December 12, 2009

Reporting from Islamabad, Pakistan - At a time when President Obama needs help tackling skepticism in Pakistan over his new plan to fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda, a valuable ally here is battling for political survival.

Just 15 months into his term, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari is withering under pressure from the country's military, opposition parties and vocal media critics.

Zardari has proved a reliable U.S. partner, even on actions that are unpopular with the Pakistani public, such as the CIA's campaign of airstrikes targeting Al Qaeda leaders and the Taliban in the tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan.

Analysts say that if Zardari loses a measure of control over foreign and defense issues, the winner is likely to be the Pakistani military, which has a long history of tense relations with Washington.

The 54-year-old president already has ceded several of his most important powers, including the chairmanship of the agency that oversees Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, to Prime Minister Yusaf Raza Gillani. He plans this month to give up authority to dissolve parliament, dismiss the prime minister and appoint military chiefs, leaving him little more than a figurehead.

Even that may not be enough for some of his critics, who want him tried on corruption charges from the late 1980s, when he served in the Cabinet of Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, his wife, who was slain two years ago. Though never convicted, he was imprisoned from 1990 to '93 and 1997 to 2004 in cases that he has contended were politically motivated.

As president, Zardari is shielded by immunity from prosecution. However, in a review that began Monday, the country's Supreme Court could decide that he was ineligible for election as president and therefore can be tried. One of the charges against him alleges that he misappropriated $1.5 billion.

The timing of Zardari's political woes could prove troublesome for Obama.

The U.S. leader's decision to set a deadline of July 2011 to start withdrawing troops from Afghanistan has many Pakistanis worried that the United States will leave its war-racked western neighbor before ensuring its security -- the same step the U.S. was accused of taking after the Soviet Union pulled out of Afghanistan 20 years ago.

Pakistanis also fear that the deployment of 30,000 more U.S. troops in Afghanistan will force Taliban fighters to flee over the border into Pakistan, where troops are already locked in battle with insurgents in tribal areas.

The U.S. cannot send troops to Pakistan because of strong opposition there. But Obama has increased the number of CIA drone strikes in Pakistan's tribal areas, with tacit approval of Zardari's administration.

Zardari also supported language in a five-year, $7.5-billion U.S. aid package to Pakistan that called for civilian oversight of the Pakistani military, despite a torrent of criticism from military commanders, Pakistani news media and the opposition.

The Obama administration would prefer to work with a civilian government that oversees the military, rather than one run by military men, such as Zardari's predecessor, former Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

But as a result of Zardari's political troubles, the military establishment could end up wielding far more control over the country's affairs, particularly foreign policy. Gillani, who is assuming the executive powers Zardari is relinquishing, is regarded as being closer to the military than Zardari is, analysts say. Some of the powers traditionally had been the prime minister's but were assumed by Musharraf when he came to power in a military coup.

Gillani has not shied away from criticizing the United States. The day before Obama announced his new Afghan plan last week, Gillani spoke out against the decision to send more troops to Afghanistan. He said it would send Afghan Taliban fighters across the border and complicate the Pakistani military's fight with them.

"Gillani is seen as being more respectful of the viewpoint of the military establishment and of Pakistan's own security needs," said Rasul Bakhsh Rais, a Lahore-based political analyst.

The Pakistani military has always been wary of Zardari's close relationship with Washington. The Americans think they have found another ally in Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, the army chief who launched major operations against Islamic militants this year in the Swat Valley and the volatile South Waziristan region along the border with Afghanistan.

But the United States remains troubled by the Pakistani military's fixation on neighbor India as its primary enemy, even as the Taliban and its allies unleash nearly daily attacks across the country. Much of the billions of dollars in U.S. aid have been spent on conventional weapons meant for a possible conflict with India, rather than gearing up for a counter-insurgency campaign against the Taliban.

Moreover, Washington continues to harbor concerns that elements of Pakistan's military intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence, maintain close ties with Afghan Taliban leaders as a hedge against the day U.S. troops leave Afghanistan, and as a counterbalance against India's growing economic and diplomatic influence in Kabul.

"If Zardari goes and there's a political shake-up here, it will have serious ramifications, " said Ahmed Rashid, a Pakistani security analyst and author of "Descent into Chaos," a critical look at U.S. policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. "What it would signify is that the military would be in almost total control -- at least of foreign policy toward India and Afghanistan. And I don't think that's such a good idea."

Zardari doesn't have the public on his side in his latest political battle. He is deeply unpopular. Most Pakistanis view him as corrupt, and they blame him for economic troubles such as widespread poverty and frequent electricity shutdowns.

Zardari's aides say the criticisms are unwarranted. He has never been convicted of any corruption charges, and they say he deserves credit for the two major military operations to uproot Taliban militants.

They say he is not giving up key presidential powers because of pressure from critics, but because he believes Pakistan should adopt the kind of government the country had before Musharraf: a system with a strong parliament and prime minister.

Lawmaker and spokeswoman Farahnaz Ispahani said Zardari will retain considerable authority as chairman of the ruling party, the Pakistan Peoples Party, to which Gillani must answer.

"This is not the American system where the president is the all-powerful figure in terms of day-to-day governance," Ispahani said. "So he is getting rid of the unconstitutional powers that a military dictator amassed for himself."

Pakistani analysts say Zardari had no alternative. His political future has been imperiled by the Nov. 28 expiration of an amnesty issued by Musharraf in 2007 that applied to politicians and bureaucrats accused of corruption and criminal charges between 1986 and 1999, the year Musharraf seized power. The law was meant to allow Bhutto to return from exile without facing the prospect of corruption charges. When Bhutto was assassinated in December 2007, Zardari took over as party leader and later was elected president by the country's national and provincial lawmakers.

There are about 8,000 names on a list of politicians, including Zardari and the Interior and Defense ministers, who benefited from the amnesty, which is now under review by the Supreme Court.

"Much will depend on how the courts proceed," said analyst Rais. "I think he's vulnerable both politically and in terms of popular support, and that may reflect in the courts. If he surrenders all of his powers and becomes a figurehead, probably he could survive."

That would satisfy Zardari's chief rival, former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif of the opposition PML-N party. Like Zardari, Sharif has faced corruption allegations. PML-N spokesman Ahsan Iqbal says his party could live with a dramatically weakened Zardari presidency and a government led by Gillani.

"Gillani taking the powers -- that's what we want," said Iqbal, who is also a member of parliament. "We think democracy will only be secure if we carry out immediate structural reforms. We need an independent judiciary and parliament oversight over executive authority. And we think whenever our term will come, if the system is still faulty, we will also fail."

alex.rodriguez@ latimes.com