Why Pakistan matters
Updated on 05 November 2007
Inside the morning meeting...
Emergency rule in Pakistan. Tonight - international editor Lindsey Hilsum and team in Islamabad on the story as it moves, diplomatic editor Jonathan Rugman on the geo-political implications.
The state of affairs in Pakistan is already affecting the amount of moving picture coming out of Islamabad, Lahore and Karachi and reporting restrictions mean we currently can't 'do lives' - indeed our only contact with those under house arrest may well be via email.
All headaches for the team but nothing compared to the headache President Pervez Musharraf has given Britain and America.
'What has happened defies logic,' says one senior newsroom voice. 'Bush is why Islamists hate Musharraf. But now he's distanced himself from Bush do they hate him any less? Of course not.'
The piece Jonathan Rugman is preparing is commonly referred to as the 'second package'. It is the programme's opportunity to provide the analysis, to answer the 'why?' - in this case: why does Pakistan matter?
Well, it matters because the West sees a properly run - ideally democratic - Pakistan as a bulwark against extremism. Namely, extremism across the border in Afghanistan and extremism that is fostered and exported at home.
The marriage of convenience between the United States and Musharraf came post-9/11 when the former military dictator sided with the West in the war against terror. In the past five years Washington has given Islamabad some $10bn in aid.
But now Musharraf's decision to put the constitution on hold puts him at odds with the Bush administration - this despite his insistence that the step was taken to combat spiralling militancy and a hostile judiciary.
"What has happened defies logic," says one senior newsroom voice. "Bush is why Islamists hate Musharraf. But now he's distanced himself from Bush do they hate him any less? Of course not."
Up until now the West's preferred option was some form of power sharing between Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto. That now appears to be in tatters.
Bhutto is keeping her options open but should parliamentary elections be postponed beyond 15 January - the agreed deadline - she could legitimately send her people on to the streets and cause the current president a lot of trouble.
Meanwhile, the US and Britain have to decide if Musharraf is still the 'better known devil'. And if so, how does his latest move square with the Bush administration's strategy of peace and stability through democracy?
And if Afghanistan was targeted as a failed state which harboured terrorists in the guise of the Teleban and al-Qaeda, how does Pakistan measure up?
Arguably, it too is a failed state, a training ground for extremists responsible for terror attacks in Europe, and an instable nuclear power led by a former military dictator seemingly intent on using some of his old plays to hold on to power.
Just some of the questions posed in the morning news meeting. Expect some of the answers in the second package.
