TURKEY AND PAKISTAN

- Will the two bosom friends rejoin?

During PM Nawaz Sharif’s time Turkish-Pakistani relations soured for the first time because of his Taleban adventure in Afghanistan and Turkey’s active opposition to Pakistan’s being the centre of Islamic terrorism in Asia. Is General Musharraf’s take-over with his declared admiration of Ataturk a sign of Pakistan’s return to a more secular regime? What will be its impact on world history? Who is behind the Pakistani coup? What might be the outcome of the new Pakistani leader’s recent visit to Turkey? For the devil in the details of these questions see the article below.

Judging by the media, Pakistan’s new leader, General Pervez Musharraf’s one-day visit to Turkey last week was only restricted to "lessons" given to him by Turkey’s two top politicians, President Demirel and PM Ecevit, about the virtues of democracy. The General was reportedly told that the best military regime was worst than the worst parliamentary democracy. If the Turkish leaders did not say it to him so bluntly, Turkish journalists did at the press conference by attributing it to the government.

About the ousted rulers, President Demirel told his guest that any stain could be wiped off with today’s detergent technology, but a bloodstain was the exception. Demirel and Ecevit also urged Gen. Musharraf to return to parliamentary democracy within two years, giving examples from Turkey’s three military interventions in the last half a century.

One day was enough to go into the nitty-gritty of the problem

Gen. Musharraf was receptive to, but non-committal about these suggestions. However, contrary to the image depicted by the Turkish media, his visit was not restricted to "lessons of democracy", but was much more deep-rooted and substantive. It concerned the future of the entire region and destination of the Islamic world. It was a significant support of Turkey to the new regime in Pakistan. While the entire western world and the Commonwealth are boycotting Gen. Musharraf, a strong NATO country’s reception of him with Prime Minister-level protocol was a big boost for Pakistan. It was frowned upon by the West and resulted in some diplomatic gestures to show this disenchantment. But Gen. Musharraf’s visit was a matter of substance and great importance to Turkey and its Eurasia policies for the new millennium. It may eventually result in a blow to Nawaz Sharif’s dissemination of Islamic fundamentalism in Asia that soured Ankara’s relations with Islamabad last year ( Turkey Actively Opposes Taleban in Pakistan). The impact of these developments is bound to be seen in Asia before long.

The just over one month that has gone by since the October 12^th coup in Pakistan was useful in shedding light on the nature of this military take-over and Gen. Musharraf’s official visit to Ankara was the key to understand it better.

• It is now clear that this is not a simple change of administration, but a deep-rooted revolution that will entail radical changes in Pakistan’s constitution, political, economic and social systems. If the three Turkish experiences are any criteria to go by, and they certainly are, Pakistan may now set up a constituent assembly to draft and present to referendum a new constitution. But before that, some time, a few years, will have to pass to cleanse the "filth and rubble" of the ousted regime. Meanwhile, a military body will govern the country. Gen. Musharraf, during his short visit to Ankara, was keenly interested in the functioning of the National Security Council in Turkey. He apparently wants to eventually bridge the military influence in politics with parliamentary democracy and he cannot find a better example than the Turkish system. No matter how much the West opposes the role of the military in Turkey’s political system, it is an excellent arrangement to save the country from falling into the pitfalls of political Islam or exploitation of religion in politics. The whole Islamic world needs such arrangements and Pakistan may be the first to follow suit.

Turkish or Sudanese model for Pakistan under Gen. Musharraf?

• The big question of who is behind the coup in Pakistan is also gradually coming to daylight. Certain western media, definitely Indian sources, disagree with Turkpulse’s immediate assessment that, for a change, the United States is not behind this coup. ( Military Take-over in Pakistan – A step towards secularism in the international arena?) They stress that General Musharraf is responsible for and the executor of the plans for the creation of the Taleban’s theocratic regime in Afghanistan. Consequently, he is acting for the superpower that engineered and brought it about as well as the much wider Islamic fundamentalism, the Wahhabi terrorism in central Asia which scares even Iran. Former Indian Ambassador to Ankara, Gejandra Singh, who is now a journalist, says, "General Musharraf’s two brothers and son have opted for careers in the USA and his own father, a former Pakistan diplomat, has become a naturalised US citizen." Ambassador Singh remarks, "Unlike the secular Turkish Armed Forces, the Pak military, though starting with British colonial traditions, have become politicised and now Islamised especially at the level of junior officials (as was evident by the bearded soldiers manning the government buildings in Pak, after the latest intervention) with its involvement in Afghan Mujahaddin and terrorist groups and nurturing and bringing up the Taleban organisation. Many observers fear that instead of the Turkish model Pak might end up closer to the Sudanese model with a Turaibi like figure from Jamait-el Islami as an ideologue. (Jamait leaders have already expressed their opposition to Musharraf’s liking for Kemalism.) Having stocked the fire of Islamic fundamentalism, with its fighters active all over the world, Pak may find that the monster at home can now no longer be contained."
• Indian intellectuals are certainly much better informed than we are about the developments of the Subcontinent and central Asia and (retired) Ambassador Singh’s observations are really accurate and weighty. But are they as objective and as devoid of sentiment as they should be is another matter because just like we Turks look at world events through blinkers at Cyprus, they tend to assess international affairs through the narrow angle of Kashmir. General Musharraf’s Kemalism may, therefore, eventually prove them to be wrong in their suspicions of his intentions for a more secular (or less religious) regime in Pakistan. The Indians are certainly right in that "having stocked the fire of Islamic fundamentalism with its fighters now active all over the world", the new leader of Pakistan may find it exceedingly difficult to contain the monster. In fact, hardly a week after Ambassador Singh wrote these words, rockets began to explode in Islamabad near the American and UN institutions. However, the destination of the rockets, the American instigated imminent UN sanction against Taleban and other war gimmicks should mislead no one about General Musharraf and his relations with the United States. Remarked that Russian arms were always found on PKK terrorists, a Soviet Ambassador once told Turkish journalists, "You would have found American arms there if we had been behind the PKK."
• Indians are not alone in suspecting Gen. Musharraf’s real intentions or eventual fundamentalism, despite the conciliatory steps he took in Kashmir. Only five days after the take-over, on October 17^th, Gen. Musharraf announced that the Pakistani military would unilaterally "de-escalate" the crisis with India by withdrawing from the common border in Kashmir all the forces moved there "in the recent past". However, India was very suspicious of this healthy development and western media did its best to foster this suspicion. "Gen. Pervez Musharraf is practising dual-diplomacy, publicly advocating a non-aggressive foreign policy while quietly encouraging small-scale insurgence. As long as Musharraf continues to facilitate the militants’ insurgency, attacks (in Kashmir) will continue to escalate and may eventually prompt an Indian retaliation," wrote a respectable western strategy publication. Pakistan will follow a non-aggressive foreign policy in the subcontinent and Asia and a secular policy at home, if it heeds Ankara’s advice. There is reason to believe that Gen. Musharraf will do so. It may eventually mean the end of the Taleban movement and Wahhabi terrorism in Asia. But may it also mean the end of Gen. Musharraf before he achieves this mission as it goes against certain enormous undercover powers’ policies for Asia and Eurasia. It is to be hoped that the Musharraf regime will live long enough and will not deviate from its declared Kemalist path and intentions. This is needed to put an end to Taleban’s horrible practices in Afghanistan and to prevent its spread and disturbances in the region.uras@ada.net.tr,   November 14^th, 1999