Editor’s Note: Regular readers
are aware that we don’t use the word Pak-i-Stan. We all remember what
happened when a regime called itself & its land as the Master Race.
Soon they came up with “Lebensraum” and the rest is history. No
one of European descent ever calls that regime by its given name Third
Reich. The word Pak-i-Stan is even more heinous than the Master Race
concept. Because it means the land/regime of Pak or Pure people. So by
definition the regime cannot allow itself to be impurified by people
like Hindus, Ahmediya Muslims or now Shia Muslims. Yet, American &
European keep using that given name Pakistan. We will not. So we correct
it by add the neutral “non” and calling it NonPak-i-Stan or NPak for short. Note we don’t use NaaPak which is a negative or insulting term.
Back in January 2011 when Tahrir Square was first filled with protestors, before Mubarak was shown the door by Egypt’s military, we asked in print whether the new Egypt would follow the NonPak-i-Stani (“NPak”) model. The new Egyptian leadership confirmed this model, in our view, in March 2012. Our thinking was validated last week, when the Egyptian military ousted President Mohamed Morsi just as they had ousted President Mubark and just as the NPak military had ousted Nawaz Sharif in 1999.
This pattern has been common in NPak as we pointed out last week. Back in 1977, General Zia ul Haq ousted Zulfikar Ali Bhutto from power and eventually hanged him. Then General Musharraf ousted Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in 1999 and imprisoned him. Then Musharraf himself was ousted in 2008 when protests against him reached a critical stage.
This week, two celebrity organizations came over to our conceptual approach:
- Ed Husain of Council of Foreign Relations wrote an op-ed in the NYT titled How Not to Become the Next Pakistan?
- This was preceded by a day by an article by Eurasia’s Ian Bremmer in Reuters titled Is becoming Pakistan the best Egypt can hope for?
It is good to see mainstream writers finally come around to comparing Egypt with NPak. Unfortunately, the treatment by CFR’s Ed Husain is superficial and he calls NPak a failed state – “trading its extremists and failed institutions for international aid and attention.” We also sense a racist tinge to Mr. Husain’s article, a sort of an underlying Egyptians, the great Arabs of old, are superior to the pathetic Pakistanis tinge.
Ian Bremmer takes the opposite tack and would consider it a progress if Egypt can improve itself to NPak’s level. Much of what Bremmer writes is what we have argued for the past two years but even Bremmer missed the critical essence.
1. The Essence of NonPak-i-Stani (“NPak”) Model
People who call NPak a failed state just don’t get it. The regime in Rawalpindi is not by, of, or for the people of that land. The regime is of, it is run by and for the Military Class of NonPak-i-Stan. As the sad joke in that land says – “other countries have an army, here the army has a country“. That is why we call it the “regime in Rawalpindi” (the HQ of the Army) and not the “regime in Islamabad” (seat of the civil government).
NPak might be a failed state for the civilians of that land but it has been a tremendous success for the Military class that owns that state. They have all become elite & wealthy with large assets kept safely overseas while the civilian people suffer.
This sort of situation cannot really continue can it? Yes, it can and it has. Because these military owners of NPak found a big sponsor who funds them and who gives them just enough protection. They found this sponsor back in 1950s and they have never let that sponsor disengage from them.
So don’t look at NPak as a failed state. Congratulate it for what it truly is:
- “the world’s longest & greatest success in managing the United States of America”.
This is far from easy. It requires skill, dexterity, a complete focus on its goals, and a crystal clear understanding of both America and themselves.
Look at their track record. No one in America has any doubts about what that regime is and what it does. Everything they do is virtually against America’s moral fiber and America’s self-perceptions. But still America cannot disengage from it. In the last decade, they have taken American money to ostensibly fight terror and then funneled part of that money to terrorists who used it to kill American troops in Afghanistan. This is widely known and accepted in America so much so that Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of Council of Foreign Relations, said so explicitly in print in November 2009. But still America cannot disengage.
Actually, America does not want to disengage from NPak because for one America gets what America wants from the NPak military, at least whatever that is not against the core self-interests of that military. In exchange, America remains solicitous of the desires of that military and puts pressure on NPak’s neighbors on behalf of that military.
The NPak military knows it represents a problem for America. Other naive or dumb regimes would try to change themselves to become less of a problem for their existentially critical sponsor. Not these smart guys. They followed the Rumsfeld dictum – they solved it by making the problem bigger, much much bigger:
- On one hand, they accelerated their nuclear weapons program and built the 4th largest nuclear weapons arsenal in the world. They did so when America needed their help the most in Afghanistan. So America had no real choice but to tacitly accept it.
- At the same time, the NPak military accelerated their funding and logistical support to the Taliban, the enemy America was fighting in neighboring Afghanistan. That this created increased terrorism in their own land was the price the NPak military was willing to pay. Because that made the NPak military even more essential to America.
America knew this and understood it. But still America could not & cannot disengage. Because neither America nor any one else wants to even contemplate the aftermath of a collapse of the NPak military.
This is then the essence of the NonPak-i-Stan model –
- a system run for a small rich & powerful military class,
- a system that successfully manages its main sponsor by offering just enough benefits without sacrificing its core goals, and
- a system so big & complex that its collapse would be far worse for the main sponsor than the benefits from any reform.
Some, like Paul Krugman perhaps, would use the same description for Wall Street. But then, does any one see any real alternative to Wall Street? So, as we wrote in January 2011,
- “don’t brush off the NonPak-i-Stani model. It has demonstrated its durability and resiliency“.
Given all the above, shouldn’t the NPak model be a shining beacon on the hill for other militaries that control their own countries – say Egypt & North Korea?
2. Is the Egyptian military as Smart as the NonPak military?
What NPak military has pulled off is very difficult. It takes real strategic & diplomatic skill to accomplish what NPak has done over the past 60 years. It also requires a single minded focus hidden by charming & reasonable sounding spokespeople. The NPak establishment has been superb in this regard with people like Maliha Lodhi and her colleagues who can charm American and European political leaders & media anchors.
It is not clear that the Egyptian military has any of these skills. Even from a purely tactical point of view, their actions against the Muslim Brotherhood followers were stupid and heinous. No military can kill 30-50 of unarmed civilians in front of TV cameras and hope to claim popular support.
Any military backed rule must either have a charismatic leader like Nasser, Ayub Khan or a fervently religious leader like Zia ul Haq or at least pleasantly acceptable figures like Musharraf, Kayani who promise to fall back to patriotic role after a healing period. Because the first several weeks or months are key. No one in the Egyptian military or in the so-called secular moderate political sphere seems to come even remotely close to what is needed.
The NPak military was smart enough to build durable allies among the Islamist groups in their country. They might have learned that from the Saudis who have always ensured support from their religious authorities. It is obvious that the Egyptian military has NO durable Islamic allies. All they have are the so-called secular allies, the same sort who will turn on the Egyptian military on a dime.
So the Egyptian Military might look fondly at the NPak model, they might even try to emulate it. But they might be just too dumb to really understand it and too tactically stubborn to successfully implement it. We hope we are wrong because the world needs a stable Egypt.
North Korea is another story. But that is a topic for our adjacent article titled Is North Korea China’s Pakistan? – II – What does Harvard’s Joseph Nye Say?
Send your feedback to [email protected] Or @MacroViewpoints on Twitter
