In yesterday's Wall Street Journal, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari (and the very capable PR agency behind him) set out a high-profile position on the issues of the Pakistani insurgency, Afghanistan, and terrorism. However, the
Journal's headline, "Pakistan is Steadfast Against Terror: We aren't appeasing the Taliban or terrorists in Swat", wondrously missed the point of Zardari's opinion piece (which is reprinted below).
Zardari did open by praising Islamabad's role in the Washington review process: "Last week....Pakistan, the U.S. and Afghanistan agreed on a coherent military and political strategy to isolate and deal with those intent on destabilizing our region and terrorizing the world." He "began with a fact: Pakistan's fight against terrorism is relentless," citing the killing of "high officials" and hundreds of fighters of Al Qa'eda and the Taliban.
Then he added his stinger: "In the highly volatile Swat Valley, our strategy has been to enter into talks with traditional local clerics to help restore peace to the area, and return the writ of the state."
His Government is trying to separate those clerics from the bad guys: "The clerics with whom we have engaged are not Taliban. Indeed, in our dialogue we'd made it clear that it is their responsibility to rein in and neutralize Taliban and other insurgents." And, addressing the issue of sharia in the autonomous territories, Zardari posted a symbolic limit on how far the clerics could go: "We have not and will not condone the closing of girls' schools."
So Zardari's first mission was maintaining his manoeuvring position not against the "Taliban" or the clerics, but Washington. It is unclear what the Obama Administration's private line is on the talks with local leaders in the Northwest Frontier Provinces, but publicly US officials have been sweeping in their denunciation of "caving in" to sharia and other demands.
The Pakistan President may have had a more important mission, however, against a much different enemy: his political and judicial opponents. The second half of his article was devoted to his supposed defense of an "independent judiciary", with a restoration of almost all judges dismissed by his predecessor, Pervez Musharraf. He proclaimed:
My government had taken legal steps to overturn a lower-court decision that would not allow former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his brother to serve in public office. The Supreme Court, however, chose to uphold the lower court decision. This is the nature of an independent judiciary, and this is the process of rule of law.
One has to admire Zardari's audacity as he feigns his sadness. The chief demand of many lawyers and judges in Pakistan is the restoration of the Chief Justice, Iftikhar Chaudhry; the suspicion is that the Supreme Court is the same one packed by Musharraf in his attempt to cling to power and the same one that allowed Zardari to take office by wiping away the long-standing corruption charges against him. The President's public game is to claim his legal support of his chief political rival, while privately knowing that the judicial odds have been stacked against Sharif.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Zardari is completely above board with this defense of "democracy". The point is that few outside Pakistan have looked behind the cloak of "terrorism" to see the equally critical issue of the political storm brewing in Islamabad. And the question is --- if there are no more attacks on Sri Lankan cricketers to deflect attention from that conflict--- will that storm threaten to sweep away the President?
Pakistan Is Steadfast Against Terror
We aren't appeasing the Taliban or terrorists in Swat.ASIF ALI ZARDARI
Last week's trilateral meeting in Washington between U.S. leaders and the foreign ministers, military and intelligence leaders of my country and Afghanistan was a crucial step forward in the war on terrorism and fanaticism in South and Central Asia. For the first time, Pakistan, the U.S. and Afghanistan agreed on a coherent military and political strategy to isolate and deal with those intent on destabilizing our region and terrorizing the world.
By reaching agreement, we have overcome the past legacy of distrust that has characterized Pakistani-Afghan relations for decades and has complicated strategic planning and common goals. Monday's terrorist attack against the Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore shows once again the evil we are confronting.
But if Pakistan, Afghanistan and the U.S. are to prevail in the ongoing battle against terrorism, straight talk is essential. And this straight talk begins with a fact: Pakistan's fight against terrorism is relentless. Since the election of a democratic government last year, we have successfully conducted military operations in our Federally Administered Tribal Areas and other parts of the country, capturing or killing high officials of al Qaeda and the Taliban, as well as hundreds of their fighters. In the highly volatile Swat Valley, our strategy has been to enter into talks with traditional local clerics to help restore peace to the area, and return the writ of the state.
We have not and will not negotiate with extremist Taliban and terrorists. The clerics with whom we have engaged are not Taliban. Indeed, in our dialogue we'd made it clear that it is their responsibility to rein in and neutralize Taliban and other insurgents. If they do so and lay down their arms, this initiative will have succeeded for the people of Swat Valley. If not, our security forces will act accordingly. Unfortunately, this process of weaning reconcilable elements of an insurgency away from the irreconcilables has been mischaracterized in the West.
Moreover, we have not and will not condone the closing of girls' schools, as we saw last year when militants closed schools in pockets of Swat Valley. Indeed, the government insists that the education of young women is mandatory. This is not an example of the government condoning or capitulating to extremism -- quite the opposite.
Our transitional Pakistani democracy is still restructuring after decades of episodic dictatorship. One of the most critical institutions that needs to be resurrected is an independent judiciary. Recent decisions of the Pakistani Supreme Court have been criticized by many in my country, and indeed by some in my political party. In particular, my government had taken legal steps to overturn a lower-court decision that would not allow former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his brother to serve in public office. The Supreme Court, however, chose to uphold the lower court decision. This is the nature of an independent judiciary, and this is the process of rule of law.
An overwhelming majority (57 out of 63) of superior court judges dismissed under the previous government's emergency rule has returned to the court. The judiciary of Pakistan has been restored, and is independent. In a mature polity, when one loses in court, one respects the decision of the court and moves on, seeking other constitutional remedies. It is not the nature of democracy to appeal court decisions to the streets. This is part of the culture of cynicism and negativity that for too long has permeated Pakistani politics.
When the U.S. Supreme Court decided the presidency in Bush v. Gore, Vice President Al Gore did not call for his millions of supporters to take to the streets to try to overturn by force the ruling of the court. He and the Democratic Party accepted the Supreme Court's decision and moved on. The Democrats later regained the Congress and now the presidency. That is the mark of a successful democracy. The recent agitation in the province of Punjab (supposedly in favor of Mr. Sharif) is an attempt to destabilize our democracy and a major distraction from Pakistan's critical problems, which include reviving our economy and fighting violent extremism.
I have long fought for democracy in my country. Thousands in my party and other parties have died through the years fighting against dictatorship and tyranny. The greatest champion of democracy in my country, my wife Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto, gave her life fighting for the values of liberty. This is an existential battle. If we lose, so too will the world. Failure is not an option.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009 at 11:26 
In a mirror image of Hillary Clinton's tough comments on Iran and the revelation of the US offer to Russia to swap missile defense for Tehran's nuclear programme, 
Update (4:40 p.m. GMT): Reuters'