بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Question:
What has made America, which
dominates power in Pakistan, approve amnesty for Bhutto and her return to
Pakistan, despite the fact that her loyalties are with the British camp where she
spent the last eight years?
Secondly, where is Pakistan headed
in the midst of these events?
Answer:
The answer to this question requires
us to look back for a proper perspective:
1. Changes started to take shape on the fast track in Pakistan
with the arrival of Bush and the Neo-Conservatives to power in the United
States and more so in the aftermath of the 9/11 blasts. The American invasion
of Afghanistan was a crucial factor in the Pakistani President Pervez
Musharraf, America's main agent in the region siding with the Americans in their
invasion of Afghanistan and, in their war against the Muslim Mujahideen within
Pakistan itself. Musharraf’s joining the US in its “War on Terror” (War on
Islam) was in effect a declaration of a New Crusade War against the Jehadi
outfits and movements in Kashmir, who used Pakistan as their stronghold and
launching point.
By
aligning himself with the US, Musharraf succeeded in depriving the Mujahideen
their stronghold and safe bases in Pakistan. He succeeded where all previous
Pakistani governments failed in their attempts to close down the Mujahideen
camps. Musharraf prosecuted and arrested the Mujahideen and branded them as
terrorists.
The
great traitor gave India its greatest gift, which it had been seeking for
decades by asking Pakistan for ceasing its support to the Mujahideen. The
Hindus were delighted with this and they whole heartedly accepted the new
phrase of the so-called “Islamic terrorism” which was coined by the Bush
administration it its fight against Islam. The Hindus branded the Mujahideen’s
struggle in Kashmir as a form of terrorism. In this aspect the present
Congress- led government which has its loyalties for Britain is no different to
the previous right-wing government led by the BJP that was inclined towards the
Americans.
2.
The American officials did not stop
making further demands from Musharraf: indeed, one who does not respect himself
is condemned to even greater disgrace. An official of the US CIA threatened in
the New York Times on 07/23/2007 to storm the tribal areas. Director of U.S.
Central Intelligence Agency Michael O’Neil said two days later that Osama Bin
Laden is in the region in Pakistan on the border with Afghanistan, and urged
(Musharraf) to do more to mobilise armies in the border region.
Yes
indeed, the American administration is not content with the services rendered
by the Pakistani army, they are demanding even more from them and asking them
to the dirty and tough job on their behalf.
The
US administration has urged Musharraf to continue to the same approach towards
the Islamic movements and fight such organisations as the Taliban, the Harkat
ul Mujahideen, (formerly Harkat ul Ansar), the Jaish e Muhammad and other such
movements and secure its 1500 km border with Afghanistan. This will prevent the
Mujahideen from using Pakistani territory for launching against the American
and NATO occupation in Afghanistan. The American administration is also forcing
Pakistan to go for a total and decisive war against the tribes who are
unequivocally supporting the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Perhaps
the July 2007 visit to Islamabad by American Deputy Secretary of State
Negroponte, who is the administration’ specialist in igniting and provoking
civil strife and bloodshed, was aimed at achieving these goals by ensuring that
Musharraf, who continues to betray the Muslims, remains in power and dedicates
himself to the service of Americans. Negroponte acknowledged that he discussed
the issue of launching a military strike in tribal districts during his
Pakistan visit.
3.
Musharraf was conditioned by and
accustomed to the ruthlessly violent policy used by the United States against
it, and he happens to be faithful agent of his master, carrying out orders even
if such were against the interests of his people and his country. He is an asset
his masters and a sure bet who fulfils all the conditions set by his masters in
such a volatile region as Pakistan.
He
has severely wounded the sentiments of Muslims by supporting the US aggression
in Afghanistan and by offering his country as a war front for America in
carrying out its despicable designs in the region.
Musharraf
has mobilised his troops in the tribal areas on the Afghan border in Waziristan
and Baluchistan and further increased the troops to 80 to 90 thousand along the
Afghan border. Today (26/10/2007) he has launched a violent blitz on Muslims in
the valley of Swat northeast of Peshawar only because the Muslims in the region
want to implement the laws of Islam.
All
this is done to ignite a bloody war at the instance of Washington which wants
its paid agent Musharraf to remain in power among the Muslims: Pakistani army
on one hand and Muslim tribes on the other, and keep a provocative posture to
keep the fire burning. He has dealt with movements protesting his allegiance to
America in a manner designed to further aggravate the situation rather than to
calm the atmosphere. This is what he did when he deliberately ordered the
killing of senior Baloch leader Akbar Khan Bugti who was 79 years old in August
2006. This further fuelled and worsened the crisis. Bugti was known as the “Old
Lion” and had occupied senior government posts of governor and minister in the
late 1970s.
4.
In the aftermath of Bugti’s killing,
the Pakistani army had pressurised Musharraf to reach an agreement with the
tribes in order to contain the escalating violence and avoid a civil war in
September 2006. The US was opposed to Pakistan reaching an agreement with the
trabals because it was in the US interest to keep the violence alive. America
under the NATO launched bloody attacks in the area of Bajour border in November
2006 in order to spoil the agreement with the tribes. The US officials then
made several statements criticising the agreement, and urged Musharraf to
mobilise his army in the tribal areas, all for nullifying the agreement. This
is how is it was: Rice criticised the agreement in her speech before Congress
on 16/2/2007, and on the same day the American Vice President Dick Cheney spoke
against it during his visit to Pakistan. On his part, Musharraf fulfilled his
master’s desire by provocatively mobilising Pakistani army along the border in
the tribal region in order to escalate tensions thereby paving he way for
annulment of the agreement. This decisively demonstrates that America does not
wish for calming of tensions, it would rather prefer to have an escalation in
warfare in the region so that the Muslims are kept pre-occupied with it and do
not resist the US occupation in Afghanistan. The US thus finds Musharraf to be
an asset because he implements their agenda in the region faithfully.
Then,
as a matter of preparing Pakistan for further attacks on Al-Qaeda and tribal
hideouts, the White House spokesman Tony Snow asserted that Al-Qaeda poses a
significant threat to Pakistan and they are studying possibilities of launching
attacks against specific targets of Al-Qaeda inside Pakistan.
This
prompted Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz to state that Pakistan is
capable of undertaking such an operation by itself and he categorically said
that his country will not allow anyone to use Pakistani territory to launch an
attack against the activities of any terrorist organisation. Thus, by giving
the impression that Pakistan had bravely refused to allow US to carryout
attacks inside its territory, Pakistan had committed itself to launch such
attacks against specific targets on the pretext that if it does not do so, then
the US will intervene and carry out such attacks!
5.
Following this sequence of events, a
heinous attack was launched on the Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) in the middle of
July 2007, as a result of which the Army’s agreement with the trabals was
finished and a situation of real war existed. But this war-like situation was
not between the US and the Muslims as it should have been, but between Muslim
tribes The Pakistani army, which has, under orders from the traitor Musharraf
and his regime, strengthened its forces confronting the tribals. Bush’s
National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley announced that they were considering
military reinforcements, and they see this as a positive development which they
support.
Thus
Musharraf’s hostility for the tribals was manifest. It was further demonstrated
during the attack on the Red Mosque where he massacred the ‘Ulama brutally and
rejected all mediatory efforts which were most likely to bear fruit. He
subjected the ‘Ulama and the Maulavis there to utter humiliation during the
raid as well as after their arrest.
Such
has been his animosity and hostility for the tribes!
6.
As for the Kashmir, the US is keen
to maintain a status-quo on its borders, and this is to keep India in good
humour because the US wants to position India to check the rise of China in the
far-east and South Asia. Musharraf has taken several steps to normalise the
relations after the two countries agreed to cease - fire in Kashmir in November
2003, and resumed peace negotiations in January 2004. This paved the way for
reopening crossings for buses crossing between the two countries as special
symbolic gesture to promote economic trade relations and thereby to normalise
the situation. This solution was proposed by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh who stated on 15th July, 2007 that the divided Kashmir region could
become a symbol of cooperation between India and Pakistan, and asserted that
talks aimed at ending 60 years of conflict will continue. Manmohan Singh then
reiterated his position on the Kashmir border and said: “… the borders can not
be changed but can be made irrelevant”. He said in a speech during a ceremony
while receiving an honorary degree in Jammu, the winter capital of the Jammu
and Kashmir province, a copy of which was sent to Reuters via e-mail, said:
«There should be no doubt that divisions and barriers exist, but the
Line-of-Control could become a line for peace for the free-flow of goods,
services for the people and freedom of thought.” Singh added: «I hope and I am
confident that the Jammu and Kashmir could one day become a symbol of
cooperation between India and Pakistan rather than a symbol of conflict.
The
current situation bears testimony that this solution is applied by Musharraf
with India and all statements relating to Kashmir from the Pakistani side in
the recent period are within this framework. Ever since the 2004 negotiations,
the right of self-determination for the people of Kashmir is abandoned and all
negotiations are held outside of its ambit. The Musharraf government no longer
demands a settlement on the basis of international resolutions. And off course
the issue the Kashmir jihad is for all practical purposes, stands abandoned.
This implies that things are moving towards a settlement that accepts the
status quo as the final solution on Kashmir.
7.
Thus, Musharraf has cut his ties to
Islam and Muslims:
He
has stood side by side with America in its aggression against Afghanistan,
mobilised his troops for bloodshed in the tribal areas, committed massacres in
Waziristan and Baluchistan, and raided the Red Mosque Red with weapons of
destruction, surrendered Kashmir, humiliated scholars and students of Islamic
schools, and tried to stop the Islamic da’wah. This list is endless!
Musharraf
has been rejected and has become an untouchable for Muslims, and finds no
popular support for his bid for a second term of presidency. Thus America has
no option but to seek the support of the secularists loyal to the British in
its bid to keep its stooge in power and that means reaching an accord with
Benazir Bhutto and her party. After this agreement she has suddenly become
clean and is being projected as a leader with integrity, while conveniently
forgetting that she has been accused of corruption and wrong-doings by
Musharraf himself, and banished from the country. As required under the deal,
Musharraf has issued an ordinance on 5/10/2007 granting her pardon just before
the presidential elections which were advanced to 6th Oct, 2007 instead of
being held after the parliamentary elections in January 2008. He had actually
feared that his supporters might not be able to get elected in the forthcoming
parliamentary elections in January 2008, and hence he will not be in a position
to ensure his own election as president. This is why he advanced the
presidential poll over the forthcoming parliamentary elections. This prompted
some to vote in his favour in previous elections which he ‘won’!
8.
The split in the Pakistani
government became evident on the issue of granting amnesty for Bhutto, when a
number of members of the ruling alliance objected to the amnesty and termed it
“unfair”. The Minister of Religious Affairs ‘Aijaz ul Haq, son of the former
military dictator who executed Benazir’s father Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in 1979,
said: “We have expressed our reservations on the proposed amnesty offer, we do
not support it”. In a clear reference to the opposition leader, the minister
stressed ‘not granting amnesty to corrupt politicians, especially those of a $
1.5 billion fraud”.
Such
an opposition within Musharraf’s ruling coalition is not strange or unexpected.
The very structure of Musharraf’s ruling Pakistan Muslim League (Q) was created
by combining the deserters of Nawaz Shareef’s Pakistan Muslim League and the
Pakistan Peoples Party of Benazir Bhutto. Musharraf had used the threat of dire
consequences and bringing corruption charges against these people if they did
not obey him. Obviously conflicting views in times of crises in such a party is
hardly surprising.
But
the issue is larger than simply Musharraf’s party and that is why the internal
opposition in his camp was inconsequential. Despite this resistance, Musharraf
and Benazir Bhutto concluded an accord to share power on 4th October, 2007
which was prompted by the US administration and the Britain which was followed
by the amnesty ordinance on 5th October, 2007 i.e. barely 24 hours before the
presidential elections which the Court allowed to be held as scheduled. This is
the reason that unlike other opposition members, Benazir’s PPP members did not
boycott the elections thus ensuring the quorum and a second presidential term
for Musharraf!
That
amnesty was part of an ordinance for ‘National Reconciliation’ which provides
for dropping of corruption charges against politicians accused of misdeeds.
This ordinance was approved by the government before being signed by the
president.
Under
the decree, pardon is to be granted to politicians who are accused of
corruption charges during the period from 1988 to 1999. This drafted was
crafted cleverly to expressly exclude amnesty for the former Prime Minister
Nawaz Shareef, who was ousted in a bloodless coup by Musharraf in 1999, because
the criminal cases filed against him date back to 2000.
Thus
a specific formula was worked out to exclude pardon for Nawaz Shareef although
formerly he was also an American stooge. This was because Nawaz Shareef earned
the US ire for failing to control the Pakistani army’s mobilisation in the
Kargil region of Kashmir in 1999, when they were poised to win against the
Indian army. Such a victory would have undermined the continuing in office of
Vajpayee, who was pro- US. America was upset over this and therefore prompted
Musharraf to remove Nawaz Shareef and seize power in 1999. Musharraf carried
out the US orders and withdrew Pakistani troops from the Kargil height without
occupying them. America did not pardon Nawaz Shareef for his ‘oversight’
despite his years of service to them. If only other stooges paid heed to and
learnt from this that the colonial powers only use their agents for their
interest and discard them at the first opportunity when they have served their
purpose!
After
this amnesty decision of 5th October, 2007, after ensuring Musharraf’s
re-election on 6th October, the Supreme Court considered the validity of the
presidential elections on 17th October, 2007 and though it has met repeatedly
since then, it is yet to pronounce its judgement on the issue. Meanwhile Bhutto
returned to Pakistan on 18th October, 2007 in the hope of a third term as prime
minister. She had earlier held the office of Prime Minster twice from 1988 to
1990 and 1993 to 1996.
9.
Americans have made their best
efforts to work out the deal with Bhutto, though only to ensure the survival of
Musharraf in power, even if Bhutto starts to change her ways like the
opposition did, once he occupies a second term.
American
had begun talks several months back in London with the British and Bhutto,
until the broad outline were worked out to share power with Musharraf as
President and Bhutto as Prime Minister. All the while America was aware that
Bhutto will not accept the Prime Minister’s office with its powers curtailed as
is the situation presently. They knew that she would seek real sharing of power
with the President of the Republic, yet they also realized that it was better
that Musharraf remains in power even if he loses some authority, that would be
better than losing him altogether and thereby losing influence in Pakistan!
Then,
in the light of these basic broad lines prepared by the US, talks began between
Musharraf and Bhutto sometimes directly, and another between the envoys,
sometimes in London and at times in the UAE. After some give-and-take of
concessions and bargains by either side, Musharraf agreed to remove any legal
obstacles to the return of Bhutto and cleared her of all charges of corruption
by legislative means - if necessary - to facilitate Bhutto to take over the
premiership for the third time, while she agreed not to boycott the parliament
like the opposition parties. She also agreed that no member of her party will
approach the Supreme Court against Musharraf’s decision to shed military
uniform only after being declared elected for the presidency.
And
the subsequent events have followed the agreed course:
The
People's Party deputies led by Bhutto did not abstain from voting in parliament
like the representatives of other parties.
The
Election Commission passed the amendment to election laws pertaining to the
election of the Head of State wherein the commission’s head who was pro
Bhutto’s party and opposed to Musharraf abstained thereby paving the way for
repeal of article 63, which was an obstacle to Musharraf’s election while in
uniform. At the same time, the Pakistan Muslim League secretary told the press
in his statement that the president will shed his military uniform only after
his re-election.
On
September 27, when he began his re-election bid, Musharraf said that he will
abide by the Supreme Court's ruling on the uniform issue, though it had already
been assured by the repeal of article 63 by the Election Commission. On
September 29 the Election Commission examined 43 applications for nomination
and selected 6 of these including Musharraf and Amin Fahim, a Bhutto confidante
who said that he will withdraw his application if Musharraf’s application is
accepted! Thus Musharraf, his rival Wajeehuddin Ahmed, and three other candidates
remained in the fray.
On
1st October, when the final list of official candidates was announced, 85
members of parliament resigned, including supporters of Nawaz Shareef, but
representatives of Bhutto’s PPP remained in parliament! On 02nd October one of
Musharraf’s ministers announced that criminal charges will not be pressed
against Benazir Bhutto, and then immediately added that in the event of
Musharraf being elected president of the state he will resign as chief of army.
Ashfaque Kiyani, a close confidante of Musharraf and former ISI head was
meanwhile already promoted as Vice Chief of Staff thereby ensuring that only he
succeeds him as Army chief! Musharraf believed Bhutto will accept him as army
chief when she becomes the prime minister, or at least will not object. It may
be mentioned that Ashfaque Kiyani was the one who headed the official
delegation for talks with her on Musharraf’s behalf.
Then
and things went smoothly, the amnesty decree was issued on 5th October, 2007,
Musharraf won in the elections on 6th October, 2007 the official results though
were not declared on the directions of the Supreme Court and Bhutto arrived in
Pakistan on 18th October, 2007, except that there was an assassination attempt
on Bhutto during the course of her motorcade rally. It is unlikely that
Musharraf be behind this attempt as he needs her at least at this stage and
until the new elections at the beginning of next year, however, as we have
stated, some wings of government, particularly those loyal to the Zia ul Haq,
who were opposed to amnesty for Bhutto. But for the fact that the deal is
critical to the United States and Musharraf at the present time, it could be
either.
From
the above, it becomes clear why the US is accepting Bhutto despite her British
loyalties which she assumed during her stay there while in exile.
As
for the path Pakistan is to tread from here in the midst of these events,
Pakistan ever since its inception nearly sixty years ago has had government of
one loyalty: Men loyal to Britain and men loyal to America, now for the first
time in its history, it will have two heads: Musharraf loyal to America, and
Bhutto to Britain, that is if they continued their commitment to implement the
deal, and this makes the situation in Pakistan susceptible to confrontation and
conflict in the not-too-distant future.
As
has been previously stated, America had no option but to strike a deal with
Bhutto in order to save Musharraf from falling and thus to sustain its
influence in Pakistan, even if it is diluted to an extent due to the transfer
some authority to her and thereby to the British.
It is
expected that both will continue to honour the deal at least until the next
elections, as both Musharraf and Bhutto need that:
Musharraf
needs to have a coalition in the parliament of his party and Bhutto in order to
ensure ratification of laws by the parliament, while Bhutto needs support of
parliament to survive in office as leader of the majority coalition.
And
though both are the secular and are waging war on Islam and Muslims, and
statements demonstrate that amply, though what they conceal in their chest in
greater, yet the two agents and stooges of their respective masters have
loyalties that are conflicting, and this implies that their honeymoon will not
last long.
This
is because the major powers clash for influence does not accept such hurdles in
the middle of the road, especially when one of the parties happens to be
America, complete with its hegemonistic and arrogant tendencies. It is
therefore plausible that America and Musharraf will pose serious legal and
physical hurdles to cut her to size and even banish her into another exile if
they could!
At
the same time, the Bhutto typical English wickedness, as well as political
acumen, may be able to maneuver things against Musharraf in order to undermine
the his credibility and survival at the Presidential Palace, and even remove
him if they could- either by political manipulation or through judiciary by
prompting her men to move the courts against Musharraf.
Thus,
a clash is expected between the parties, politically and physically, and this
has two aspects:
A
negative aspect: since the unrest and instability as a result of conflict will
make people's lives difficult and miserable.
The
positive aspect is that Allah will drain their strengths fighting each other,
and He will make one oppressor take revenge on another before Allah Himself
punishes them both, He (swt) is all powerful and wise.
Allah
(swt) willing, this will have goodness for victory and the people, And Allâh
has full power and control over His Affairs, but most of men know not.
Or,
See this Link:
No comments:
Post a Comment