|
Editor’s Note: Click here to read a dissenting opinion.
The sad reality is that we cannot withhold support from nations simply because we disagree with their domestic policies.Freedom vs. national security: seemingly the two competing principles of our time. But what if the freedom in question is someone else’s and the security in danger is your own?
Such is the situation we see in Pakistan, where president and former military chieftain Pervez Musharraf has declared a state of emergency, dismissed hostile Supreme Court justices and appointed his own, imprisoned dissidents and otherwise quickly and efficiently obliterated the rule of law in his country.
A third-world dictator subjugating democracy—a “Daily Show with Jon Stewart” guest, no less—does more than disturb our sense of morality. At stake most, as far as the United States should be concerned, are the nuclear weapons highlighting the predominantly Muslim nation’s arsenal.
The motivation behind the $10 billion U.S. foreign aid package to Pakistan in the last five years was not a sentiment of goodwill. (For comparison, U.S. aid to the country was just $400 million during the 1990s.) The major change between then and later was the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. The American aid is not just paying for the use of Pakistani airspace for American military adventures in Asia, it is primarily to prop up the Musharraf dictatorship to prevent the proliferation of its nuclear weapons to terrorists.
[W]hat if the freedom in question is someone else’s and the security in danger is your own?The sad reality is that we cannot withhold support from nations simply because we disagree with their domestic policies. Disgusting as it sounds, we must consider other factors as well. In today’s world it is impossible to make a non-relativist, principled decision, a most unfortunate reality especially in the Middle East and especially when it comes to matters of freedom, liberty and democracy, all important American principles.
Yes, the United States should and does encourage democracy and support its proponents in Pakistan and elsewhere, but not to America’s peril. If continuing our tacit support of the Musharraf regime until the likelihood of Islamic militants taking over the country has subsided is the best way to protect Pakistan’s nuclear weapons—and by consequence, us—then so be it.
- Senior Editor Brian Williams, DISSENTING
While I agree that the United States needs to do what it must to protect itself, I have to ask what has our deal gotten us; is this the best we can do? I must disagree with the Board’s overly broad agreement with U.S. Pakistan policy because it fails to take into account several key points.
First Pakistan used at least $5.1 billion of the $10 billion to buy arms from the United Stated (consider this) while we sold only $3.5 billion in arms to India. We are unequally arming mortal enemies who happen to be nuclear powers. Does that make sense in terms of maintaining peace and security?
Also take into account what our aid package to Pakistan has bought: endless frustration for our troops in Afghanistan. Our supposed partner, Musharraf, refuses to let the U.S. military pursue Al Qaeda and Taliban into Pakistan near the Afghan border.
Finally, even if Islamic militants were to take control of Pakistan, given the U.S. preemptive strategy, Pakistan's nuclear capabilities won't last long. Consequently, the Board’s anti-proliferation argument also is unpersuasive.
Asst. Managing Editor Dwayne Robinson abstains from all staff editorials.
|
Conclusions 
