Should deposed dictator Musharraf enjoy exile in the UK?
By salmanit at 12 September, 2009, 3:14 pm
Guardian.co.uk The former Pakistani leader is alive and well, living in London. But many don’t welcome his presence.Did you spot Declan Walsh’s article in today’s Guardian about Pervez Musharraf, the general who used to run Pakistan until 13 months ago?
I hadn’t realised he’s living in a nice-but-modest flat off London’s Edgware Road.
His presence here raises the familiar awkward question: should those described as dictators (Walsh, who knows Pakistan well, uses the word) be allowed to live in exile in Britain when some people at home want him back to face a treason trial?
There’s no hard and fast answer here; every case is different, which is why it’s interesting. A flick through an admittedly generous version of Musharraf’s CV makes it clear that he was never a Saddam Hussein or an Idi Amin.
Indeed, he is probably a good deal cleaner by most tests than Nawaz Sharif, the former prime minister whom Musharraf ousted in the 1999 coup – just a year or so after Sharif promoted him to army chief of staff. As Walsh dryly notes, Sharif has a much fancier pad just down the road from Edgware Road – on Park Lane.
So the individual’s record in office is relevant. So are the quality of the accusations and the accusers. Musharraf is accused of treason – among other things – for suspending the constitution and sacking chief justice Chaudhry in November 2007. Reinstated, Chaudhry might eventually be the man to decide on his fate: treason means the death penalty.
It’s complicated, and the Foreign Office is apparently keen to say that Musharraf is in Britain on a visitor’s visa (no points system to tests his skills set for him then!) and probably won’t stay long. His son lives in the US, but maybe Musharraf could settle somewhere in the Middle East closer to home. The 66-year-old retired soldier thinks he is not yet finished in politics – though he probably is.
There’s a wider question: is it better to allow dictators, military or otherwise, to leave a country quietly for exile or does justice demand that they be brought to account?
I think it depends on the scale of the crimes of which they stand accused, who they committed them against and in whose name they are being sought? In former Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milosevic and his grisly Greater Serbia henchmen had a lot of blood on their hands (so did others, but they were the prime movers), yet the extradition to the Hague is still regarded as the justice of biased victors by many Serbs.
Some Germans and Japanese quietly think the same of their war trials in 1945-46, especially since the Russians were among their judges. Even Winston Churchill had qualms. But that was war; the treatment of expelled dictators is a more nuanced issue.
It seems to me that the crucial fact is not well-meaning but remote foreign notions of justice, but what is best for the country concerned, recovering as it usually is from an unpleasant experience. That’s why I felt it was wrong for a Spanish judge (Spain having suppressed its own bloody recent history) to get Chile’s General Pinochet arrested in London. It was a matter for the Chileans.
Ferdinand Marcos was smuggled out of Manila when he lost the plot and the Philippines election in 1986 and died in his bed in Hawaii. Imelda Marcos was later allowed home to make a nuisance of herself. I see she is now promoting the dynastic interests of her children. In Europe or the US, we cannot shake our heads and say: “It would never happen here.”
But Indira Gandhi was punished by voters for her 1975-77 state of emergency, though she later regained power, both remarkable political facts – but India is unique and it doesn’t help us much.
Amin was allowed to die in exile. Until hours before the first bombs fell on Baghdad, Saddam and his grim offspring were being offered plane tickets out to assured safety. Think how much grief could have been avoided if they accepted them.
I’m not competent to judge how good a ruler Musharraf was, nor his motives or achievements. In economic terms, on corruption and social modernisation (he is credited with easing restrictions on Pakistani women and freeing up the media to come after him) he is said to have done modest good.
In geo-political terms, Musharraf was clearly caught between a rock and a very hard place – Islamist fundamentalism, which his predecessors had exploited, and pressure from the US after 9/11 just as Washington was belatedly noticing India’s emergence as a future superpower.
So with Sharif on his case, I’m inclined to say we should leave Musharraf alone to enjoy his musical evenings on the Edgware Road (he is apparently an accomplished singer), even if it divides the British-Pakistani community.
I should add that Labour peer, Rotherham’s Nazir Ahmed, is on Musharraf’s case, too, complaining about the cost of Scotland Yard protection (can’t he pay for it all?) and claiming that he “stokes unrest” in Britain, according to today’s Times. Slough Labour party invited the general to help celebrate Pakistan’s independence day, which upset some people.
I don’t know Ahmed but am told he has done good things for moderation in the British Muslim community. Tony Blair gave him the peerage in 1998 when he needed such people – Ahmed, a chip shop owner and greengrocer was just 40 at the time – and did so without consulting his party in Rotherham. “Naz is a bit of a Jekyll and Hyde,” I’m told. He’s certainly said some silly things, but haven’t we all?
But in foreign affairs and the Lords, Ahmed is a one-issue man, born in Kashmir shortly before his family emigrated and obsessed with it. He’s also a chum of Sharif and helped get him home from exile.
Did Ahmed complain when Sharif had British police protection – or Benazir Bhutto? Probably not. It’s usually best to steer clear of other people’s internal politics as we discover whenever we forget. Stick to Yorkshire, M’lord.
Related posts:
- Justice Punishes Dictator and His Cronies
- Pervez Musharraf Security a Matter of Hot Debate in UK
- Musharraf in London
Musharraf toppled a democratically elected government, however inefficient it may have been, it was what people had willed when casting their votes. He thus took his country back by a few decades. when will Pakistan realise that the only way to progress is through Democracy and Transperency. For this crime alone he should be tried, no need to punish him, just make him stand in the court and be judged on the issue.
Would alleged crimes by dictators be a matter for the International Criminal Court? Apart from that, yes, we should stay out of other countries internal affairs. Musharraf doesn’t seem a bad person on the surface but who can say, and what interesting secrets does he know?
However, it’s difficult to see the reasoning why the British public, i.e. me, should pay for the protection of Mr M. Better to let him pay for it entirely himself as you suggest, or get some of his rich pals to cough up.
‘We’ can’t have a purge against former dictators while at the same time sucking up to quite a few round the world (Gadaffi, Saudis, people in the Stans, China (the big one), various Africans, etc) – it just might smack of hypocrisy and that would never do
This article compares Musharaf’s case with many irrelevant dictators. One recent example could be used to judge whether the UK government has fair process to provide political asylum. Thaksin Shinawatra an elected PM was thrown out in a bloodless coup was given asylum briefly but it was invoked later. I don’t like Thaksin and believe that the UK govt did the right thing in rejecting a corrupt politician, but it does not make sense why UK govt is providing asylum to a dictator who has blood on his hands and never was a popular leader by choice.
Overall this is a fine article. According to one commentator:
“Musharraf toppled a democratically elected government, however inefficient it may have been, it was what people had willed when casting their votes.”
There are a number of serious problems with the above: there was no “democratic” government in Pakistan prior to Musharraf. What we had was a civilian dictatorship, Nawaz Sharif being the dictator. Sharif was on the verge of declaring himself the “amir ul mumineen” when his dictatorial and oppressive regime was rightfully toppled. Sharif, at the time he was removed, was going mad the left right and the center extracting revenge from his political opponents, committing extra-judicial murders in Karachi, and not allowing freedom of press/speech in Pakistan. If we are concerned about the “will” of the people, then consider this: the people were cheering all over Pakistan when Sharif was removed. Why is this will of the people being ignored?
The same commentator then went on to issue a bizarre comment to say the least:
“He thus took his country back by a few decades.”
The above is either an outright lie or gross ignorance. Consider this:
A) Media: Under Musharraf we saw unprecedented media freedom throughout Pakistan. Sharif “permitted” only one state controlled TV station to operate in Pakistan, whereas under Musharraf all of a sudden we saw so many channels running all over Pakistan, dozens and dozens of radio stations, so many more newspapers etc, with a good amount of freedom. All freely criticized Musharraf and his government. So the country PROGRESSED many decades FORWARD under Musharraf when it comes to media freedom and freedom of speech/expression. The current free and vibrant media in Pakistan is only thanks to Musharraf’s openness.
B) Economy: Sharif left a Pakistan economy in shambles, with 65% of the gdp used for debt servicing, an economy the mere size of $75 billion, with less than a billion in foreign reserves. Under Musharraf, within a decade, the Pakistani economy more than doubled in size. It became a booming economy, with growth of 6% + gdp – thereby making it the third fastest growing economy in South East Asia (after India and China), with $16 billion + in foreign reserves, with large scale construction all over Pakistan. The middle-class strengthened under Musharraf, with per capita income increasing substantially, with Moody giving Pakistan a B+ rating. So, economically, Pakistan PROGRESSED many decades FORWARD under Musharraf.
C) Democracy: we just had a “democracy” of name in Pakistan under Sharif. We had civilian dictatorship. Under Musharraf, the Nazim system of governance was introduced which, for the first time, gave grass root representation in Pakistan, allowing people from the middle-class to represent their localities and sort out their local problems. Thus, democratically, Pakistan progressed FORWARD under Musharraf.
By all means, Pakistan went FORWARD under Musharraf.
This is a humble and down to earth man and it pains me to see how some people lie about him. Also, do not cast him aside so easily…MANY in Pakistan support him, the silent majority, people like me who are from the middle class and are educated and want democracy. WE WANT MUSHARRAF BACK!
Finally, Lord Nazir has no business to worry about Musharraf’s security matters. What is Lord Nazir’s solution? That a former head of state be left with no security so, God forbid, he could he attacked? Lord Nazir, in his hatred for Musharraf, appears to have lost all commonsense, decency and rationality. Security is offered to ALL former heads of state, irrespective of their deeds, for the reason that they are obvious targets of extremists and opponents. In this case, we are talking about a man who was most democratic in Pakistan and who NEVER ruled like a dictator.
Instead, the important question is as follows: WHY IS A BRITISH POLITICIAN SUPPORTING A FOREIGN POLITICIAN WHO HAS A HISTORY OF DICTATORIAL DEEDS, WHO NEVER ALLOWED MEDIA FREEDOM IN THE COUNTRY, WHO WAS FRIENDS WITH OSAMA BIN LADEN, WHO SUPPRESSED AND MURDERED HIS POLITICAL OPPONENTS, AND WHO NOW VISITS THE UK NOW AND THEN TO ENJOY HIS LAVISH PARK LANE PROPERTIES?
“He thus took his country back by a few decades.”
Wrong, he brought the country forward a few decades…
Beating the ‘oh he toppled a democratically elected government’ drum isn’t enough without knowing the realities of how these governments get elected and how they nearly bankrupt the country by lining their own pockets.
Musharraf took over from a sham democracy…
Back to the issue at hand, he has enough money to fund his own security. The cost should not be footed by the British public.
HISTORICALLY , THIS HAS BEEN THE FATE OF ALL RULERS IN EXILE. IN IN THE INITIAL DAYS THEY ARE ASKED TO SPEAK THEIR HEART OUT , BECAUSE, AS THEY ARE FRUSTRATED AND ANGRY NO MATTER HOW CAREFULL THEY SPILL THE BEANS AND PROVIDE INFORMATION, OR CONFIRM THE OLD THE HOSTS.
THEY ALSO BECOME A TOOL IN HANDS OF QUALIFIED TO EFFECT THE POLICIES OF THE NEW PEOPLE IN PLACE TILL THE MUSICAL CHAIR COMES A FULL CIRCLE .
AS REGARDS STATE MORALITY, THEY GET ALL THE COMFORTS AS LONG AS THEY ARE USEFULL.,OR CAN BE MANIPULATED.THE CLASSIC CASE IS SAUDI ARABIA, WHERE THEY DONT SPARE A MINUTE CUTTING OF HANDS OR BEHEADING PEOPLE, WHILE THOSE WHO HAVE SCAMMED AND SHED INNOCENT BLOOD LIKE IDDI AMIN ARE STATE GUESTS.
APART FROM SO MANY MAJOR CRIMES COMMITTED BY MR MUSHARRAF THE MOST GLARING IS THE TOTAL CONTRADICTION IN WHAT HE PROFESSED TO BE AND WHAT HE DELIVERED AT THE END .
WHAT FURTHER BREAKS ONES HEART IS TO SEE THE INTELLECTUAL ORGANISATIONS/FORUMS, HEARING THE SORDID TALES FROM LIARS AND OF THE HYPOCRITES,ALL WRAPPED IN SWEET TALKBY THOSE WHO ACTED WORST THEN RULERS OF THE MIDDLE AGES,AND SHED BLOOD OF THE INNOCENT WITHOUT REMORSE OR GUILT.
I WISH THERE WAS A WORLD COURT WHICH WOULD TAKE NOTICE OF ALL SUCH INDIVIDUALS AND RULERS WHO BEEN CATALYST NOT JUST IN DESTROYING LIVES OF INNOCENTS, BUT DESTROYING THE NATIONS .
MR MUSHARRAF RANKS WITH CHARLES TAYLOR OF LIBERIA AND NEEDS THE SAME TREATMENT.
@sana mirza
You have no right to talk about Musharraf this way.You are enjoying this position in Geo because of Musharraf He gave media freedom .Now Geo people are paid to speak by NS.You people bennifitted most, the thankless peoples.