|
|
 |
|
 |
|
| COUP IN PAKISTAN | |
 October 12, 1999 
|
||
|
|
|
|
JIM LEHRER: That military coup in Pakistan: We start with a report from Robert Moore of Independent Television News filed earlier today. ROBERT MOORE: No pictures have emerged from Pakistan since news of the military coup first broke, but the latest reports suggest that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is under house arrest. There have been no official announcements from the civilian or from the military leadership tonight, and the television stations have been taken off the air. SPOKESPERSON: The meeting dispelled the impression...
JIM LEHRER: Ray Suarez takes the story from there. RAY SUAREZ: Tonight, Pakistan's army chief went on national television confirming the army was in control and that the prime minister was in custody. The army chief said the situation was calm, and that no outside forces should try to take advantage of the situation. For more on the military coup, we turn to Robert Oakley who served as U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan from 1988 to 1991 -- he is now the acting director at the Institute for National Strategic Studies -- and Paula Newberg. She is an independent consultant who has written extensively about Pakistani and South Asian affairs. Well, Robert Oakley, the prime minister took it in mind to fire the general and the general ended up firing the prime minister. Were you shocked by the news? ROBERT OAKLEY: I wasn't shocked except for the fact that the prime minister took it in mind to try to fire the army chief, which is very unwise. When one deals with the army recklessly in Pakistan, one usually pays the price. RAY SUAREZ: Well, this is a democratically-elected government, but this is also a country that half its history as a nation... it's been living under military rule. ROBERT OAKLEY: That's right. The politicians tend to rely upon the army even though they proclaim that they're a democracy; they rely very heavily upon the army, and they accord the army a great deal of political weight. At the moment, there's a great deal of political opposition to the prime minister. But, above all, the country is in bad shape. And Paula can perhaps tell you more about that, but the economic situation is terrible. There's a great deal of social unrest; there's a great deal of sectarian violence. And I think the army reacted not merely to the challenge but also to the general feeling that the situation is out of control in the country. RAY SUAREZ: Paula Newberg, we saw a bit of it in the taped report. People are out on the street, even celebrating in the streets of Prime Minister Sharif's hometown. What are we to make of this as far as the rank and file of Pakistan? PAULA NEWBERG: I think it too early yet to judge. Sadly, in my experience at least, Pakistanis have come out to celebrate the demise of virtually every government that has fallen through unnatural means in the last ten to twenty years. I think we have a problem calibrating it on the basis of whether or not there are people out on the streets. But I think that Ambassador Oakley has hit upon a very important point here, and that is that the governance of Pakistan generally has been in tremendous disarray, not just through this last term, but through the last ten years, and, some would argue, the last ten to twenty to thirty years. And many of the policies that have been taken by this last government, which are quite similar to those taken by his predecessors, have tended to be highly personalistic, so that even an action such as firing one person, something that would not even make it into the newspapers in my countries, becomes an activity in which the prime minister not only feels it necessary to come on to national television to explain it, but it becomes a personalistic activity in which, in the face of losing his job, the chief of the army staff sees it necessary to take over the entire country. And this kind of almost uncontrollable urge to take large moves and make large gestures in order to solve administrative difficulties is one that has plagued the country now for many decades. RAY SUAREZ: But by all accounts, and you seem to share this belief, the Sharif government was increasingly unpopular. One of the reasons appears to be the austerity regime in place, recent trench of IMF, International Monetary Fund lending authority was held up. Going to a military ruler will make those sorts of relationships even more difficult. PAULA NEWBERG: There's no question but that military rule does not solve any of these problems. And those in Pakistan who often seek to have the military come back in order to erase the difficulties that civilian rule brings with it are generally disappointed as well. The problems that Pakistan faces now - faced yesterday under Prime Minister Sharif -- are those that have been brought upon it by a series, a long series of mistaken policies and a long series of mistaken diplomatic moves as well. As a result, the country has come to be extremely isolated. And it's very difficult in a global economy of this sort now, to try to fix your economy at a point of tremendous isolation. And that's what's happened. And it's going to be very hard for a military government, however long-lived it might be to reinforce a sense of engagement with the world in ways that the world is willing to participate in. RAY SUAREZ: Ambassador Oakley, do you agree? ROBERT OAKLEY: I agree with that, but I would guess when the chief of the army staff makes his policy statement you said he would make soon, and refrained from doing today, it will talk about a return to civilian rule of some kind, perhaps some sort of transition, technocratic government, something they've tried in the past, which has worked not too badly, except it was too brief a period to deal with the fundamental problems - while they put them on the right track -- rather than direct military rule for my period of time in the hopes that this will bring in people who are more qualified to run the country than the military is dealing with social and economic problems, but also in the hopes that it will get them back into the graces of the world, as Paula suggested. They know the military can't do this. They had a bad experience when they ruled the country themselves. It was bad for the military, as well as the country. And they recognize that this will cause them further anguish with the world as a whole. And it won't improve the isolationism or the economic mismanagement it won't get them the economic support they need in order to put their house in order. So my guess is they will move soon for some sort of civilian rule. Exactly how they will do that I don't know, because constitutionally, there's no provision for it. We haven't had a military coup since 1977. RAY SUAREZ: Where does this leave the most important and I guess the most troubled bilateral relationship that Pakistan has with its neighbor India? President Vajpei and Prime Minister Sharif have met from time to time; there is continual fighting over the disputed province of Kashmir. What happens there? ROBERT OAKLEY: Well, the actions of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in approving this seizing of the heights at Cargill, after having received the prime minister of India, as a great peace gesture in Lahore, have shattered the faith which they entered in with the Indian government - had in dealing with this government already. So, this will make it more difficult. On the other hand, the Indians will want to wait and see. I don't think that they'll be tempted to take any urgent action or any precipitant or any unwise action because the last thing they want is even more trouble with Pakistan. They would like to hope against hope that the situation will settle down. Then they can begin to do business with whatever government is there. But they certainly will be troubled by this, but not any more troubled than they were after what happened after a remarkably brave political gesture on their part by going to Lahore. RAY SUAREZ: So, Paula Newberg, sort of the same question. If you're in the Indian government tonight, are you somewhat relieved because someone who has been a less than reliable partner is out, or made even more concerned by the fact that there's so much instability over there? PAULA NEWBERG: I think it's an unfortunate truism of Pakistani-Indian relations that both sides have always treated the other as if it is unreliable, regardless of who is in power -- when it's military, when it's civilian, when it's an elected government with a large majority and when it's a weak coalition government. The fact that the timing of this comes just after the Indian elections is more ironic than not because it reinforces a feeling that I think has come to be fairly widespread in Pakistan, and that is that for all its difficulties and for however weak the government in India often is, it is generally a democratic one. It's democratically-elected, and it acts democratically. You don't see military rulers taking over for elected government. In Pakistan, on the other hand, it is almost an expectation. Not only is it an expectation, but quite often, you hear otherwise strong professively strong Democrats suggesting that, in fact, the military is a better bet than civilian leadership. It's an internal problem of fairly wide dimension. And the foreign policy tends to come from that, rather than be affected by it. RAY SUAREZ: Well, what has to happen, Robert Oakley, before we see something like stable, long-term civilian rule, rather than this back and forth? ROBERT OAKLEY: It will take some sort of Pakistani miracle to change the mentality of their political leadership. So those -- including those who are civilian politicians who have, indeed, been arguing for the army to take action to remove the present prime minister -- some of them want to do this so they themselves can come back into power. Others are interested in doing it in order to settle the country down a little bit and put it on a stable course, and they would argue for a long-term transition apolitical government, because the last time they tried this, the politicians came in and undid all the proper things which is the technocrat government had done. So, they themselves recognize that there are basic political weaknesses in the structure and the mentality of Pakistani civilian leadership. But, at the same time, they also recognize that to limit it to the military leadership is not the answer. So, I'm not quite sure what's going to solve it, but I think a period of stability, quite frankly, is very important for Pakistan at this time. RAY SUAREZ: Robert Oakley, Paula Newberg, thanks for being with us. |
|||||||||||||||||||
 | ||||
| ||||
|
|
| ||
| ||||
| ||||
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | ||||
ROBERT
MOORE: In mid-broadcast, a program was interrupted. And tonight, the
confusion remains. But the key development was Prime Minister Sharif's
attempt to sack this man, General Perveez Musharraf, the head of the
army. He was away in Sri Lanka, but appears to have organized the coup,
in what appears to have been a highly effective counterattack following
his sacking. The crisis was triggered when the military was ordered
to pull back Pakistani guerrillas who had crossed into Indian-controlled
territory in Kashmir. For many in the army, this was a humiliating setback
in the confrontation with India. Developments in Pakistan will be causing
alarm throughout South Asia. The army has mobilized not just in the
capital, Islamabad, but also in the second city of Karachi, and also
in Lahore, Prime Minister Sharif's hometown and power base. Ever since
the country followed India and conducted underground nuclear explosions,
the stakes have increased enormously. The West now faces a military
coup and possible chaos in the world's newest and most volatile nuclear
state. In the last few minutes, news has flashed on Pakistani television
saying that the Nawaz Sharif government is being dismissed, a sign the
coup is now being consolidated.
