The Australian describes Pervez Musharraf as “West’s most disappointing ally in the war on terror. Let’s be clear about this: Musharraf was a catastrophic failure for Pakistan.

“He claimed to have turned the country around and to have turned it against the Taliban terrorists it had created and succoured in Afghanistan. In fact, he did nothing of the kind. Or rather, at the same time as he did a bit of that, his military continued to co-operate with the Taliban, which is being battled by, among others, Australian troops in Afghanistan.

“But the endless cycle of Pakistani politics contains only a couple of variations. One is for a civilian government to fail amid corruption and incompetence and be replaced by a military dictator, who is at first welcomed for his effectiveness.

“But then the military dictator in turn fails and is replaced by a democratically elected government, which is at first welcomed for its democratic credentials and its promise of economic reform. It, too, then fails and is replaced by a new military dictator.

“But all the while that this cycle endlessly repeats, Pakistan sinks slowly into state failure and social chaos.” More here…

The AFP reports: “With Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf gone, Washington must work with Islamabad’s democratically elected government to wage the ‘war on terror’ — a task US experts say may be more challenging but could reap better results.

However, the challenges to the democratically-elected government in Pakistan are many. “Some US experts said that Musharraf, who ruled with almost unfettered power during most of his tenure, played a double game and was not a genuine US war-on-terror partner despite more than 10 billion dollars in US aid to his country. Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, Al-Qaeda’s safe haven in Pakistan grew rapidly under Musharraf’s watch, they said.” More here…

“Selig Harrison, head of the Asia program at the Center for International Policy, says Musharraf’s departure presents an opportunity for the U.S. to undo some of the damage caused by its relationship with the former general.

“Harrison says Musharraf’s resignation should allow the U.S. to let that anti-Americanism die down and to ’shut up and do absolutely nothing but respond to initiatives from the new government’.” More here…

The Telegraph says: “Musharraf’s departure is certainly a watershed…However, the mess he has left behind is one that will haunt Pakistan and the world in the months ahead. ” More here…

Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd is worried about his country’s troops in Afghanistan. More here…

Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf announced his resignation in a live telecast to his countrymen today. He warned that the country was going down the hill. He said would send his formal resignation today itself, thus saving himself from the humiliation of the impeachment proceedings against him.

This follows hectic backroom parleys/bargaining between powerful diplomats from US, Britain and Saudi Arabia and the ruling political leaders in Pakistan. Now the question is: Will Musharraf stay on in Pakistan or seek a sanctuary elsewhere? While we await the answer, here is my earlier post…

(Workers of political parties danced on the streets and the Karachi stock exchange shot up as Musharraf announced his resignation, reports Reuters.)

The departure of the former army chief, who seized power in a bloodless coup in 1999, now turns the spotlight on the coalition leaders Asif Ali Zardari, widower of Benazir Bhutto, and former prime minister Nawaz Sharif. The important/ticklish question is who would replace Pervez Musharraf as President of Pakistan?

Musharraf recently faced major reverses when Pakistan’s four provincial parliaments passed resolutions, with overwhelming backing, declaring him unfit for office. The provincial votes were symbolic. It had become clear that the ruling coalition now has the two-thirds majority needed to impeach him.

Musharraf is the first president forced out by a civilian government, signaling the reticence of the army to lend support to their one-time commander in chief. “As Pakistan’s fourth military ruler, he clung to power in a nation that has been governed by the armed forces for more than half its 61 years,” says Bloomberg.

” ‘This is the opportune moment for the government now,’ said Alok Bansal, an analyst at the Institute of Defence Studies and Analyses in New Delhi. ‘Unless they show tenacity now, the coalition may splinter’.” More here…

Here is the chronology of Musharraf rule…Please click here…

The New York Times has an interesting article how Musharraf walked a tightrope. “Musharraf continued to provide cover to the Taliban, but still managed to convince the Americans for many years that it was not a double game…The feat was so skilful that Mr. Musharraf won more than $10 billion in American military assistance for his army, as well as unannounced covert aid.”
More here… And here…

A direct indictment of the US administration and the US media in its blind support for almost a decade to a dictator whose role was suspect right from the beginning when the so-called “war-on-terror” was launched by his protector/mentor in the White House.

It is becoming clear that the US administration’s great blunders in international relations are posing a serious threat to peace and economy. Now with Musharraf out, will those guilty in the US ever be held accountable? But will it be fair to single out a few individuals when the entire establishment stood as mute witness all these years?

India (and now Afghanistan) had been complaining about the dangerous role of Pakistan’s spy agency ISI in fomenting terrorism in the two countries for years. But it was downplayed in the US media, and the US administration turned a blind eye. More here…

More earlier posts here…

As the presidential impeachment drama unfolds in Pakistan, the indications are that Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf might resign if he is allowed to stay on in Pakistan and gets immunity from legal action. I recommend three interesting stories as to where Musharraf could find a sanctuary.

“The United States and Britain remain top of the list of with Turkey and Saudi Arabia the other options,” says The Times of India. “A wicked idea floated by Musharraf-haters: Send him to Neharwali-gali in Old Delhi’s Daryaganj (in India), where the Pakistani general was born and grew up till he was a toddler (in an undivided India).

“According to Pakistani writer Tariq Ali, sanctuaries in Manhattan, Texas and the Turkish island of Büyükada are being considered for Musharraf. The toothless dictator ”would prefer a large estate in Pakistan, preferably near a golf course. In fact, the Pakistani security agencies themselves are not keen to guard Musharraf because he is a sure-fire candidate for assassination attempts. Turkey, a country Musharraf grew up in as a young boy, is said to think on similar lines.

“US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice more than hinted that Musharraf is not welcome in the U.S as a political refugee… Ironically, Musharraf’s safest option is probably Saudi Arabia, to where he exiled his current nemesis Nawaz Sharief. But the whisky-swilling, dog-loving, media-crazy dictator is not the ideal guest for the fundamentalist kingdom.” More here…

The Independent has a story about the luxurious home in the quiet suburbs of Islamabad, less than six weeks from completion, that has been built by Pervez Musharraf as a retirement home for himself and his wife. Mr Hammad Husain, the architect commissioned by Mr Musharraf, said the home will include a fish-pond, a walking track and an extraordinary amount of barbed wire.

” ‘Most of what you see is his input, along with mine,’ said Mr Husain, as a team of labourers slaved beneath the blistering sun. ‘He has gone into the detail, he has been part of it and comes here to look at things.’ Mr Husain, a family friend of the Musharrafs, said the President’s wife, Sehba, had chosen the curtains and fittings for the house, estimated at £1.25 million.” More here…

And finally the story from The News of Pakistan…Please click here…

The photo above (courtesy Getty Images) shows Musharraf with his family members.

The woes of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf seem to be unending. While the Parliament has begun formulating the impeachment proceedings against Musharraf, Al-Qaida’s number two Ayman al-Zawahiri slammed “Pakistan’s embattled President Pervez Musharraf as an enemy of Islam in a first audio message in English posted online on Saturday,” reports NDTV, India’s influential TV channel.

“In the message Zawahiri also dismissed the Pakistani army as a ‘band of mercenaries’ controlled by the US administration.
He chided Musharraf for offering ‘all support to topple the Muslim emirate in Afghanistan,’ referring to the US-led war which defeated the Taliban regime in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.

“Is the Pakistan army an army defending Muslims, or merely a security service agency or a band of mercenaries which kills Muslims to please its masters, the neo-crusaders in the White House’, he said, in an apparent attempt to incite Muslim Pakistanis against the army.” More here…

The Al-Qaeda message at this juncture appears to be an attempt to queer the pitch for, or throw a challenge to, those who wish to give sanctuary to the embattled President Musharraf.

Meanwhile Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said that Musharraf is ‘short of time’ and if he does not quit by Sunday, the impeachment proceedings will start. More here…

A Pakistani columnist guesses about the possible safe sanctuaries for Musharraf…Please click here…

Eight years ago Nawaz Sharif, the then Prime Minister of Pakistan, was thrown into prison and tried by the military regime led by General Pervez Musharraf. Sharif was jailed before being forced into exile in Saudi Arabia.

On Friday the Saudi Arabia’s intelligence chief arrived in Pakistan at a time when impeachment stares Musharraf in the face.The question being asked is whether President Musharraf would find a sanctuary in the desert kingdom. (My earlier post here…)

The photo above (courtesy AFP) shows Saudi intelligence chief Prince Muqrin bin Abdul Aziz. AFP reports: “A senior official said that ‘Yes, Saudi intelligence chief did visit Pakistan on Friday and met senior government officials.The main purpose of the visit was to find an amicable solution to the (Musharraf impeachment) issue and that no one should become a laughing stock’.

“Asked what solution the coalition regarded as acceptable, the official said that ‘Musharraf should step down’ but that it was ‘really up to Musharraf’ if his plans included exile to Saudi Arabia.” More here…

The Financial Times says: “Now that the Musharraf strategy has passed its sell-by date, many policy experts in Washington question whether it was as mistaken to place America’s eggs in Musharraf’s basket as it was for Mr Bush to read a good ’soul’ behind Vladimir Putin’s poker eyes.

“Both countries, and particularly Pakistan, are now either less willing or able to co-operate with American interests than they were in 2001…” More here…

The Independent says: “Since seizing power in 1999, Mr Musharraf has cheated both physical and political death several times. If he survives this latest crisis, it will be his most surprising turn yet. As one of his close allies, Senator Mushahid Hussain, often says: ‘Musharraf is like a cat with nine lives and he has used eight of them’.” More here…

Meanwhile analysts have begun to look at post-Musharraf era. A sample here…

Reports from Pakistan indicate that Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf is losing ground fast. The Guardian states that British and American diplomats are attempting to find an exit for Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf, a staunch western ally, before he is dragged through a humiliating impeachment process.

“Musharraf has been one of the Bush administration’s closest allies. While Washington would prefer not to host his exile, as it would look bad politically, it would if he has nowhere else to go. His son lives in the US.

“Rumours that Musharraf is set to quit have been circulating in Pakistan for several days. He has suffered a collapse in support as three of Pakistan’s four provincial parliaments have passed resolutions, with overwhelming backing, declaring him unfit for office. The fourth province is expected to follow soon.

“The provincial votes were symbolic, but the formal process will begin early next week with an impeachment motion in the national parliament. It is clear that the ruling coalition now has the two-thirds majority needed to impeach him. Government insiders said that if Musharraf wants to quit, he must do so before the impeachment proceedings begin, leaving him with only a few days. His spokesman has rebutted any suggestion that he will step down.”

More here…

Six months ago I wrote about a brave Pakistani woman who has been relentlessly fighting the two arbiters of her country’s destiny, Pakistan’s army and the US administration. (See here…) When she was virtually hounded out of Pakistan, Dr Ayesha Siddiqa sought refuge in the world of US academia.

Here is Ayesha Siddiqua’s fresh salvo from the Stanford University as reported in the Chowk. “Ayesha Siddiqa said that behind the US support for certain elements of the Pakistani society was its specious perception of modernity. She noted that whenever the western media speaks of Pakistani politicians it inevitably looks for that person’s western educational credentials, for education from Harvard or Oxford. Similarly, the West considers army generals ‘modern.’

“She accused the US of strengthening the Pakistan military. ‘Military today is a giant which has strong political control, economic control, and a very dominant social presence; a military that has over 7% share of the GDP, which controls one-third of heavy manufacturing in the country, which controls 6-7% private sector assets. It has a huge economic presence. It is a constant story of uneven development, between different organizations and institutions.’

“Ayesha Siddiqa debunked the argument that Pakistan economy has always been in better health under military dictators. She explained how Pakistan had to pay a heavy price at the end of every military rule.

“That the ‘sham stability’ under General Ayub Khan in 1960s ended with the breaking up of Pakistan, Zia’s period of ‘stability’ gave Pakistan the Jihadi culture, and now the high economic performance era of Musharraf’s rule has given Pakistan gaping fault line in the society, between its secular and conservative elements.

“Ayesha Siddiqa rebuked ‘educated’ Pakistanis who look down upon the masses, call them illiterate and accuse them of being subservient to authority. She asserted that the real stability in Pakistan would come from its ordinary people and the latest elections had shown that these ‘illiterate’ people were quite capable of making intelligent decisions.

“Ayesha Siddiqa was still excited by the election results because ‘I as an ordinary Pakistani can say that we are not a failed state. The civil society is alive. These elections tell us that we are as ordinary or extraordinary as anybody else’.

“She impressed upon the audience that Pakistan was far from being a failed state—it had an active civil society. Analyzing the recent elections she said people did not just vote against Musharraf (through voting against PML-Q), Pakistanis also rejected other symbols of authoritarianism.

“She said the army can be kept out of politics if the civil governments negotiate with the army on military’s economic interests. Ayesha Siddiqa’s expectation from the Pakistan army was that of a professional force which would not interfere in politics. Just sit back, relax, play golf and not get into politics, was her advice to the Pakistan military.” More here…

A convergence of events–the Russian crackdown in Georgia, Musharraf’s imminent impeachment in Pakistan, the continuing impasse over Iran’s nuclear ambitions–is underscoring the damage of the bellicose Bush foreign policy to America’s relations with the rest of the world.

As the McCain campaign mocks Obama’s willingness to negotiate with rather than bully adversarial nations and dicey allies, reality keeps offering up situations that demonstrate the failure of the Neo-Con blueprint for American world dominance by military power that took us into an unending war in Iraq.

Nicholas Kristof points out that “the United States is hugely overinvesting in military tools and underinvesting in diplomatic tools. The result is a lopsided foreign policy that antagonizes the rest of the world and is ineffective in tackling many modern problems. After all, you can’t bomb global warming.”

Item: As Bush and Putin watch the Beijing Olympics together, the US is helpless to deter new Russian aggression. “While America considers Georgia its strongest ally in the bloc of former Soviet countries,” an analysis concludes, “Washington needs Russia too much on big issues like Iran to risk it all to defend Georgia.”

More here.

Monday would be a crucial day for President Pervez Musharraf when impeachment proceedings against him begin in the Pakistan Parliament. However, there are reports that all-powerful Pakistan army would like to avoid the public humiliation of Musharraf and ask him to resign within a week.

The Telegraph reports: “The claim was supported by a former military aide to the president who said that the army’s leadership wished Mr Musharraf to be spared the humiliation of impeachment.

“The civilian government intensified an attritional, seven-month long power struggle with the presidency when it announced earlier this week that it is to begin impeachment proceedings against Mr Musharraf on Monday.

“The twin arbiters of power in Pakistan, the army chief of staff, Gen Ashfaq Kiyani, and America, which has provided dollars 12 billion in military aid to the country in the last six years, have publicly declared themselves to be neutral on Pakistan’s domestic politics.”

“A senior official from the ruling government coalition partner, the Pakistan’s People’s Party (PPP) said that the army has ‘whispered in Musharraf’s ear that it is time to leave’.” More here…

Well, fight whom? The terrorists or the Pakistani people’s mandate? President Pervez Musharraf, who became a military dictator in a coup in 1999, has become a pathetic figure begging his former generals to come to his rescue to remain in the presidential chair.

Obviously, Musharraf has realized that the US might not be able to bail him out this time if the democratically elected government has its way. The present Chief of Army Staff’s decision regarding Musharraf would be crucial.

(Meanwhile Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani left for China on Thursday to represent Pakistan in the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics, cancelling Musharraf’s visit. More here…)

It is again a crisis time for Pakistan. If the generals gang up then there could be a civil war as nearly 80 per cent of Pakistanis want Musharraf to be removed from office. (See here…) Or. the generals could be divided on the issue and this could result in further complications.

“There was intense speculation in Pakistan yesterday that the military could be poised to stage another coup, or that the President may use his constitutional powers to dismiss the Government and parliament, thereby snuffing out the impeachment moves,” reports The Australian.

“Coalition leaders Asif Ali Zardari, widower of Benazir Bhutto, and former prime minister Nawaz Sharif announced on Thursday they would seek Mr Musharraf’s impeachment for allegedly mismanaging the country.

“Yesterday, the tough former commando, who turns 65 on Monday, reportedly told advisers holed up with him in his heavily guarded home in the heart of the headquarters of Pakistan’s 600,000-strong army: ‘There can be no question of surrender. None!
They’re not going to force me to resign. I’ve done nothing wrong. I’m going to fight this to the end.’

“The latest crisis prompted dire warnings from commentators yesterday. ‘The only ones who are visibly relishing their prospects (in this crisis) are the terrorists of al-Qa’ida and the Taliban who thrive in states of political anarchy and economic dysfunction,’ wrote Friday Times newspaper editor Najam Sethi.

“The day of reckoning is Monday, when parliament is due to meet in Islamabad - summoned for an ‘execution’ session on the orders of Mr Musharraf.”

More here…

Yes, says The Economist. It seems that Pakistan’s rival centers of power are converging on one theme. “After showdown talks on August 6th and 7th Mr Nawaz Sharif and the PPP’s leader, Asif Zardari, reached a provisional agreement to impeach the president and restore the judges (sacked by President Musharraf).

(Meanwhile in a dramatic development President Pervez Musharraf on Thursday dropped plans to travel to Beijing to witness the Olympics 2008 amid deepening political crisis at home, says The Khaleej Times. More here…) To read my earlier post please click here…

The Economist adds: “Pakistan is sliding. Taliban commanders are taking over more of the country’s ungoverned north-west by the day. From there they launch attacks into Afghanistan, killing NATO soldiers and countless Afghans. America, hitherto a remarkably forgiving ally, appears to think Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) is assisting them.

“The economy is hell-bound. Inflation is running at 25% a year. The stockmarket in Karachi has lost 35% of its value since April. During blackouts, Pakistani businessmen trade tales of capital flight. Foreign-exchange reserves—once emblematic of economic recovery—now barely cover three months of imports.

“Having ruled Pakistan more or less outright for almost a decade, Mr Musharraf is blamed for many of its troubles. According to a poll for the International Republican Institute, an American NGO, 83% of Pakistanis want him out and the judges reinstated.

Click here for more…

AFP adds: “Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf will defend himself against impeachment, aides said Friday, a day after the ruling coalition vowed to launch proceedings to drive the key US ally from power.

“Musharraf was set to meet his top legal and political advisers to discuss his dwindling options in the face of the most serious challenge to the former general’s position since he seized power in a bloodless military coup in 1999.” More here…

And here… For the NYT report please click here…

Squeeze them out of Iraq, and they squirt into Afghanistan and Pakistan tribal areas. What’s clear is that the Bush-McCain mantra of “fight them there [Iraq] so we don’t have to fight them here” has turned out to be an oversimplification of the war on terror the US will be fighting through the next Administration and beyond.

This week, A US Marines commander reported his troops have killed 400 insurgents in southern Afghanistan since late April, and visiting Congressmen were told the Bush administration is “recalibrating operations in the region because of a 40 percent increase in violent attacks against US-led forces in Afghanistan that have pushed US casualties for the month of June beyond the monthly toll in Iraq.”

Read the rest of this entry.

As President Prevez Musharraf was swearing in newly-elected Yousaf Raza Gilani as Pakistan’s Prime Minister on Tuesday, there came trooping in at Islamabad the U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, and Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Richard Boucher, who straightaway began talks with former premier Nawaz Sharif. Later, they visited Musharraf at the presidential palace. The U.S. Embassy declined to say who else the envoys would meet.

Perhaps sending a clear message to all and sundry as to who calls the shots in Pakistan!!! Zaffar Abbas, an editor with Pakistan’s Dawn newspaper, said the visit was badly timed. “Their presence on the day when the new prime minister was inducted would signal to both Islamic extremists and moderates that ‘here are the Americans, right here in Islamabad, meeting with senior politicians in the new government, trying to dictate terms’,” Abbas said. More here…

Bush and diplomacy…you must be joking!!!

Is it curtains for the bluff and bluster game played by President ex-General Pervez Musharraf and his mentor in the White House, President George W. Bush, for the past eight years? The first important decision the new Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani took after being elected as prime minister was to order the release of the Chief Justice of the highest court, Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry.

Justice Chaudhry and his family had been confined to his house since Musharraf declared a state of emergency in November last year and sacked 60 senior judges ahead of a Supreme Court ruling that could have invalidated his re-election as president. More here…

Now both Musharraf and Bush appear as pathetic caricatures extolling the virtues of democracy after working overtime to crush any dissidence to the totalitarian rule of Musharraf. The Pakistani president fearing that his days were numbered has started a media campaign that he would love to work with the new government and “promote democracy”.

If one reads carefully the US administration’s recent press release, it would appear that counter-terrorism is not really the main issue in engaging the Pakistan government!!! Imagine Musharraf was being promoted by the US government for eight years and given billions of dollars for the so-called “war-on-terror”.

Here is what the White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said: “We look forward to working with the new government in Pakistan. There’s lots of different areas where we can cooperate - not just counter terrorism, but across the board.”

The US State department Spokesman Sean McCormack said: “This (Gilani becoming PM) was the selection of the Pakistani political leadership and people. (Obviously…Bush & Co are still trying to somehow ensure that dictator Musharraf contiues as president.) We look forward to work with Gilani and his government. Beyond that, I don’t know that there’s much more to add other than our congratulations to his election as prime minister.” What a way to greet the return of democracy in Pakistan!!!

Why is the US administration not talking about seeking the new Pakistan government’s support for “war-on-terror”, or capturing al-Qaeda leaders or Osama-bin-Laden? Are these not the real issues? Or were these used as camouflage to ensure the survival of Musharraf all these years for some extraneous reasons?

These are serious matters which have not found proper space in the US media/blogs for some strange/unknown reasons, and may have long term impact on the US and its media’s standing/credibility in the world.

To give one example of the US backing dictators, who are despised by their people, and how this boomrangs: “The new Pakistan prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, a former house speaker who until two years ago was jailed under what he claims were politically motivated charges, beat the pro-Musharraf candidate for the premier’s slot, Chaudhry Pervez Elahi, by 264 votes to 42.”

Read the rest of this entry »

With President Bush’s would-be successors squabbling over Iraq, they are neglecting the main threat of terror that will face one of them taking office next January.

In Pakistan, Musharraf is on his way out as leaders of the two dominant parties agree to reinstate the judges he fired and try to strip him of crucial powers. (More on the nuclear dilemma here.)

“Afghanistan is slipping toward failure,” Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden warns. “The Taliban is back, violence is up, drug production is booming and the Afghans are losing faith in their government. All the legs of our strategy–security, counter-narcotics efforts, reconstruction and governance–have gone wobbly.”

The schedule of staying or going in Iraq is dominating the foreign policy debate in the presidential campaign, but Pakistan and Afghanistan are becoming more urgent.

“If we should have had a surge anywhere,” Sen. Biden wrote last week in the New York Times, “it is Afghanistan…In six years, we have spent on Afghanistan’s reconstruction only what we spend every three weeks on military operations in Iraq.”

The border area between the two countries, according to Biden is “a freeway of fundamentalism: the Taliban and Al Qaeda find sanctuary in Pakistan, while Pakistani suicide bombers wreak havoc in Afghanistan.”

The Bush-Cheney strategy of relying on Musharraf’s unreliable assurances about rooting them out is collapsing, but this Administration is unlikely to face that fact.

Biden sums it up: “The next president will have to rally America and the world to ‘fight them over there unless we want to fight them over here.’ The ‘over there’ is not, as President Bush has claimed, Iraq, but rather the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

Voters should be pressing Sens. McCain, Clinton and Obama to tell them what they are going to do about that.

Cross-posted from my blog.

I am just adding another point to Shaun Mullen’s post on the Bush administration’s acts of, what he calls, “criminality and misdeeds”. What took my breath away was this story in The Guardian newspaper that American officials processing the payments at the US embassy in Islamabad have concluded that no one knows where 70 per cent of the American aid to Pakistan has vanished!!! Wow!

“America’s massive military aid package to Pakistan has come under scrutiny after allegations that as much as 70% of $5.4bn in assistance has been misspent. Pakistan provides over 100,000 troops and directs the fight; the US foots the bill for food, fuel, ammunition and maintenance. The cash payments — averaging $80m a month — have been a cornerstone of US support for President Pervez Musharraf.”

So is Bush and Co scared that once their man in Islamabad leaves office a lot of inconvenient questions may surface? Is it that the major threat to the US administration in the “War on Terror” does not come from terrorists but the change of guard in Islamabad? But that’s not the point. What is alarming is that no one in the US seems interested in the blatant misuse of the public money.

Let’s continue with The Guardian story: “Since 2002, the US has paid the operating costs of Pakistan’s military operations in the tribal belt along the Afghan border, where Taliban and al-Qaida fighters are sheltering.

“But over the past 18 months, as militants seized vast swaths of the tribal belt and repelled a string of Pakistani offensives, the funding has come under the microscope.

“The controversy highlights not only strains in the relationship between Washington and Islamabad but also the limits of President George Bush’s ‘war on terror’.”

More here…

And here…

The cussed approach of the US administration bodes ill for the emerging democracy in Pakistan and may create a serious crisis there. This is becoming clear by the latest news. The Pakistani Spectator says that the political parties that have won decisively, especially Nawaz Sharif’s PML-N party does not believe that President Pervez Musharraf would leave office voluntarily, and is lobbying hard for his impeachment.

The blog adds that Nawaz Sharif’s party has the support of the late Benazir Bhutto’s PPP and other parties, including the independents, other nationalist parties from Balochistan, and even defectors from the PML-Q (who were badly humiliated at the hustings this time) on whose support Musharraf became president before the general elections.

Leaders of political parties are meeting at the moment and once the ruling coalition gets two-thirds majority it would be an exteremly tough going for President Musharraf with impeachment staring him in his face.

The Pakistani Spectator says that in this action packed drama the US ambassador to Pakistan is playing a desperate game to ensure the survival of President Musharraf. The blog says that now it is the battle between the US ambassador and the mandate of the Pakistani people.

Wow! Is this another form of ‘War on Terror’? Or an attempt to cover up the strange goings-on between Bush and Musharraf during the past seven years with billions of dollars pouring into Pakistan’s army establishment led by the present Pakistani President? So who are the real terrorists? No one has the guts to answer that question…!!!

More here…

Meanwhile NYT reports that Nawaz Sharif increased the pressure on President Pervez Musharraf by urging him to call a session of Parliament and contending that the three opposition parties discussing a coalition had won two-thirds of the seats. Read the rest of this entry »

Will he?…Will he not? The once mighty ex-general Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan has become a pathetic figure desperately trying to cling on to the presidential chair. Meanwhile the new democratically elected politicians and the Pakistani public seem adamant…and are sending a clear message that the military dictator should move out of the presidential palace.

Yesterday I saw the BBC’s “Have Your Say” programme that reflects opinions worldwide on a topical subject. The majority verdict favoured that Mr Musharraf bow out of office instead of going through the ugly drama of impeachment by the newly elected parliament in Pakistan…But the world has come to believe that Musharraf would not leave office until his mentor in the White House orders him to do so. (However, the mentor has a few more months to go before he too is reduced to a similar situation as his Pakistani protege).

The last the world heard on this subject was that Bush & Co were pleading with (or pressurising) the new democratically elected Pakistani leaders to allow Musharraf to stay on. Says so much eloquently for the USA promoting democracies in the world and fighting ‘dictators’!!!

Pakistan’s wellknown newspaper The Dawn reports: “US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has backed President Pervez Musharraf in the strongest possible term, calling him the man the United States has been dealing with as the president and wants to continue to do so. Her endorsement comes three days after President Bush telephoned his Pakistani counterpart, apparently to assure him that his administration still recognises Mr Musharraf as the president of Pakistan despite the changes that followed the elections.”

While the Hindustan Times says: “Pakistan’s president Pervez Musharraf may soon resign to avoid being pushed out by the new coalition of the Pakistan Muslim League(N) and the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), which will shortly assume power, according to a report in The Sunday Telegraph.

Read the rest of this entry »

Political chaos in Pakistan could bring nuclear headaches for the US, and what our government is doing to prop up a failing regime recalls efforts three decades ago on behalf of our old ally, the Shah of Iran.

The McClatchy Newspapers report: “The Bush administration is pressing the opposition leaders who defeated Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to allow the former general to retain his position, a move that Western diplomats and U.S. officials say could trigger the very turmoil the United States seeks to avoid.

“U.S. officials, from President Bush on down, said this week that they think Musharraf, a longtime U.S. ally, should continue to play a role, despite his party’s rout in parliamentary elections Monday and his unpopularity in the volatile, nuclear-armed nation.”

Pressuring the newly elected anti-Musharraf majority to retain our iffy friend may turn out to be the kind of mistake we made in the late 1970s on behalf of the Shah before and after he was deposed in Iran. Despite Jimmy Carter’s misgivings, he was persuaded by Henry Kissinger and his oil friends to let the old US ally come here, which resulted in occupation of the American Embassy in Tehran for 444 days and the ongoing hostility with Iran.

Read more.

On Monday (February 18) morning, 64,000 polling stations will open in Pakistan’s 272 constituencies. Polling stations are thought likely to shut at 5 pm local time, and counts will be completed some two or three hours later. So will the elections be fair?

“On a scale from terrible to great, it’ll be somewhere in the middle” is what Richard Boucher, the US assistant secretary of state for South Asia, said when asked about the possibility of fraud. For The Guardian Q&A on Pakistani polls please click here… For the CNN Q&A please click here…

Recent opinion surveys show the opposition poised for a landslide victory amid disenchantment with eight years of military rule under President Pervez Musharraf, according to the Associated Press. “Although Musharraf is not up for re-election, he could face impeachment if the opposition wins a two-thirds majority in the legislature. Opposition politicians fear the results will be manipulated in hopes of assuring the ruling party enough seats to block any impeachment.

“Last week, New York-based Human Rights Watch questioned the election commission’s impartiality, saying it has ignored complaints of harrassment against opposition candidates. On Friday, Sen. Joseph Biden, Delaware Democrat who is head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the United States should consider cutting off military aid to Pakistan if the elections are rigged.” More here…

Sushant Sareen, an expert on Pakistan, says that “after 1970, Pakistan has never ever witnessed a free and fair election. There is no reason to believe that the February 18 elections will be any different. The stakes for Pervez Musharraf, his cronies (the Pakistan Muslim League and allied parties), his patrons (the Americans) and perhaps also for his erstwhile core constituency (the Pakistan army) are so high that the luxury of a clean election cannot be permitted.” More here…

Mr Wajid Shamsul Hasan, a senior diplomat and former Pakistan High Commissioner to London, says “numerous sources from the Pakistan People’s Party’s monitoring unit, with information collected from every region, confirm that systematic election rigging is already under way by President Pervez Musharraf’s party workers. Already 25 million voters have disappeared from the electoral rolls. Perhaps as many as half the polling booths have been closed in key areas, making it almost impossible to vote. So it certainly is an uneven playing field.”
Read the rest of this entry »