Dr Farrukh Saleem

The writer is an Islamabad-based

freelance columnist

farrukh15@hotmail.com

President Musharraf has taken President Bush places where Bush couldn't have gone without him; top of the opinion polls. The joint press conference beneath a presidential seal in the White House's marble foyer was in essence a celebration of that achievement. Bush's policy towards Musharraf now rests on two pillars. First, generous public praise. Second, stern private answerability.

Going into meetings with Bush our president aimed at grabbing two things. First, to send a message to politicians back home that Bush is firmly behind their military ruler. Second, to prove to the Pakistani people that being with the US is going to be beneficial for them.

Dropping bombs from the sky has been good for C-in-C George W Bush and his election campaign donors. Starting 20 January, 2001, Bush's first day at the White House, up until September 11, the 43rd President of the US did no more than eat Mexican (his favourite) food, drink diet soda (his favourite drink), watch Texas Rangers and ramble around in muck for the rest of the time. That went on for eight long months.

Then came Osama. Bush's popularity skyrocketed and a hero emerged from behind the Steinway grand piano from the East Room of the White House. Almost in-tandem with Bush's popularity surge, Raytheon, the maker of Tomahawks, Boeing that produces B-52 long-range bombers (also known as Big Ugly Fat Fellows) and Lockheed Martin, the world's largest defence contractor, all began preparing to digest a bonanza valued at a colossal $150 billion coming their way from the Department of Defence. Incidentally, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Boeing, Carlyle, Northrop and Litton Industries were all major campaign contributors. To be sure, all the killing machines that are now going to be ordered by the Bush Administration in the name of 'terrorism' would really have nothing to do with fighting terrorism. It's a hundred billion dollar reward for supporting the Republican campaign and then it may also help a sluggish economy.

September 11 has also been good for Pakistan and for our uniformed president. Starting 12 October, 1999 up until September 11, Pakistan was a "pariah" state headed by a "rogue" general. Osama reversed all that in one stroke. In two short years, President Musharraf went from being a "pariah" to a "friend". Is the party going to continue? A more permanent American presence on Pakistani soil will, at least, keep the Indian strike corps at bay. China, Russia and India are, however, getting together showing concern for this extended American stay in the region.

History is on Musharraf's side. Republican presidents love military dictators. Dwight Eisenhower was the first one to welcome General Mohammad Ayub Khan's martial law cabinet of October 1958. Nixon's love for Yahya is no secret. In a private communication between Pakistan and the US, Nixon "warmly prais(ed) Yahya for his statesmanship ....(Stephen Shalom; The US Response to Humanitarian Crises)." A secret note, now declassified, puts it on record that Nixon had very much "enjoyed" his time with Yahya and that the US President was highly "impressed" by the right-wing general (The American Papers; Oxford; Compiled by Roedad Khan). Under Ronald Reagan, the US Congress authorised a $3.2 billion five-year aid package to Zia's Pakistan. Reagan then went on to request the Congress for a new programme exceeding $4 billion even prior to the expiration of the original $3.2 billion aid package.

What did Musharraf demand from Bush? At least eight things: Arms, 28 F-16s, Indian troop pullback, a $3 billion debt write off, intermediation on Kashmir, tariff concessions on the import of Pakistani textiles, more aid and military training. At best, Musharraf got 2 out 8. Except for $34 million for education and some military-to-military training, Bush had a big "NO" on the other six (there continues to be a lot of confusion on an additional $200 million that shall in effect go back to the US as payment of $1 billion debt over the following 20 years). Unfortunate for our leaders -- and fortunate for the rest of Pakistanis -- there isn't going to be any major arms transfer. As far as other aid is concerned, most of what Pakistan is going to get is already in the pipeline.

On the trade front, tariff concessions may not be possible because of fierce opposition within Congress by Southern Congressmen, representatives of textile-producing states. Bush can, however, use his executive authority to expand quotas allocated to Pakistani exporters. For quotas to help Pakistan there first have to be orders from American importers or the expansion of quotas would be of no use to us.

Yes, there would be more money for education. Not too long ago, the CIA gave ISI a lot of money to launch Madrassas to achieve CIA-defined political objectives. The CIA later changed those objectives without notifying the ISI and the rest is history. Now its re-education time and Washington is willing to finance once again. Unfortunately, the only use of the new money that our education ministry can think of is to provide free meals to students.

Is the US serious about "facilitating" talks on Kashmir? Perhaps. First of all, there are now a million troops eyeball-to-eyeball. Situation is more fluid than ever before. Secondly, India and Pakistan are both currently engaged in a rather cruel struggle over who can attract more US attention. In that sense, the US is more influential -- and more involved -- in the region than ever before. To be certain, some sort of US implicit intervention into Kashmir in no way means a settlement along the lines of what Pakistani leaders have long been promising their poor and illiterate constituents.

Is our president going to get a lecture on democracy? A mild one at best. Bush is more interested in doing what his father couldn't -- win a second term. If Musharraf can help boost his odds then let him be.

Some within the American think-tank community (on which American foreign policy is based) are now saying that America stifling democracy in

her client states makes those countries breeding ground for terrorism.

That's another argument for active American support for democracy around the globe. The deafening war hysteria in and around the White House and Bush can hardly hear any voice of sanity.

Here's something really important. If the State of the Union is any indication (Osama or al-Qaeda were not even mentioned) then the 'war on terrorism' is shifting to new targets. Pakistan has had her rewards and our president his "love-fest" (as The Washington Post recently put it).

PS. The NRB has it all wrong. Our real problem has been that voters have been electing the wrong kind of leaders. To reverse that, the graduation requirement should be applicable on voters and not candidates.