The civil and military leadership at the All Parties Conference
Only a week before dismissing Prime Minister Mohammad Khan Junejo’s government in May 1988, military dictator General Ziaul Haq angrily remarked to his subordinates in Rawalpindi’s army house, “Have you noticed how arrogant Junejo has become? He even walks and behaves like [Zulfikar Ali] Bhutto.”
Zia’s anger was not without cause. A month earlier, the prime minister had not only gone against the general’s advice to sign the Geneva Peace Accord with the Afghan government but had also rallied the country’s political leadership behind this decision. In the process, Junejo isolated Zia and the military leadership and, perhaps, came as close to achieving civilian supremacy over security and foreign policy issues as any civilian leader in Pakistan ever has.
In March 1988, Junejo called an All Parties Conference (APC) on Afghanistan. He wanted Benazir Bhutto to participate in the conference, in order to ensure its success, and she demanded that Zia would not be invited to attend the event. Junejo accepted this condition. A piqued Zia then instructed Junejo not to sign the Geneva Peace Accord in haste. However, buoyed by the APC’s support for his point of view, Junejo dispatched foreign minister Zain Noorani to sign it.
Junejo’s attitude towards the military’s top brass is in stark contrast with the way Pakistan’s present political leadership is playing second fiddle to the military and intelligence establishment’s decisions. In an APC on September 29, leading politicians endorsed a resolution supporting a change of policy in dealing with militants in the tribal areas. The new policy, summed up as “Give peace a chance,” is intended to initiate dialogue with the tribal militants.
As the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee Khalid Shamim Wyne, the Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Director-General Shuja Pasha briefed the APC participants, no one questioned the rationale for the policy change. Ironically, only two years ago, these political leaders had supported a military operation in Swat — again, no questions were asked.
Some participants at the September APC say the gathering was not meant to encourage, let alone ask, critical questions. Abid Hassan Minto, the senior Supreme Court lawyer known for his left-wing politics, was present at the APC and had some questions; he left the conference midway when he was not allowed to ask any. “The format of the APC was not conducive to questioning and the mood was not of critically examining the issues,” he says. There were dozens of political leaders present and all of them wanted to deliver hard-hitting speeches, he adds.
Minto says nobody questioned the military commanders about Pakistan’s internal security situation or the practical purpose of negotiating with militants after more than seven years of intermittent military operations. The APC did not question the political objective of successive military operations in the tribal areas and numerous peace deals forged with tribal militant groups.
Minto says he did not sign the resolution, “because after listening to the prime minister’s speech and briefings by Kayani, Pasha and the foreign minister, I had a clear understanding of the exact purpose of the APC.” It was, he says, “organised to endorse the decision of the military leadership”.
APC participants from almost all major political parties say they did not float the idea of initiating dialogue with militants. Only minor parties like Imran Khan’s Tehrik-e-Insaaf and extreme right-wing parties urged the government to start the dialogue, sources within the APC say. That they managed to make it the most important part of the resolution confirms that their agenda was being pushed by the military leadership.
The APC was convened at a time when Pakistan’s military leadership came under pressure from their counterparts in the United States military and intelligence establishment. Official circles perceived American allegations that Pakistani intelligence services were providing logistical support to militant groups such as the Haqqani network as threats. However, even before the politicians could meet, the Americans had already started a diplomatic effort to calm the Pakistani leadership’s nerves by issuing conciliatory statements and praising Pakistan for its role in the war against militancy.
No political leader, however, asked the military commanders and intelligence chief about the nature of their interactions with the Americans. None of them knew that Pakistani spies had, indeed, facilitated a meeting between the Haqqani network and American interlocutors only months before they placed their collective weight behind the military as a show of defiance to the United States. This meeting came to light last month when US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton revealed the information during her visit to Pakistan.
A senior member of a major opposition party admits that the ISI-facilitated meeting between the Haqqanis and the US has had serious foreign policy implications and should have been critically examined in the APC before any endorsement of the resolution. He cannot explain, however, why this could not happen. The commanders were not asked why or how the Americans accused Pakistan of harbouring Haqqani militants and providing them logistical support only a month after meeting with the militants. Whether the military opts to corral political support for itself only when in trouble and does not even so much as bother to talk to politicians when things are hunky-dory is certainly open to question.
Observers say such a situation usually arises when the line between foreign policy and the murky world of intelligence blurs. When this happens, spymasters take over where politicians and diplomats should have been in charge. Such a shift is not only the result of recent events — the absence of strong democratic and civilian institutions through much of Pakistan’s history has allowed the military and intelligence establishment to dominate the policymaking process, enabled by an eager-to-please political class willing to do the military’s bidding to settle internal scores.
If the politicians had not made their internal discord visible and had avoided strengthening Zia in the wake of the Junejo government’s dismissal, his regime would have collapsed before his plane crashed. Zia was already feeling nervous as he witnessed his trusted officials being shown the door by Junejo in the months preceding the Geneva Peace Accord. Junejo first sacked Major-General Agha Nek Mohammad who was heading the civilian intelligence agency, the Intelligence Bureau, and was considered close to Zia. He subsequently sacked foreign minister Sahibzada Yaqub Khan, another close Zia associate. The message was clear — Junejo wanted to exclude Zia and the military from the domain of internal security and foreign policy.
“The single biggest mistake the Pakistani politicians made was that they were not organised when Zia moved against the Junejo government,” says Minto. Some of the politicians, in fact, sent congratulatory messages to Zia over the government’s dismissal. Others joined his post-Junejo administration — Nawaz Sharif opted to stay as chief minister of Punjab, with the general’s blessing, even after Sharif’s seniors and counterparts in the centre and other provinces had been unceremoniously removed.
Even during the post-Zia period, the military continued to dictate the decision-making process. Much to the chagrin of the military establishment, Benazir Bhutto challenged the military’s hold on foreign policy before she was ousted from power in 1990. In the run-up to her sacking, the military leadership as well as the opposition Islami Jamhoori Ittehad (IJI) severely criticised her for trying to improve ties with India during Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s 1989 visit to Pakistan to attend a summit meeting of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (Saarc). Benazir Bhutto also disagreed with the military over the resolution of problems in Afghanistan — while her government favoured the policy of continuing negotiations on the basis of the Geneva Accord, the military and intelligence agencies supported warlords such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar in their attempts to take over Kabul by force. Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto annoyed the military leadership when she attempted to bring the intelligence services under her control and appointed a committee to review the role and relationship of intelligence agencies in a democratic set-up in February 1989. In May 1989, she replaced the powerful ISI chief Lieutenant-General Hamid Gul, posting him as corps commander Multan, a demotion in the military hierarchy.
Benazir Bhutto was cautious when she returned in 1993 — she avoided major foreign policy decisions or interference in security policy during her second tenure. Importantly, she resisted international pressures to decrease defence expenditure, which remained fixed at 26 per cent of the national budget during her two and half years in office. She also vigorously campaigned in Washington to get the military a waiver from sanctions through the Brown Amendment, which made it possible for the United States to supply much-needed military hardware to Pakistan’s armed forces. This mollycoddling did not save her second government from dismissal, that too at the behest of the military establishment. Politicians – both in power and in the opposition – took note and never missed a chance to warm up to the military and intelligence chiefs.
“Over the years, the civilian leadership has conceded its role in security related policymaking,” acknowledges Khawaja Asif, a central leader of the Pakistan Muslim League–Nawaz (PMLN). “But, in the present situation, this is true only for the government. We in the opposition want to assert our role in the security-related decision-making process,” he asserts. Asif claims his party has shunned the political tactics of the past, when politicians were ready to do the military’s bidding to defeat their opponents. He, however, does not have convincing answers when asked to explain why his party leader and Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif has had secret meetings with the army and ISI chiefs. Asif was cagey when asked why his party head, Nawaz Sharif, endorsed an unequivocally pro-military resolution at the APC. Before attending the APC in Islamabad, Sharif presided over a meeting of his party leaders in Lahore, seeking their opinion on the question of attending the conference, Asif says. “Many in the meeting opposed going to the APC as they said that it would be useless,” he tells the Herald. “This is a new method that the army has adopted to give cover to its decisions … previously they have been taking decisions on their own without consulting anyone … now they are doing the same with the APC — providing a cover for their continued dominance over the decision-making process on security and foreign policy issues,” says Asif. Nawaz Sharif nevertheless attended the APC and, despite raising a few rhetorical questions as reported in the press, did not press the issue of civilian supremacy over foreign policy and security issues.
This is not the first time Nawaz Sharif has shown such ambivalence towards the military. The first time he did so it cost him his second government. By late June 1999, he was convinced that the army’s intrusion into Kargil was a fiasco; instead of confronting the military leaders, he proceeded to Washington, uninvited, to seek President Bill Clinton’s help for a face-saving arrangement allowing the army to withdraw. The army leadership also knew by then that they could not sustain their Kargil adventure but, according to a former diplomat, “wanted to shift the blame for defeat on to the civilian leadership.” In less than two months, Nawaz Sharif was ousted from power in a bloodless coup.
In this, and so many similar examples of civilian leaders paying heavily for cozying up to the military establishment, is a bitter truth: democratic governments have not survived even after continuing to do the army’s bidding. Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and President Asif Ali Zardari’s government seems to have forgotten this.
This is really very unfortunate that our military leadership is not habitual to perform its constitutional role. On the contrary military leadership has always tried to intervene in the civilian government matters. This is the reason that our country is suffering from these problems.
The time is running out of our hands, we cut off ourselves from the international community and have no good relations with nighbours. We have bring a change in our policies otherwise it will be very difficult to cure it latter on. The democratic government should be allow to strengthen the democracy with in country.
Pakistan has an elitist political base and an elitist army/def base. The elites between them, decide who to rule and how. They have not given a true voice-democracy- to their awaam, and this shows up in the arrangements. Most politicos have family in senior army levels and vice versa. This is therefore a closed, united group. Ruling the country and not supporting the awaam.
Distributing the weight between army and politician is not true. Many of them even dont know that chief of army staff is son of retired subedar. Army is only coehsion force in country. Dicisions on cooperation are not made secretly. Every body knew in political and military circle. So putting all the weight on army is not just. Inspite of just thinking about conspiracies, efforts should be directed to strenthen the democracy. Army alone is nothing, and negative propoganda against Military and spy agency may please be curbed
What a shame. We as pakistani perhaps deserve all this. Army has no place in dictating the civilian Govt. The short history of the country reflects the failure due to its Brass. These people need to be dealt within the powers of constitution and courts. One of the civilian leader has to step up and bring few of these traitors in uniform to the gallow to enforce the constitution
It is impossible for Pakistan to regain its lost supremacy of democratically elected government over its Military as some sections of Pakistan society,especially fundamentalists(Mullahs) wanted the Military rule rather than ruled by corrupted politicians/ democratic forces.
Unlike other countries, lion share of GDP of Pakistan is being spent for its military expenditures. Most of the expenditures of military are not under the scrutiny of government audits like CAG of India that exposed several corruptions in defense dealings in India. It is presumed that Head of majority of government controlled corporations and other government bodies are filled by serving or retired military officers. Lion share of high cost urban lands other prime lands belonged to the government are being allotted to military. Hence, influence of Military in every thing is very common in Pakistan. People seldom know that the history of creation Pakistan and its subsequent military adventures are distorted to generate favorable opinion of continuous military rule in Pakistan .
People of Pakistan seldom know that more than 90000 Pakistan military Officers and solders were surrendered and taken as POW by Indian forces during 1972 war with India and paved the way for creation of Bangladesh. The atrocities inflicted on East Pakistanis by the Pakistan military (West Pakistan) culminated the struggle for independence by Est Pakistanis (Bengalis). No one in Pakistan accused their military for loosing East Pakistan. Several thousands of Pakistan soldiers were sent by its Military brass without taking the consent of head of its Civilian government for Kargil conflict with India, disguising them as non state militants and killed by Indian forces and Pakistan even refused to accept the bodies of these soldiers pretending them as unknown people. No probe has been conducted till to day by the Pakistan, as this would have embarrassed the top military brass in Pakistan. Unless and until the people of Pakistan are united in their struggle to achieve supremacy of elected representatives of their country over its military ,the present turmoils in Pakistan will continue for ever.
The civil government is corrupt and military is always in power hunger mode. Look at the parties they have to see their lifestyles.
Zardari (mr.10%) comes to USA and wants to drink Johny Walker (blue label) only, and will sell his country in anyway possible. The military just wants to have the money to buy tanks, guns etc and get the commission. No one in any leadership position has love for the country. Pakistan will continue to be a playground for civil military thieves until there is nothing left to steal. Then it will be another Somalia type land……..I always pray this does not happen.
A civilian government with a limited mandate can’t take on the military. A large majority government will be emboldened to assert itself on foreign
policy. This government must also be seen to be working seriously to tackle the problems afflicting the people to sustain the popular
support. Turkey is a good example in addition to some Latin American countries such as Chile, Argentina and Brazil. An incompetent government such as the present one overwhelmed by the problems and seen as kowtowing to American government can’t take on the powerful military. Just imagine Zardari as the boss of the military and controlling security matters. He will easily sell out to American and other foreign interests.Haqqani was unwise to seek support of American military (Admiral Mullen) to constrain Pak military and was doomed to fail.The military has legitimate interest in the security issues and all foreign policy decisions have security implications. It will be worthwhile to create National Security Council which includes military and ISI along with the foreign minister, Prime Minister and Defence Minister to make decisions by consensus.
Welcome to a jungle named Pakistan where might is always right.
So,
They rightly sent the memo to Washington if they did or is this a set up by the military to get rid of the present government.
The way things are going Pakistan Military may not have pakistan to play with in a few years.
I wonder what someone can achieve by destroying the credibilty of their own army. Shame on all of you “wannabe intellectuals”
Basically the civilian pro-american leadership and the military leadership have divergent visions for the country. The statusquo civilians want to remain in power, servile to West ,mired in corruption and loot and are afraid of the real democracy with accountibility.. The military wants to regain the honor and stature they held before the debacle of East Pakistan. However,being a highly discpilined and organised force,they have to follow the orders of the Army Chief. And then the fate of the country revolves around that man. He could be cautiously coward ( Ayub Khan,who did not attack India in 1962 when Chinese were routing the Indian army),dumb drunkard ( Yahya Khan ), Wily,crooked and pseudo religious ( Zia ) or simply a playboy fool, pretending to a Napolean ( Mushraff)> General Kyani appears far better than his predecessors (knock on wood ). That is the current dilemma in Pakistan. Divergent visions between the Civilians and the military and lack of honest leadership ,mostly on the civilian side.An ideal combination would be the leadership of Imran Khan supported by Kyani, where the real power is weilded by the civilians.
So, only the civilians are corrupt. And only the uniformed race is disciplined and organized! Then, please explain, why those saviors have their finger in every pie? Why the sole guardians of the nation draw truly astronomical salaries (when you include the perks), take over the best pieces of land (the rest going to cronies), and run commercial enterprises of all descriptions? And, after taking the lion’s (rather ‘wolf’s') share of everything, they abjectly fail at their supreme duty by losing every war. Those wars, mind you, were not surprise attacks. As their own now tell the public, those wars were instigated by the superior race itself. They kill, maim, and/or imprison every civvy who dares to question them, without pausing to give a second thought to justice and humanity. Yet people like you insist that we should choose a leader who will be nothing more than their puppet.
Syed, couldn’t agree with you more. Kayani has shown time an again that he is not interested in a military take over but Zardari wants to be King with no accountability and is using the convincing line of ‘saving democracy’ to sheild is real purpose, make Pakistan a satellite state of the U.S. Islamabadis of all ages are flocking to his call and suddenly Army bashing is back in fashion. Shame on us
Hope Imran does come up.Kayani has not displayed political ambitions – so far.
The Imran – Kayani combination suggested by above by Mr. Sayed is for attacking India ! (1962 was missed )
@Syed
When they are in the chair every chief was hailed as hero as you do Kayani today. Only hindsight tells you what fools they have been, and same will be the case for the present one.
This is the best analysis I ever read on Pakistan’s politics and military.
I have no doubt that ISI has created the memogate fiasco to get rid of it’s unwanted ambassador to US, Hussain Haqqani and Mansoor Ijaz is their paid puppet.
There is a soldier in every Muslim. And there is a politician in every Muslim soldier. That is one fact, the other fact is that in the entire Muslim history of one thousand and six hundred years, you will hardly find a head of the state leaving his office unles he is removed, got too old or died. This fact is true of any
Muslim country. Pl. remember I never said “you will never find ahead…” I said “you will hardly find …” These two facts shape the attitude and actions of all rulers, may they be prime ministers, presidents, dictators or Martial Law administrators. In these sets of government, Democracy sits on the rear benches.
infact everyone in pak trys to be expert of everything whether he knows something or not like the auther of this article…just repeating old stories from varoius and often unreliable sources…please ask these commentators like manto and kh asif where is kargil ,they would not be knowing even where it is,and has nawaz or any other so called leader has bothered to even visit insugency hit areas of pak.just siting in raiwind mahal and passing stupid remarks is very easy but to be in war zone , where you dont have a vote bank unfortunately, is only a job of a leader not a person like mian sahib who preffered to leave his party family and nation(which does not matter at all for him) at the time of crisis and became guest of world’s worst dictators in saudi arabia.no doubt army has to be blamed for so many things..but the icons of civilian supremecy RAILWAYS,STEEL MILL,PIA and so many other areas of our life are enough to let army not to indulge stooges like nawaz and zardari in sensitive security issues.but gradual shift is coming, educated and men of character like imran khan and younger generation of pak are coming on the scene rather changing it.so lets hope we one day would be a normal country like so many others.but army can always have a professional comment on any security issue its there right as it happen even in USA where cia n pentagon have a sort of veto on issues like afghanistan and iraq and iran etc..
Zia was 20 years ago, issues of today are: the liberal elite, corruption, facism and american slavery
stop changing the subject
India is a powerhouse in the world due to a very honest and hardworking minority of traders, politicians, civil service and military. A majority of the country is corrupt in every way. Pakistan is 100 % corrupt in every way. Every government whether civil or military in Pakistan contributed towards the destruction of Educational system and honest and efficient civil service and judiciary. My hope and wish is that when Pakistan disintegrates into four or more pieces, the breakage is peaceful and without bloodshed. Very much feel sorry for the country but Pakistan is not destined to survive any more.
It is rightly said that “Civil military imbalance has always plagued the country since its inception. The actual power for formulating key policies including foreign policy has always been exclusively with the military as against the presumed civil rule supremacy to entitlement to frame out policies.” We must understand that no country, organisation, institution or even a house-hold can survive with such imbalance of dual power centres where the real power lies at non-traditional/unconstitutional place. If Pakistan or for that matter any country has to rise, progress and even survive in the present world scenario such imbalance or call it anomaly has to be corrected. It is in the supreme interest of people of Pakistan to resolve this anomaly at the earliest at any cost whatsoever. They have tried many a times and many years with Army on the top; now, they must stand with the the civil elected government and give a sincere chance to their own constitution and force every department of state to be under the civil Govt. It looks difficult but certainly is possible if people of Pakistan so decide.
Pak military is the problem, not the soution. It took 30 years for Pakistanis to discredit Zia. 30 years to write historical account of Bagladesh war. It will take another 30 years to investigate Musharraf and Kargil fiasco. So no Pakistani should speak about Kayani, wait another 30 years! Pakistan is a militarized and radicalized country. Nonbelievers and military critics have no hope for survival.
I agree 1000% with Syed. How can these crooked, corupt politicians demand that the military and intelegence services come under their control? Name a party, other than JI, that holds internal party elections. These parties belong to feudal lords or urban terrorist Gangsters living in luxury abroad.
Thank God that Pak Army has resisted their attempts to subjugate them. If successful, these so called politicians will turn our military into another Steel miils, Raiways and the PIA. Please don’t compare these crooks with the highly educated politicians of the western world. They don’t rob the country and it’s institutions blind. They don’t make a mockery of it’s judicial system. And when they do, they either resign in disgrace or they are sent to prison – of course there are some exceptions.
Till we have a fair election system inside the political parties and an electorate that has
a better literacy rate than today, I would support the hands off approach towards the
Army. The day they control the ISI and Army, is the day Pakistan ends -God forbid!!
Pak Army is not perfect, no doubt, but it is the only institute with discipline, honor and integrity, that is lacking in Pakistan in general and among politicians in particular.
Anyone with objectivity and fairness could recall that it was Mujib and Bhutto that destroyed united Pakistan, and not the Army. It was Bhutto who nationalized industry and banks and further damaged Pakistan. Now another PPP government is in power to finish what he started. God help Pakistan! Long live Pakistan and Pakistan Army.
Aga has hit the nail on the head. Perfect analysis of muslims. As a people muslims do not separate the mosque and the state and soldiering from politicking. Excellent point. However, he needs to correct ” one thousand six hundred years of history ” to 1400 years. Maybe we will come around and mature in the next 200 years. ( I have my doubts though)!
Thanks for correcting me, Syed. But we both were wrong. It is 15th century of Islamic calender, as it is 21st century of Christian Calender. (Not 20th)
pretty good analysis, but one thing should be crystal clear to every Pakistani, that you will never get rid of army rule until you have institutional organization with enthusiastic leadership free from moral and material corruption. Imran khan has no such charisma or set up to get relieved us from establishment. This establishment strengthening phenomenon has become dilemma throughout the Muslim world like in Egypt, Turkey, Libya etc.
Go through Islamic history; warriors like Ali, Umar, Khalid Bin Walid, Tariq established accountable forces to protect, promote and glorify the nation.
The memogate maybe a stark reminder to all that the military in Pakistan continues to wield the seat of power, and is unwilling or unable to give it up. Perhaps the farce of democracy should be stopped, a NSC should be formed, which audits every civilian government through an yearly audit through national referendum. Perhaps we need the “Turkish” democracy for the next thirty years, till the country is liquid enough, educated enough, and enlightened enough to kindly ask the military to return to their true role: protecting the borders of the country. Enough of this democracy eroding the remaining foundations of the state.
I wonder what the democracy in Pakistan is …. Every President and Prime Minister has to go to the US and Estabishment to have their tenure extended. Why not they go to People of Pakistan and ask an extension.
You are right. I believe that the Kargil drama is going to be repeated in the form of this so-called memo. Although I do not like Zardari and Haqqani, but still they are far better than military dictators. What they (Zardari and Co) were doing was good for Pakistan in the long term. We can not answer why the world’s most wanted terrorist Osama was hiding in Pakistan. Who was supporting him and how had dogged the military vigilance? But it is very unfortunate that Nawaz Sharif has forgotten his Kargil lesson and just for the sake of coming in to power, is supporting the military which is all set to push back the civilian government.
This is the best analysis of Pakistan army role in the Pakistan political affairs. Pakistan is being ruled indirectly by Pak army, the democratic government could not designed the foreign and other policies of the country with out the consent of the army. The army is taking a lion share of more than 70% from the annual federal budget. Many Political Alliances formed by the contribution of the ISI and main stream political parties were side lined or rendered nonfunctional owing to the army strong dis likeness. In my opinion without taming army the political and economical prosperity is impossible.
When will Pakistan’s so-called democracy and supposedly all-powerful parliament will charge the ISI Chief for secretly travelling to Arab states and conspiring to topple an elected government, for possibly the fifth time in Pakistan’s messy history?
I have learn a few good stuff here. Definitely price bookmarking for revisiting. I surprise how so much effort you set to create any such magnificent informative web site.