaborating. Moreover in 24 June 2003, President W.Bush thanked to Musharraf because of his support to reconstruction of Afghanistan and his decisive posture! 4 But after a short time, when Pakistan was seen as a responsible from the worsening conditions in Afghanistan and growing of Islamism, world public turned to Pakistan as a failing state.
Pakistan was an important country that must not fall into the hands of Islamic terrorists. It was not only a center state for intervention in Afghanistan but also it was the only Islamic state that has nuclear weapons. It would be a disaster if Pakistan administration would be captured by Islamists and this would result in emergence of new Irans, new North Koreas. Finally, an unsuccessful assassination attempt to Musharraf in 2003 alarmed the US administration and by initiating the period of transition to democracy in Pakistan, USA tried to find alternative political parties against the Islamic ones. At this point Benazir Bhutto, who was recognized as a secular person and became Prime Minister two times, was the first name that was coming to mind. Appearance of Bhutto, who was in exile, was seen as an enemy project by Al Qaeda and Taliban. In addition to this when Bhutto explained that she wants to act more brutally to Islamists than Musharraf did, this speech made her an open target for the Islamists.
In 5 October 2007, when President Musharraf signed the law of Defraudation Forgiveness, Bhutto eluded from the allegations, which were made during her times of Prime Ministry and anymore there was not any obstacles that would prevent her to come her country again. When she returned to her country in 18 October 2007, a big crowded met her in Karachi Harbor. This return’s mean was alternation of Pakistan society to a democratic one5 and this was starting point of the end for Bhutto. During the meeting ceremony, the first “welcome gift” was given to Bhutto with a suicide attack, in which almost 150 people died. This attack was the messenger of the next ones. Bhutto, who was rescued from first attack in Karachi, was not as lucky as before when the second attack was made. In 27 November 2007, while she was telling her election works to people, she died because of an assassination and she shared the same end with her father Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, was also hanged by Ziya-ul Hak in 1977. After her death one of Al Qaeda’s leaders in Afghanistan declared that “they destroyed the most important American capital, who pledged to beat the Mujahids”.6 Some people can reject it but Bhutto was an important “American capital”. It is clear that her return to Pakistan was provided by USA.

AFTER BHUTTO

Death of Bhutto finished the American dream of democratization of Pakistan for a while. Musharraf, who was blamed for not providing the security of Bhutto effectively, abandoned his position in the General Staff. The political environment after assassination of Bhutto caused the decrease in support to Islamist parties as it is seen in election results, too. Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party and another opposing party Pakistan Muslim Union-Navaz raised their votes. On the other hand Islamist parties lost support. Another dimension of elections is that it revealed some results that can directly affect the political career of Musharraf. The straw polls showed that people’s support to Musharraf was decreasing. I think the opposing parties are also insufficient to fulfill the people’s wants. These show that Pakistan is deprived from leaders, who can ameliorate the living conditions of Pakistani people and provide economic stability to Pakistan. I mean that in Pakistan “politics for persons” understanding is seen more important that the understanding of “politics for Pakistani people”.7

JUDGEMENT

With the increasing usage of term, globalization, all states are face to face with the danger of separation to ethnic and religious minor groups. While globalization is devastating the nation-states, societies are drifting apart their ethnic roots.8 Especially, states that are composed of more than one national identities such as Pakistan are losing their chance of living together. The American led imperialist powers are applying cruel policies to states, which are made up of many ethnicities. Pakistan also got its share from this. The eminent map, which was published by American Armed Forces Journal, clearly shows that USA does not want to see Pakistan as it is today.9
Combating with terrorism, political-economic problems and social disagreements are taking away Pakistan to a critical chaos. Since they prioritize to religious identities, Pakistani people don’t see the ascendant of radicalism as a problem. On the contrary, some reactions that made against shariah demands in some parts of the country are less than the reactions that are made against American invasion. The armament because of the disputes between Pakistan and neighbor states and as a result decline in economic welfare level, the importance of religion in Pakistan history, different pursuits of people because of economic backwardness, the importance of religion in education and the changing international balance are the reasons that help us to understand the radicalism in Pakistan.10 Finally; when we look to the structure in Pakistan society, we see that the threat perception of international public is not same with the perception of Pakistani people. While international community sees terrorism and radicalism as the most important problems in Pakistan, it should not be forgotten that for an ordinary Pakistani citizen economic and social problems come first.
Maybe it is more useful and beneficial for international actors, especially for USA, not to intervene internal affairs in Pakistan, not to direct the country for their own purposes and interest and to give a chance to Pakistan to solve the problems under the light of its own dynamics and priorities. It is not a good approach to try to understand Islamabad by looking from Washington!

Nail ELHAN

For the Turkish of the essay, please click here
1 Cavid Veliev, “Pakistan’da Sivil Siyasetin Sonu”, Cumhuriyet Strateji Sayı:184, Ankara s.12

2 Uluslararası İlişkiler ve Siyaset Teorisi Üzerine Derleme

3 Gökçen Oğan, “Pakistan’da Seçimler Belirsizliği Artırdı”, Stratejik Analiz, No.95, Ankara, s.8-9

4 Mustafa Kemal Dağdelen, “Kaosun Odağı Pakistan”, Stratejik Analiz, No.110, Ankara, s.68

5 Cavid Veliev, “Pakistan’da Sivil Siyasetin Sonu”, Cumhuriyet Strateji Sayı:184, Ankara s.13

6 Prof.M.Shadid Alam, “Bir Pakistan Trajedisi”, http://www.makaleler.com/oku-bir+pakistan+trajedisi

7 Gökçen Oğan, “Pakistan’da Koalisyon Sallanıyor”, Stratejik Analiz, No.98, Ankara, s.15

8 Anıl Çeçen, Türkiye ve Avrasya, Ankara, Fark Yayınları, 2006, s.73

9 Ali Külebi, “Pakistan’a Ağır Bedel”, Cumhuriyet Strateji Sayı:225, Ankara s.9

10 Mustafa Kemal Dağdelen, “Kaosun Odağı Pakistan”, Stratejik Analiz, No.110, Ankara, s.71

Thus, there is nothing new in the fact that Yemen is an ideological outpost of so-called radical Islamism. Why, then, there is such a surge of emotion towards Yemen?

It is very simple. The vertical power in Yemen dramatically weakened in recent times. Now, the government is unable to effectively maintain a power balance on Islamists, as it previously did. Now it already became barely legal to send militants to Iraq. Moreover, the previous mechanism by which mullahs and shaikhs were successfully “fed up” was ceased to work. Finally, after the death of “spiritual father” of Yemeni Moslems, Sheikh Ahmar, who is the founder of Islamist Islah Party, there began schism in the party(between the moderate and radical thinkers). The economic situation, which was already poor in the region, has deteriorated, which contributed financial crisis and decrease in oil prices. In the meantime, there is a revival of southern Yemeni separatists and Zaydis(strong Shia community in Yemen)

In addition, no one can deny that events in Afghanistan and Iraq contributed to recruitment of a large number of volunteer Yemeni fighters who were following the path of “being shahid”. However, it seems there emerged “brand new community” consisted of escapees of those volunteers who were previously following the path of “shahid”. Now, they also demand their “share of a cake”. I believe that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq themselves have become the new stimulator in the revival of old radical Islamists and radicalizing the young population in the country. In such circumstances, Yemen shows resemblances with Morocco for being one of the main cores for recruitment of “infantry militants”.

It is obvious that Yemen’s army is not in a condition(neither physically nor mentally) to contain and control the situation in the country. So Washington started to feel that the case is gradually becoming to be one more “Talibanistan” for the U.S.. Question rises as whether Yemen is the next to get “democracy” from the U.S. army. Nevertheless, for President Barack Obama, war in Yemen, is, at least, an undesirable situation.

For the time being, it seems that the White House and State Department themselves do not know what to do. Hence, “the U.S. military launched cruise missiles … against two suspected al-Qaeda sites in Yemen”, as ABC news reported. The U.S. and Britain were first among many countries that closed their embassies in Yemen.

January 28, in Britain, a faithful ally of the U.S., Prime Minister Gordon Brown has called for an international meeting to discuss how to confront Al-Qaeda and overall radicalization in Yemen, and this event, in my opinion, again is the evidence of confusion and lack of a clear strategy for the Yemeni question of Washington. Although it is too early to consider this event as complete complication, as far as I observed, it is not going to draw a new strategy neither for the U.S. nor Britain.

For now, what is clear is that the U.S. will not send troops to Yemen, firstly, due to lack of them, indeed. Washington, obviously, feared the reaction of the Yemen, even in the hypothetical possibility of such a step. Identified as Specially Designated Global Terrorist by the U.S. Treasury department, Al-Zindani, head of the al-Islah political movement in Yemen, loudly declared that in the case of the U.S. intervention, jihad will be initiated. I think Washington agrees with him in this regard. After all, subject country is Yemen where weapons of any modifications can be purchased at city markets like tomatoes. By taking these facts into account, one can feel a smell of a guerilla war, which poses a real threat by transferring instability to its neighbour, Saudi Arabia, where the position of immigrants from Yemen is economically strong.

Considering the “transparency” of the Saudi-Yemeni border, which is proved to be “transparent” in Saudi Army’s fighting against Yemeni Zaydis-the Houthis in 2004, this possible guerilla war would not be easy for the U.S. to deal with.  By the way, as spokesman of Somalian terrorist group of al-Shabab(which is considered to have close links with Al-Qaeda) told the BBC, they(Al-Shabab) are successfully exchanging militants and weapons with their Yemeni “brothers”.

Conclusion of beginning

For now, it seems the Yemeni problem of Washington is quite unexpected both for the U.S. and the world. Nevertheless, the Washington is “guilty” for the circumstances: it did not change Saleh when it was possible, maybe hoping “he could handle it”. “He could not”…

Jamil Islamov