Should dictator Musharraf enjoy exile in the UK?

by Michael White (Guardian.co.uk)

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.