Only Option for U.S.: Prepare for Musharraf’s ‘Inevitable Fall’

December 31st, 2007
By WILLIAM KERN

Print Print

What should Washington do, now that its plans for restoring democracy in Pakistan appear to have unraveled? According the the editorial board of Mexico’s La Jornada newspaper, the U.S. should, ‘Prevent Musharraf from using the assassination of Bhutto and the violence it has unleashed to reinstall the state of emergency and postpone elections indefinitely; pressure him to carry out a peaceful democratic transition as quickly as possible; and relinquish control of a regime whose fall, in any case, seems inevitable.’

EDITORIAL

Translated By Virginia Gillenwater

December 28, 2007

Mexico - La Jornada - Original Article (Spanish)

The former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto, was assassinated yesterday in Rawalpindi, a suburb of the capital, Islamabad, while she participated in a political rally while campaigning for parliamentary elections scheduled for January 8. The suicide bombing that claimed the life of the main opposition leader to Pervez Musharraf’s regime, along with about twenty others, has been the subject of condemnation by the international community. Among these, there was U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s statement, who described the incident as, “an assault on the stability of the country and its democratic process,” as well as the views of the United States President, George W. Bush, who expressed deep concern and a rejection of the “cowardly” attack by “extremist murderers.”

The death of the former Pakistani premier has succeeded in sinking the Central-Asian nation into a chaotic scene of social tension, which has aggravated the political crisis and the crisis of governance confronting Musharraf’s regime: violent demonstrations and clashes with police have proliferated throughout the country and have resulted in fatalities; Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, the other major figure opposing the government, has announced that his party will boycott the January polls and he has asked for the immediate resignation of the president in order to, “save Pakistan.”

For his part, Musharraf blamed the attack on terrorist groups, called upon the population to remain calm to neutralize their “diabolical project,” and decreed three days of national mourning. Meanwhile, supporters of the deceased leader pointed to the government as the intellectual author of the attack.

Whether such accusations are true or not, it is undeniable that the Pakistani president bears a major share of the responsibility for Bhutto’s murder. Various actions of his government, such as the bloody assault on the Red Mosque in Islamabad last July or the imposition of a state of emergency in November, ostensibly to complete the “transition to democracy” in that country, have ended up generating record levels of violence like those registered yesterday in Rawalpindi. Indeed, the fact that the attack on Bhutto was carried out in town perceived by the population as safe and with a strong military presence only highlights the ineffectiveness of government with an iron fist, as has been the case under Musharraf.

On the other hand, the consternation of the United States over the assassination of Benazir Bhutto is neither casual nor gratuitous. It is worth recalling that within Musharraf are all the elements for his inclusion in Washington’s axis of evil (he came to power in a military coup and is a systematic violator of human rights, who has supported and funded terrorist groups and developed weapons of mass destruction). The bid for a coalition government between Musharraf and Bhutto represented perhaps Washington’s last chance to legitimize, protect and maintain the government that has up to now been a vital ally for Washington’s so-called war against terrorism.

Now with the death of Bhutto, the prospect for a peaceful democratic transition in Pakistan has rapidly dissipated and the United States seems at a crossroads: an unseemly maintenance of relations with the Musharraf government, or a withdrawal of support and a wager on his overthrow, with the enormous risk that could mean in terms of losing control of the nuclear weapons held by the regime of that country, and their transfer into the hands of fundamentalist groups or a Taliban government - which would be no good for anyone.

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US




This entry was posted on Monday, December 31st, 2007 at 2:23 am and is filed under Bush Administration, Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan, Islam, Asia, War On Terror. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

 
close Reblog this comment
blog comments powered by Disqus



By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.