Zia Aftermath : Instability Could Harm U.S. Policy

President Reagan pledged Wednesday that U.S. military aid for Pakistan will continue undiminished despite the death in a plane crash of autocratic President Zia ul-Haq, but American foreign policy experts said a period of instability that could damage U.S. policy from Afghanistan to the Persian Gulf is almost a certainty.

“The United States was fortunate to have such a friend in President Zia, but our support for Pakistan is not dependent upon any individual,” Reagan said in a statement issued from his Santa Barbara ranch, where he is on vacation. “Our strong support for the people of Pakistan and the security and territorial integrity of Pakistan will continue.”

Administration officials said it is too early to judge the full impact of the death of the dapper general who dominated Pakistani politics for more than 11 years. Non-government experts said that Zia’s successor is unlikely to turn against the United States but that the successor may be less willing--and less able--to support American initiatives than Zia had been.

New President Named

The leader of the Pakistani Senate, Ghulam Ishaq Khan, was named president. Zia had scheduled parliamentary elections for Nov. 16, and Ishaq Khan vowed they will take place as scheduled.

Although Zia sometimes was harsh in his approach to human rights and presided over a controversial scientific program that appeared on the verge of producing nuclear weapons, the Administration avoided criticism of Pakistan because of Zia’s vital role in the support of anti-Communist rebels in Afghanistan. The Administration also relied on Pakistan to assist Saudi Arabia and other Western-oriented regimes in the Persian Gulf.

Rep. Stephen J. Solarz (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Asia, called on the Administration six weeks ago to get tough with Pakistan over human rights and nuclear policy “now that the Soviets are on their way out of Afghanistan.” Some Administration officials had hinted that they might do just that, although the official policy remained supportive of the Zia regime.

Conduit for Arms Aid

However, Pakistan continued to serve as a conduit for U.S. arms aid to the moujahadeen rebels, despite the Soviet withdrawal after nearly nine years of war in Afghanistan. The pullout reached the halfway point this week. When the United States endorsed the Afghanistan accords last April, Secretary of State George P. Shultz said that Washington would continue to support the insurgents as long as Moscow continued to aid the Afghan army.

In recent weeks, the Soviet Union has been harsh in its criticism of Pakistan for its continuing role in the Afghan fighting.

U.S. officials said that it is not yet known whether the explosion that destroyed Zia’s aircraft--killing the president, U.S. Ambassador Arnold L. Raphel, a U.S. Army brigadier general and 10 senior Pakistani military officials--was an accident or an assassination.

One State Department official said that even if it turns out that it was an assassination, it is unlikely that the Soviet Union was involved.

“It has been remarkable how strong the Soviet statements about Pakistan have been over the past three weeks,” the official said. “If they were going to do something like this, you would think they would be quiet in public and just do it.”

Afghan Role Possible

Another official said, however, that the intelligence service of the Marxist Afghan government could have been involved. He said the Afghan secret service conducted 127 terrorist attacks, such as bombs left in marketplaces, in Pakistan last year, that killed more than 100 people.

Most experts in and out of government said the United States hopes to avoid any important change in its policy toward Pakistan. But that may not be possible.

“This really decapitates the regime,” C. William Maynes, editor of Foreign Policy magazine, said. “Given the volatile political situation, it opens up an area of instability in the region. As long as we have the commitment that we do in the Persian Gulf, Pakistan is an absolutely critical country. The United States must make it clear that it is willing to be helpful and supportive of the new order.”

New Order Unclear

But no one really knows yet what the new order will be. Ishaq Khan is thought to be only an interim leader, and experts in Washington said it is not clear yet how power ultimately will be allocated. Predictions run the gamut from parliamentary democracy to a military dictatorship.

One State Department official said that Mohammed Khan Junejo, the former prime minister who was abruptly fired by Zia last May, is in a strong position to emerge as the ultimate leader.

“After all, the whole reason Zia got rid of him in the first place was that he was getting too strong,” the official said.

Junejo was highly regarded in Washington as an able prime minister. But he was carrying out Zia’s policies, and officials concede that they do not know what sort of policies he might pursue in his own right.

Army Role Debated

Robert G. Neumann, a former ambassador to Afghanistan, predicted that the Pakistan army will step in to control the situation. He described the army as the primary unifying influence in the diverse country.

But University of Illinois Prof. Steven Cohen, a former State Department expert on Pakistan and the author of a book on the Pakistani army, said it is unlikely that the army will intervene unless the situation deteriorates badly.

“I don’t know of any senior officer who sees himself as the savior of the country,” he said.

Instead, Cohen said that Zia’s death might result in a swing toward democracy. He said Zia had planned a gradual loosening of his autocratic control, starting with the November elections, which were to have been run under rules that would have allowed the president to retain most of his power.

“The test of whether Pakistan can sustain a democracy may come sooner than Zia had planned,” Cohen said.

No matter how the next Pakistani leader is selected, that person is almost certain to be a weaker political figure than Zia. This might make it more difficult to maintain Zia’s pro-American policy toward Afghanistan, even if the new leader wants to do so.

“It is dangerous for Pakistan to antagonize the Russians as much as they have,” said Shireen T. Hunter, deputy director of Middle East Studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “A number of people in Pakistan have been questioning the wisdom of this.”

PAKISTAN AT A GLANCE

Official Name-- Islamic Republic of Pakistan

Capital--Islamabad, population, 201,000; largest city is Karachi, with over 5 million.

Area--310,402 square miles, about twice the size of California. In addition, Pakistan administers about 32,000 square miles of Jammu and Kashmir, a territory in the extreme northeast split between Pakistan and India.

Climate and Terrain--Mostly hot, dry desert; temperate in northwest, arctic in mountainous north.

Population--(as of July, 1987) 104,600,799

Official Languages--Urdu, English

Religions-- 97% Muslim, 3% Hindu, Christian, other.

Literacy--24%

Government and Law--Federal republic, with bicameral legislature and strong executive; legislature dissolved last May, with national elections promised in November. Legal system based on English common law but being transformed to conform to Islamic law.

Political Background--Together with East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), Pakistan was part of British India in the 18th and 19th centuries. Became independent in August, 1947, as the British territory was partitioned into Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan. Civil war between East and West Pakistan eventually led to Bangladesh’s independence in December, 1971.

Economy-- Agriculture is dominant; main crops are wheat, rice, cotton, sugarcane. Major industries: cotton textiles, steel, food processing, engineering, chemicals, natural gas.

Sources: The World Factbook, The World Almanac and Book of Facts, Political Handbook of the World