A Milestone on the Road to Democracy
By Pervez Musharraf
Friday, February 22, 2008; Page A23
After months of turmoil, including the death of an important national figure, Benazir Bhutto, and the civil unrest that followed, Pakistan has successfully carried out a critical election -- balloting that was a milestone in our nation's 60-year history.
Pakistan's transition to democracy is essential to achieving reconciliation among our people. The government worked tirelessly to ensure that Monday's vote would be free, fair, transparent and peaceful. A broad range of new procedures were put in place -- such as the public counting of ballots at each polling station -- to make certain that this would be the fairest election ever held in Pakistan.
The historical significance of this election makes this the right moment for an honest discussion of the challenges and opportunities confronting both Pakistan and the United States, whose interest in a stable, democratic government in Islamabad is matched by that of the Pakistani people.
Our nation faces three main tasks: defeating terrorism and extremism; building a stable and effective democratic government; and creating a solid foundation for sustained economic growth. Because these goals are shared by the vast majority of Pakistanis, I am certain we can and will accomplish them, and I stand ready to work with the newly elected Parliament to achieve these objectives.
Do we still face challenges? Of course. Do great opportunities lie ahead? The answer is an emphatic yes. Our economy is strong -- and growing stronger. Our armed forces are dedicated, professional and committed to maintaining both public order and the integrity of our political system. Most important, the overwhelming majority of our 160 million people are firmly committed to a moderate view of Islam and to the national prosperity that only modernization can bring.
On terrorism, let me be perfectly clear: Pakistan faces and fights this menace with full dedication. How could we not? Al-Qaeda and its affiliates have declared war on the civilized world, and the moderate government and people of Pakistan are prime targets. Some have questioned our commitment to the fight against extremism. In fact, more than 1,000 Pakistani troops have lost their lives fighting al-Qaeda and Taliban forces over the past four years, and 112,000 troops are fully engaged in the regions along our border with Afghanistan. We will continue to work closely with our longtime American allies in our common struggle to rid Pakistan and the world of militant extremism.
But as the U.S. experience in Iraq has shown, military force alone is not sufficient. A successful counterinsurgency requires a multi-pronged approach -- military, political and economic. Our political strategy emphasizes separating terrorists from those citizens living in the regions bordering Afghanistan. Our economic strategy is bringing education, economic opportunity and the benefits of development to those same areas. As history has clearly taught us, when people see improvement in their daily lives and the lives of their children, they turn away from violence and toward peace and reconciliation.
But our success will require the continued support of the United States. I would ask Americans to remember that building democracy is difficult in the best of conditions; doing so in a complex country such as Pakistan -- with its uneasy political history, with its centuries-old regional and feudal cleavages, and with violent extremists dedicated to the defeat of democracy -- is even more challenging. As history has shown, a peaceful transition to democracy requires the leadership of government and the willingness of the population to embrace democratic ideals. The people of Pakistan on Monday demonstrated that willingness; now it is time for government leaders to work together and do our part.
The writer is president of Pakistan
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Pakistan After The Assassination: Interview with Pervez Hoodbhoy
Pakistan After The Assassination: Interview with Pervez Hoodbhoy
Chowk January 6, 2008
Interview with Pervez Hoodbhoy by Stefania Maurizi of Venerdi of La Repubblica
Pervez Hoodbhoy, professor of nuclear and high-energy physics, and chairman of the department of physics at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad, has been interviewed by Stefania Maurizi for Il Venerdi (Friday supplement) of La Repubblica (http://www.repubblica.it), where the interview will be publishedin Italian. The interview is
reproduce here in the original English, as supplied by Professor Hoodbhoy.
Q: Let's start with the tragedy of Bhutto assassination. Today, international media remind us she was the first woman to become the PM of an Islamic country, she was a democratic leader, etc. Nonetheless, she was the scion of a feudal family, which was primarily responsible for making Pakistan an atomic power and she was known for the authoritarian control of her party. Looking back, how do you judge Benazir Bhutto?
A: Having first known Benazir Bhutto from high school in Karachi, and then later in Cambridge (Massachussetts), I am deeply saddened by her assassination. But, although the international media paint her as someone who could have led Pakistan into the modern age, the truth is very different. Her two tenures as prime minister were a nightmare of autocratic government and mis-governance. Billions disappeared from foreign aid. A Swiss court found her guilty of money laundering in 2003.
Ms. Bhutto owned mansions and palaces across the world. She even tried to steal land from my (public) university to feed the rapacious appetite of her party members.
Even during school days, Benazir thought she had been born to rule. More importantly, she made not the slightest effort to change the feudal character of Pakistani politics and society. The Bhuttos own vast tracts of agricultural land in Sindh that is worked upon by serfs. Although she promised to bring democracy to Pakistan, after returning to Pakistan, Ms. Bhutto made clear that for a few table scraps she would be happy to team up with General Musharraf under the hopelessly absurd US plan to give our military government a civilian face. Her party, the Pakistan Peoples Party was her fiefdom. She appointed herself as "chairperson for life".
Reflecting the mindset of a feudal princess, she even named her successors to be male members from her family: her 19-year son, who is a student at Oxford and knows nothing about Pakistani culture, as well as her phenomenally corrupt husband, initially known as Mr Ten Percent and later as Mr. Thirty Percent.
Q: Was Ms. Bhutto a model for Pakistani women?
A: She was courageous and single-minded. And she showed that a woman could be the head of a conservative Islamic state. Nevertheless, it is hard to see what she wanted beyond personal power. Although she said that she was fighting for grand causes, I'm still trying to figure out what they were.
She certainly did nothing for Pakistani women during her two stints in power and left untouched the horrific Hudood laws, according to which a rape victim needs to produce 4 witnesses to the act of penetration (else she could be punished for fornication). Nor did she try to overturn the
Pakistani blasphemy law that prescribes death as the minimum penalty for those convicted of insulting the prophet of Islam or his companions. As for democracy: she had been desperate to do a deal with Musharraf who dangled over her head the many corruption cases that she was charged with.
But he proved too clever for her and she was forced into the opposition.
In foreign policy, she played footsie with the army. It could do whatever it liked, including making nuclear weapons, sending Islamic militants into Kashmir, and organizing the takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban. In
2002 she regretted having signed the document authorizing funds for the Taliban forces poised to capture Kandahar. But Ms. Bhutto makes an excellent martyr. In her death she will doubtlessly play a more positive role than when alive.
Q: Al Qaeda was immediately blamed for Bhutto assassination. However, many people hated her: Musharraf, the Army, and the infamous ISI, which in 1990 removed Bhutto from power after she had replaced General Hameed Gul, the man who invented the Taliban. Do you believe that Al Qaeda was really responsible for killing Benazir Bhutto? Who is going to gain from Bhutto's death?
A: There are different possibilities and much confusion. But some facts are certain. There definitely were gunshots, and this was followed by a suicide blast. Now, I do not think that suicide bombers can be bought with any number of rupees. Only a religious fanatic lured by heavenly rewards
would blow himself up. Therefore Al-Qaida, the Taliban, or other Islamic jihadist groups are strong possibilities. They always hated Bhutto, but even more after she announced in Washington that, if elected prime minister, she would fight them even more vigorously than Musharraf. Of course, rogue elements of Pakistan's intelligence agencies, who are also
strong Islamists, and who lie deeply hidden within the establishment, could also have done it. They have a stock of suicide bombers available to them, as evidenced by the success they have had in organizing suicide attacks upon army commandos as well as their own colleagues.
So did Islamists of one or the other flavour do it? Maybe, but the waters have been muddied by the government. First, publicly available photographs and videos show a modern-looking gunman accompanying the suicide bomber.
He fired three shots, heard by all present, at least one of which hit Bhutto. Some say that there was a second sharpshooter in a building too.
On the other hand, the government initially insisted she died from concussion and not a bullet wound - an obvious lie immediately refuted by those in the same car as Bhutto. Second, in just an hour after the assassination, the police washed away all the bloody evidence with water hoses. So, it is quite possible that non-Islamists in the government have
somehow used brainwashed suicide bombers, trained in mosques and madrassas, to do their dirty job. But, as in the JFK murder, the truth will never be known.
As for the gainers and losers: Islamist groups saw Bhutto as a tool of America that would be used against them, and a leader who could secularize Pakistan. Plus, she was a woman and popular. But Musharraf and his political party, the PML(Q), have also gained because a political rival
has been eliminated. The losers are those Pakistanis who wish for a secular, modern Pakistan and not one that is run by mullahs. Although she never delivered on her promises, her followers never lost faith.
Q: There is a lot of concern about the future of Pakistan. How real is the threat of an Islamic takeover, in your opinion?
A: It has already been taken over! Twenty five years ago the Pakistani state began pushing Islam on to its people as a matter of policy.
Prayers in government departments were deemed compulsory, punishments were meted out to those who did not fast in Ramadan, selection for academic posts required that the candidate demonstrate knowledge of Islamic teachings, and jihad was propagated through schoolbooks. Today government
intervention is no longer needed because of a spontaneous groundswell of Islamic zeal. But now the state is realizing that it shot itself in the foot. The fanatical jihadists it created have turned against it. It is supreme irony that the Pakistan Army - whose men were recruited under the banner of jihad and which saw itself as the fighting arm of Islam - is now frequently targeted by suicide bombers who are fighting a jihad to bring even stricter Islam. It has lost a thousand or more men fighting Al-Qaida and the Taliban.
The pace of radicalization has quickened. There are almost daily suicide attacks. This phenomenon was almost unknown in Pakistan before the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Now it is common in major cities as well as tribal areas. The targets have been the Pakistan army, police, incumbent and retired government leaders, and rival Islamic sects. But this is just the tip of the iceberg; we'll see much more in years ahead.
Q: Ideally, what do you want to see happen in the next few weeks?
A: I want Musharraf to go - resign or somehow be removed, preferably without bloodshed. I want the independent judiciary restored, a new neutral caretaker government installed for overseeing free and fair elections, and then elections that would decide upon the new parliament and prime minister. This will not immediately solve Pakistan's fundamental problems - army dominance, maldistribution of wealth, religious fanaticism, provincial imbalances - but it would get Pakistan on the track to democracy instead of the self-destruction it is now racing towards.
Q: People in Washington are increasingly frustrated with Musharraf's counterterrorism efforts, however they think there are no alternatives to Musharraf. What do you think about this?
A: The Americans have tunnel vision. They want lackeys like Musharraf who do their bidding, although here too there is deception at work. They know, but choose to forget, that Pakistani military leaders, Musharraf included, are the makers of the jihadist monster. In 1999, after Musharraf launched the secret Kargil operation in Kashmir, the United Jihad Council celebrated him as a true fighter for Islam. After 911 such praises disappeared, but under his leadership the army still covertly supported jihadist groups and the Taliban in Kashmir and Afghanistan.
Musharraf is extremely unpopular now and the Americans will have to dump him at some point. It is hard to find a pro-Musharraf person anywhere in the country except in the top business circles and the top army leadership. Until recently he ran both the army and the government himself, with the connivance of a rubber-stamp Parliament put in place through rigged elections. When the courts were about to rule that he could not legally be president, Musharraf chose to suspend the constitution and impose emergency rule. He dismissed the Supreme Court and arrested the judges, replacing them with judges who obey his every command. He blocked all independent television channels, and punished the news media for disparaging him or the army. His police arrested thousands of lawyers and pro-democracy activists. He ordered that civilians be tried in closed military courts. This was necessary, he said, to save Pakistan from a
rapidly growing Islamist insurgency. But he released 25 Islamic extremists on the day that the judges were arrested. In spite of all this, George W. Bush called Musharraf "a democrat at heart". It makes you sick.
The Americans have shot themselves in the foot by supporting the army consistently for decades. They have lost credibility and respect among Pakistanis. Everybody laughs when they hear that America wants democracy for Pakistan. In this situation, even if Musharraf goes and Gen. Kayani (the new army chief) takes over, the best that American can hope for is for the status quo. This is sad, because America is a great country with many virtues. If only they could get over their hangup of wanting to run the world! It's an impossible task anyway.
Q: In Pakistan what is the man on the street thinking?
A: Almost everyone holds the government responsible for the assassination. Tragically, suicide bombings are not condemned with any particular vigor. There is no strong reaction against the mullahs, madrassas, and jihadis. Perhaps people are afraid to criticize them because this might be seen as a criticism of Islam. Interestingly, in all the street demonstrations I have gone to after the Bhutto assassinations, there was no call for cracking down on extremists. Yesterday I met the lone taxidriver who
thought the Islamists did it.
Q: What could be an effective way to fight Al Qaeda and the Taleban in Pakistan?
A: To fight and win this war, Pakistan will need to mobilize both its people and the state. The notion of a power-sharing agreement between the state and Taliban is a non-starter; the spectacular failures of earlier agreements should be a lesson. Instead the government should help create public consensus through open forum discussions, proceed faster on
infrastructure development in the tribal areas, and make judicious use of military force - troops only, no air power. This should become every Pakistani's war, not just the army's, and it will have to be fought even if America packs up and goes away. But, as long as Musharraf is president,
it will be impossible to get popular support for the war. If presented with a choice between Musharraf and the Taliban, the overwhelming majority of Pakistanis would want the latter - although I am sure they would regret it later.
Q: Let's talk about Pakistan's nukes. There a lot of concern about the possibility that nuclear weapons could end up into the hands of Islamic fundamentalists. Early in December the Washington Post revealed that a small group of U.S. military experts and intelligence analysts convened in Washington for exploring strategies to secure Pakistani nukes if the
Pakistani regime falls apart. Their conclusions were very scaring, as, - there are no palatable ways to forcibly ensure the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. What do you think about this?
A: The government says there is absolutely no danger of loose nukes.
Pakistan has been sending serving officers of the Strategic Plans Division, which is the agency responsible for handling nuclear weapons, to the United States for training in safety measures (PAL's locking devices, storing procedures, etc). But there's no way of telling if this will be effective. Extremists have already penetrated deep into the army and the intelligence agencies. We now see repeated evidence: for example, last month an unmarked bus carrying employees of the Inter Services Intelligence [Pakistan's secret intelligence], was collecting employees early in the morning. It was boarded by a suicide bomber who blew himself
up killing 25. It was an inside job.
And now there are many other such examples, such as that of an army man killing 16 Special Services Group commandos in a suicide attack at Ghazi Barotha. A part of the establishment is clearly at war with another part.
There are also scientists, as well as military people, who are radical Islamists. Many questions come to mind: can there be collusion between different field-level commanders, resulting in the hijacking of a nuclear weapon? Could outsider groups develop links with insiders? Given the
absence of accurate records of fissile material production, can one be certain that small quantities of highly enriched uranium or weapons grade plutonium have already not been diverted? I do not know the answers.
Nobody does.
Chowk January 6, 2008
Interview with Pervez Hoodbhoy by Stefania Maurizi of Venerdi of La Repubblica
Pervez Hoodbhoy, professor of nuclear and high-energy physics, and chairman of the department of physics at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad, has been interviewed by Stefania Maurizi for Il Venerdi (Friday supplement) of La Repubblica (http://www.repubblica.it), where the interview will be publishedin Italian. The interview is
reproduce here in the original English, as supplied by Professor Hoodbhoy.
Q: Let's start with the tragedy of Bhutto assassination. Today, international media remind us she was the first woman to become the PM of an Islamic country, she was a democratic leader, etc. Nonetheless, she was the scion of a feudal family, which was primarily responsible for making Pakistan an atomic power and she was known for the authoritarian control of her party. Looking back, how do you judge Benazir Bhutto?
A: Having first known Benazir Bhutto from high school in Karachi, and then later in Cambridge (Massachussetts), I am deeply saddened by her assassination. But, although the international media paint her as someone who could have led Pakistan into the modern age, the truth is very different. Her two tenures as prime minister were a nightmare of autocratic government and mis-governance. Billions disappeared from foreign aid. A Swiss court found her guilty of money laundering in 2003.
Ms. Bhutto owned mansions and palaces across the world. She even tried to steal land from my (public) university to feed the rapacious appetite of her party members.
Even during school days, Benazir thought she had been born to rule. More importantly, she made not the slightest effort to change the feudal character of Pakistani politics and society. The Bhuttos own vast tracts of agricultural land in Sindh that is worked upon by serfs. Although she promised to bring democracy to Pakistan, after returning to Pakistan, Ms. Bhutto made clear that for a few table scraps she would be happy to team up with General Musharraf under the hopelessly absurd US plan to give our military government a civilian face. Her party, the Pakistan Peoples Party was her fiefdom. She appointed herself as "chairperson for life".
Reflecting the mindset of a feudal princess, she even named her successors to be male members from her family: her 19-year son, who is a student at Oxford and knows nothing about Pakistani culture, as well as her phenomenally corrupt husband, initially known as Mr Ten Percent and later as Mr. Thirty Percent.
Q: Was Ms. Bhutto a model for Pakistani women?
A: She was courageous and single-minded. And she showed that a woman could be the head of a conservative Islamic state. Nevertheless, it is hard to see what she wanted beyond personal power. Although she said that she was fighting for grand causes, I'm still trying to figure out what they were.
She certainly did nothing for Pakistani women during her two stints in power and left untouched the horrific Hudood laws, according to which a rape victim needs to produce 4 witnesses to the act of penetration (else she could be punished for fornication). Nor did she try to overturn the
Pakistani blasphemy law that prescribes death as the minimum penalty for those convicted of insulting the prophet of Islam or his companions. As for democracy: she had been desperate to do a deal with Musharraf who dangled over her head the many corruption cases that she was charged with.
But he proved too clever for her and she was forced into the opposition.
In foreign policy, she played footsie with the army. It could do whatever it liked, including making nuclear weapons, sending Islamic militants into Kashmir, and organizing the takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban. In
2002 she regretted having signed the document authorizing funds for the Taliban forces poised to capture Kandahar. But Ms. Bhutto makes an excellent martyr. In her death she will doubtlessly play a more positive role than when alive.
Q: Al Qaeda was immediately blamed for Bhutto assassination. However, many people hated her: Musharraf, the Army, and the infamous ISI, which in 1990 removed Bhutto from power after she had replaced General Hameed Gul, the man who invented the Taliban. Do you believe that Al Qaeda was really responsible for killing Benazir Bhutto? Who is going to gain from Bhutto's death?
A: There are different possibilities and much confusion. But some facts are certain. There definitely were gunshots, and this was followed by a suicide blast. Now, I do not think that suicide bombers can be bought with any number of rupees. Only a religious fanatic lured by heavenly rewards
would blow himself up. Therefore Al-Qaida, the Taliban, or other Islamic jihadist groups are strong possibilities. They always hated Bhutto, but even more after she announced in Washington that, if elected prime minister, she would fight them even more vigorously than Musharraf. Of course, rogue elements of Pakistan's intelligence agencies, who are also
strong Islamists, and who lie deeply hidden within the establishment, could also have done it. They have a stock of suicide bombers available to them, as evidenced by the success they have had in organizing suicide attacks upon army commandos as well as their own colleagues.
So did Islamists of one or the other flavour do it? Maybe, but the waters have been muddied by the government. First, publicly available photographs and videos show a modern-looking gunman accompanying the suicide bomber.
He fired three shots, heard by all present, at least one of which hit Bhutto. Some say that there was a second sharpshooter in a building too.
On the other hand, the government initially insisted she died from concussion and not a bullet wound - an obvious lie immediately refuted by those in the same car as Bhutto. Second, in just an hour after the assassination, the police washed away all the bloody evidence with water hoses. So, it is quite possible that non-Islamists in the government have
somehow used brainwashed suicide bombers, trained in mosques and madrassas, to do their dirty job. But, as in the JFK murder, the truth will never be known.
As for the gainers and losers: Islamist groups saw Bhutto as a tool of America that would be used against them, and a leader who could secularize Pakistan. Plus, she was a woman and popular. But Musharraf and his political party, the PML(Q), have also gained because a political rival
has been eliminated. The losers are those Pakistanis who wish for a secular, modern Pakistan and not one that is run by mullahs. Although she never delivered on her promises, her followers never lost faith.
Q: There is a lot of concern about the future of Pakistan. How real is the threat of an Islamic takeover, in your opinion?
A: It has already been taken over! Twenty five years ago the Pakistani state began pushing Islam on to its people as a matter of policy.
Prayers in government departments were deemed compulsory, punishments were meted out to those who did not fast in Ramadan, selection for academic posts required that the candidate demonstrate knowledge of Islamic teachings, and jihad was propagated through schoolbooks. Today government
intervention is no longer needed because of a spontaneous groundswell of Islamic zeal. But now the state is realizing that it shot itself in the foot. The fanatical jihadists it created have turned against it. It is supreme irony that the Pakistan Army - whose men were recruited under the banner of jihad and which saw itself as the fighting arm of Islam - is now frequently targeted by suicide bombers who are fighting a jihad to bring even stricter Islam. It has lost a thousand or more men fighting Al-Qaida and the Taliban.
The pace of radicalization has quickened. There are almost daily suicide attacks. This phenomenon was almost unknown in Pakistan before the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Now it is common in major cities as well as tribal areas. The targets have been the Pakistan army, police, incumbent and retired government leaders, and rival Islamic sects. But this is just the tip of the iceberg; we'll see much more in years ahead.
Q: Ideally, what do you want to see happen in the next few weeks?
A: I want Musharraf to go - resign or somehow be removed, preferably without bloodshed. I want the independent judiciary restored, a new neutral caretaker government installed for overseeing free and fair elections, and then elections that would decide upon the new parliament and prime minister. This will not immediately solve Pakistan's fundamental problems - army dominance, maldistribution of wealth, religious fanaticism, provincial imbalances - but it would get Pakistan on the track to democracy instead of the self-destruction it is now racing towards.
Q: People in Washington are increasingly frustrated with Musharraf's counterterrorism efforts, however they think there are no alternatives to Musharraf. What do you think about this?
A: The Americans have tunnel vision. They want lackeys like Musharraf who do their bidding, although here too there is deception at work. They know, but choose to forget, that Pakistani military leaders, Musharraf included, are the makers of the jihadist monster. In 1999, after Musharraf launched the secret Kargil operation in Kashmir, the United Jihad Council celebrated him as a true fighter for Islam. After 911 such praises disappeared, but under his leadership the army still covertly supported jihadist groups and the Taliban in Kashmir and Afghanistan.
Musharraf is extremely unpopular now and the Americans will have to dump him at some point. It is hard to find a pro-Musharraf person anywhere in the country except in the top business circles and the top army leadership. Until recently he ran both the army and the government himself, with the connivance of a rubber-stamp Parliament put in place through rigged elections. When the courts were about to rule that he could not legally be president, Musharraf chose to suspend the constitution and impose emergency rule. He dismissed the Supreme Court and arrested the judges, replacing them with judges who obey his every command. He blocked all independent television channels, and punished the news media for disparaging him or the army. His police arrested thousands of lawyers and pro-democracy activists. He ordered that civilians be tried in closed military courts. This was necessary, he said, to save Pakistan from a
rapidly growing Islamist insurgency. But he released 25 Islamic extremists on the day that the judges were arrested. In spite of all this, George W. Bush called Musharraf "a democrat at heart". It makes you sick.
The Americans have shot themselves in the foot by supporting the army consistently for decades. They have lost credibility and respect among Pakistanis. Everybody laughs when they hear that America wants democracy for Pakistan. In this situation, even if Musharraf goes and Gen. Kayani (the new army chief) takes over, the best that American can hope for is for the status quo. This is sad, because America is a great country with many virtues. If only they could get over their hangup of wanting to run the world! It's an impossible task anyway.
Q: In Pakistan what is the man on the street thinking?
A: Almost everyone holds the government responsible for the assassination. Tragically, suicide bombings are not condemned with any particular vigor. There is no strong reaction against the mullahs, madrassas, and jihadis. Perhaps people are afraid to criticize them because this might be seen as a criticism of Islam. Interestingly, in all the street demonstrations I have gone to after the Bhutto assassinations, there was no call for cracking down on extremists. Yesterday I met the lone taxidriver who
thought the Islamists did it.
Q: What could be an effective way to fight Al Qaeda and the Taleban in Pakistan?
A: To fight and win this war, Pakistan will need to mobilize both its people and the state. The notion of a power-sharing agreement between the state and Taliban is a non-starter; the spectacular failures of earlier agreements should be a lesson. Instead the government should help create public consensus through open forum discussions, proceed faster on
infrastructure development in the tribal areas, and make judicious use of military force - troops only, no air power. This should become every Pakistani's war, not just the army's, and it will have to be fought even if America packs up and goes away. But, as long as Musharraf is president,
it will be impossible to get popular support for the war. If presented with a choice between Musharraf and the Taliban, the overwhelming majority of Pakistanis would want the latter - although I am sure they would regret it later.
Q: Let's talk about Pakistan's nukes. There a lot of concern about the possibility that nuclear weapons could end up into the hands of Islamic fundamentalists. Early in December the Washington Post revealed that a small group of U.S. military experts and intelligence analysts convened in Washington for exploring strategies to secure Pakistani nukes if the
Pakistani regime falls apart. Their conclusions were very scaring, as, - there are no palatable ways to forcibly ensure the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. What do you think about this?
A: The government says there is absolutely no danger of loose nukes.
Pakistan has been sending serving officers of the Strategic Plans Division, which is the agency responsible for handling nuclear weapons, to the United States for training in safety measures (PAL's locking devices, storing procedures, etc). But there's no way of telling if this will be effective. Extremists have already penetrated deep into the army and the intelligence agencies. We now see repeated evidence: for example, last month an unmarked bus carrying employees of the Inter Services Intelligence [Pakistan's secret intelligence], was collecting employees early in the morning. It was boarded by a suicide bomber who blew himself
up killing 25. It was an inside job.
And now there are many other such examples, such as that of an army man killing 16 Special Services Group commandos in a suicide attack at Ghazi Barotha. A part of the establishment is clearly at war with another part.
There are also scientists, as well as military people, who are radical Islamists. Many questions come to mind: can there be collusion between different field-level commanders, resulting in the hijacking of a nuclear weapon? Could outsider groups develop links with insiders? Given the
absence of accurate records of fissile material production, can one be certain that small quantities of highly enriched uranium or weapons grade plutonium have already not been diverted? I do not know the answers.
Nobody does.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Bhutto's Son Chosen As Eventual Party Chief
KARACHI, Pakistan, Dec. 30 -- Pakistan's largest and most storied political party chose Sunday to continue its dynastic traditions, anointing the 19-year-old son of slain former prime minister Benazir Bhutto to be her ultimate successor but picking her husband to lead for now.
- By Griff Witte
Washingtonpost.com
- By Griff Witte
Washingtonpost.com
Bhutto's son named as heir to political party
Benazir Bhutto's 19-year-old son Bilawal has been chosen to take over her Pakistan People's Party, after her assassination on Thursday.
He will become president in a ceremonial capacity while he finishes his studies at Oxford University.
Bilawal told journalists at the Bhutto family home: "My mother always said democracy is the best revenge".
Ms Bhutto's widower, Asif Ali Zardari, who will run the party day-to-day, said it would contest January elections.
....
He will become president in a ceremonial capacity while he finishes his studies at Oxford University.
Bilawal told journalists at the Bhutto family home: "My mother always said democracy is the best revenge".
Ms Bhutto's widower, Asif Ali Zardari, who will run the party day-to-day, said it would contest January elections.
....
Bhutto Shaheeed Aka martyr
The killing of Ms. Bhutto is a heinous crime which cannot and should not be tolerated an any way or any circumstances and the killer and their organization should be brought to daylight and face the justice.
However the word martyr a.k.a Shaheed has been inflated at least 10 times the rate of inflation in Pakistan.
Ms. Bhutto inherited this business of making money under the façade of democracy from her father the main architect of break up of East Pakistan, (remember the just wanted to be the Top Dog rather than the underdog). She inherited this because of her brother turned terrorist(Remember Al Zulfiqar, hijacking of PIA aircraft etc.) Now with her demise the fate of millions is in the hand of a teenager. This is laughable. This is what is also called nepotism at its best, even Indra Gandhi did not nominate Rajiv in her will or Rajiv nominate Sonia. The nomination of a teenager in the name of Pakistan falling apart seems to be farce of democracy at its best.
Back to the definition of Shaheed AKA Martyer Iman Hussain was Shaheed , Hazrat Hamza was Shaheed, Hazrat Ali is Shaheed, and there are whole list of Martyrs and shaheed in the history, Look at their life style and their cause for which these personalities has given their lives, compare it with Bhutto’s corruption, nepotism, kleptocary. Bhutto is no Shaheed, just a victim of heinous political murder set up by the Al Qaida/Talibans and an event which could have been avoided.
However the word martyr a.k.a Shaheed has been inflated at least 10 times the rate of inflation in Pakistan.
Ms. Bhutto inherited this business of making money under the façade of democracy from her father the main architect of break up of East Pakistan, (remember the just wanted to be the Top Dog rather than the underdog). She inherited this because of her brother turned terrorist(Remember Al Zulfiqar, hijacking of PIA aircraft etc.) Now with her demise the fate of millions is in the hand of a teenager. This is laughable. This is what is also called nepotism at its best, even Indra Gandhi did not nominate Rajiv in her will or Rajiv nominate Sonia. The nomination of a teenager in the name of Pakistan falling apart seems to be farce of democracy at its best.
Back to the definition of Shaheed AKA Martyer Iman Hussain was Shaheed , Hazrat Hamza was Shaheed, Hazrat Ali is Shaheed, and there are whole list of Martyrs and shaheed in the history, Look at their life style and their cause for which these personalities has given their lives, compare it with Bhutto’s corruption, nepotism, kleptocary. Bhutto is no Shaheed, just a victim of heinous political murder set up by the Al Qaida/Talibans and an event which could have been avoided.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Short Memory
People like in People's Party have short memory.
This is Ny times follow the links to Bhutto's fortune.
http://www.samsloan.com/benazir.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/010998pakistan.1.GIF.html
http://www.samsloan.com/benazir.htm#9
This is Ny times follow the links to Bhutto's fortune.
http://www.samsloan.com/benazir.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/010998pakistan.1.GIF.html
http://www.samsloan.com/benazir.htm#9
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Aid and AIDS
The Notion of aid can be described in one acronym "AIDS" the recipient county cannot get rid of it.
The donor county makes "muchos dineros" by dumping sub standard and low quality surplus widgets to the recipient country/ The kleptocratic elite if the recipient county takes 99% of this and sent the profit back to the recipient county for "a rainy day" and shut up their voices.
So what goes around comes around.
Example:
How many times Bhutto Sharif complained about poor conditions of Pakistanis living in Dubai or Jedda.
Geo Bhutto, maze se . Dubai men, San ko Marne Do,
The donor county makes "muchos dineros" by dumping sub standard and low quality surplus widgets to the recipient country/ The kleptocratic elite if the recipient county takes 99% of this and sent the profit back to the recipient county for "a rainy day" and shut up their voices.
So what goes around comes around.
Example:
How many times Bhutto Sharif complained about poor conditions of Pakistanis living in Dubai or Jedda.
Geo Bhutto, maze se . Dubai men, San ko Marne Do,
Imran Khan of MianWali
Khan of MianWali is without his biwi, The man who cannot save his mariage, wants to save Pakistan.
Perhaps he should clean his Urdu, before cleaning Pakistan. Baat karne ka saliqa tou Seekh lo. Shurfa meen apne dushman se bhi tamiz se baat karte heen.
Perhaps he should clean his Urdu, before cleaning Pakistan. Baat karne ka saliqa tou Seekh lo. Shurfa meen apne dushman se bhi tamiz se baat karte heen.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Geo Maze se Dubai men, Baqi sab ko marne do.
Our "Fair and Balanced" Geo Tv which is based in Dubai, has challanged every thing on the planet except the wrong doing of thier hosts in United Arab Emirates. Example conditions of immigrants from Pakistan mostly poor and low wages worker from Pakistan, India, Bungladesh etc.
Geo Maze se Dubai men, Baqi sab ko marne do.
Geo Maze se Dubai men, Baqi sab ko marne do.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Open Season on Pervez
Pervez out of order
Pakistani strongman suspends constitution
By Hassan Abbas
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1042792&format=comments
I agree its open season on Musharraf, but let me ask, what Hasan Abbas was doing when Bhutto his former employer, who he refers to as "Mohttarma" a prefix meaning "The Respected One" was plundering Pakistan's meager wealth together with her husband as "Dulha Bhai" The brother in law of Pakistan? Bhutto asked the investigation of suicide bomb by the American investigation teams. With all due respect I ask her how about the investigations of all the wrong doing and illegal activities during her rule by the American investigation team, and If found guilty, then is she and her husband ready to face "the American Justice"?
How about Sharif brothers showing Sharafat during their time as "Amir ul monineen" (The leader of faithful) as Nowaz Sharif was trying to work out this title for himself. The wealth he created after he was elevated to the PM by Zia. His relationship with Saudi Klan and connections with the Talibans and Bin Laden. Perhaps Sharif should also face American Justice.
Where were the Human Right activists during Bhutto Sharif rule? Why did they kept silence?
Where were the Media at that time? Why did it was silenced by both Bhutto and Sharif ? Because it did not simply existed.
The problem with us is we had very short memory. Remember Ahmed Chalabi and the other Iraqi experts?
Pakistani strongman suspends constitution
By Hassan Abbas
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1042792&format=comments
I agree its open season on Musharraf, but let me ask, what Hasan Abbas was doing when Bhutto his former employer, who he refers to as "Mohttarma" a prefix meaning "The Respected One" was plundering Pakistan's meager wealth together with her husband as "Dulha Bhai" The brother in law of Pakistan? Bhutto asked the investigation of suicide bomb by the American investigation teams. With all due respect I ask her how about the investigations of all the wrong doing and illegal activities during her rule by the American investigation team, and If found guilty, then is she and her husband ready to face "the American Justice"?
How about Sharif brothers showing Sharafat during their time as "Amir ul monineen" (The leader of faithful) as Nowaz Sharif was trying to work out this title for himself. The wealth he created after he was elevated to the PM by Zia. His relationship with Saudi Klan and connections with the Talibans and Bin Laden. Perhaps Sharif should also face American Justice.
Where were the Human Right activists during Bhutto Sharif rule? Why did they kept silence?
Where were the Media at that time? Why did it was silenced by both Bhutto and Sharif ? Because it did not simply existed.
The problem with us is we had very short memory. Remember Ahmed Chalabi and the other Iraqi experts?
Message to former thief justice of Pakistan
Message to former thief justice of Pakistan
Where were you when Nawaz Sharif was plundering Pakistan's wealth?
Were were you when Bhutto together with her husband Zardari stealing money from Pakistan's wealth?
There has been allegation about your own conduct any comment about the rumors about your own records.
Yes it is open season on Musharraf and as Haqqani an another acolyte of Benazir and Nawaz did confess on NPR talk of the nation that "yes there are and will be Kleptocrats in Pakistan's Leader ship". Are you also one of them boys and gals? as some calls you thief justice of Pakistan.
Where were you when Nawaz Sharif was plundering Pakistan's wealth?
Were were you when Bhutto together with her husband Zardari stealing money from Pakistan's wealth?
There has been allegation about your own conduct any comment about the rumors about your own records.
Yes it is open season on Musharraf and as Haqqani an another acolyte of Benazir and Nawaz did confess on NPR talk of the nation that "yes there are and will be Kleptocrats in Pakistan's Leader ship". Are you also one of them boys and gals? as some calls you thief justice of Pakistan.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Schrille Alarmrufe aus dem islamischen Wunschgebilde
Pakistan
Schrille Alarmrufe aus dem islamischen Wunschgebilde
Von Werner Adam
Mitglieder der islamischen Oppositionspartei Jamaat-i-Islami demonstrieren gegen Musharraf
05. November 2007
In den sechs Jahrzehnten seines Bestehens ist Pakistan bislang nicht weniger als zweiunddreißig Jahre lang von Männern in Uniform regiert worden. Zwischenzeitlich führten zivile Politiker eher schlecht als recht das Ruder, und zwar unter insgesamt zwanzig Ministerpräsidenten in ebenso vielen Jahren. Wenn immer die Militärs eingriffen, wollten sie sich selbstredend als Retter der Nation verstanden wissen.
So melodramatisch, wie jetzt Präsident und Armeechef Pervez Musharraf mit der Verhängung des Ausnahmezustands sein Festhalten an der Macht begründet hat, ist es vor ihm allerdings noch keinem pakistanischen General über die Lippen gekommen. Musharraf rechtfertigte seine vorläufige Absage an einen neuerlichen Anlauf in Richtung Demokratie mit der Behauptung, nur auf diese Weise sein Land vor dem „Selbstmord“ bewahren zu können.
Ein staatlicher Todesstoß
An schrillen Alarmrufen hat es noch nie gefehlt in der Geschichte dieses einzigen Staatswesens der Welt, dessen Raison d'être allein auf dem Islam basiert. Kein Wunder, denn der muslimische Nachfolgestaat Britisch-Indiens war 1947 als eine geographische Missbildung gegründet worden, bestehend aus zwei Landesteilen, die durch zweitausend Kilometer indischen Territoriums voneinander getrennt waren. Zwischen dem bengalischen Ostpakistan und den Völkerschaften in Westpakistan gab es, von der religiösen Ausrichtung abgesehen, weder kulturell noch ethnisch die geringsten Gemeinsamkeiten.
Schon bald zeigte sich, dass dieses Gebilde nur mit militärischer Strenge zusammenzuhalten war. Als es dann 1971 endlich zu den ersten freien Wahlen kam, für die sich damals der Militärherrscher Yahya Khan stark gemacht hatte, liefen diese buchstäblich auf einen staatlichen Todesstoß hinaus. Dank ihrer Bevölkerungsmehrheit fiel der Wahlsieg den Ostpakistanern zu, den die Westpakistaner mit dem politischen Heißsporn Zulfikar Ali Bhutto an der Spitze jedoch nicht anerkennen wollten. Und so wurde nach einem blutigen Bürgerkrieg, an dem Indien einen nicht unerheblichen Anteil hatte, aus Ostpakistan das unabhängige Bangladesch und aus Westpakistan eine politisch lange Zeit traumatisierte, weil nunmehr halbierte „Nation“, die sich fortan um so stärker islamisierte.
Zehntausende in Koranschulen
Dazu wiederum trug maßgeblich ein anderer Militärherrscher bei, der durch einen Putsch gegen den zivilen Premierminister Bhutto an die Macht gelangt war und letzteren durch den Tod am Strang ausschalten ließ: General Zia ul-Haq. Er spielte eine wichtige Rolle im „Heiligen Krieg“ gegen die sowjetische Besatzungsmacht im benachbarten Afghanistan, zumal westliche Waffenlieferungen an die afghanischen Mudschahedin vornehmlich über Pakistan liefen. Hier nun kam vor allem der Militärische Geheimdienst (ISI) unter dem pakistanischen General Hamid Gul mit ins unselige Spiel.
Der am Wochenende von Musharraf endlich in Gewahrsam genommene Gul mochte sich seinerzeit mit der Rekrutierung afghanischer und pakistanischer Glaubenskrieger nicht begnügen. Mit der Begründung, dass die Kommunisten internationale Brigaden hätten und der Westen sich auf die Nato stützen könne, redete er einer „gemeinsamen Kampffront“ aller Muslime das Wort - und handelte danach. Bis zu 35.000 Islamisten aus Algerien, Ägypten, Jordanien, Sudan und dem Jemen, aus Usbekistan, dem chinesischen Xingjang und selbst aus den Philippinen wurden in dem Jahrzehnt von 1982 bis 1992 in pakistanischen und afghanischen Koranschulen trainiert und zum Kampf nicht nur gegen die Sowjetarmee am Hindukusch, sondern zum Teil auch im indischen Teil Kaschmirs, im nordkaukasischen Tschetschenien und auf dem Balkan eingesetzt.
Ein mysteriöser Flugzeugabsturz
Aus den Millionen afghanischer Flüchtlinge, die in Pakistan Zuflucht gefunden hatten, ging unter dem Oberkommando des ISI schließlich auch die Bewegung der Taliban hervor. Die pakistanischen Militärs waren sich sicher, auf diese Weise nachhaltigen Einfluss auf den weiteren Gang der Dinge in Afghanistan nehmen zu können. Den Siegeszug der Taliban sollte Zia ul-Haq freilich ebenso wenig erleben wie den vorausgegangenen Abzug der Roten Armee aus Afghanistan. Er kam, zusammen mit dem damaligen amerikanischen Botschafter, 1988 nach elfjähriger Herrschaft bei einem mysteriösen Flugzeugabsturz ums Leben.
In den folgenden elf Jahren wurde Pakistan jeweils wechselweise von den beiden Zivilpolitikern Nawaz Sharif, dem Führer der Muslimliga (ML), und Benazir Bhutto, der Tochter Zulfikar Ali Bhuttos und Vorsitzenden der Pakistanischen Volkspartei (PPP), regiert. Beide sahen sich wieder und wieder Vorwürfen der Korruption und der Vetternwirtschaft ausgesetzt, bis 1999 schließlich abermals die Generalität eingriff: Pervez Musharraf übernahm die Macht und schickte Nawaz Sharif, der ihm nach einer Auslandsreise die Rückkehr nach Pakistan hatte verweigern wollen, ins Zwangsexil nach Saudi-Arabien, während sich Benazir Bhutto nach London absetzte. Kurz zuvor war Pakistan dem Beispiel Indiens gefolgt und hatte sich als Atommacht etabliert.
Einer der wichtigsten Verbündeten Amerikas
Nach den Anschlägen am 11. September 2001 in New York und Washington wurde Musharraf nicht ohne massiven Druck aus dem Weißen Haus zu einem der wichtigsten Verbündeten des amerikanischen Präsidenten Bush im „Krieg gegen den Terror“. Die militärische Ausschaltung der Taliban-Herrschaft in Afghanistan führte im Gegenzug dazu, dass das pakistanische Grenzgebiet zu Afghanistan zu einem Rückzugsgebiet sowohl für die Taliban als auch für Al Qaida wurde. Zugleich nahm in Pakistan die nicht zuletzt gegen Musharraf gerichtete antiamerikanische Stimmung zu, und mit ihr ging besonders in der „Northwest Frontier“ Province und in Belutschistan eine islamische Radikalisierung - lies: Talibanisierung - sondergleichen einher.
In beiden Provinzen lebten obendrein sezessionistische Tendenzen neu auf und erinnerten daran, dass sechzig Jahre zuvor starke Kräfte besonders unter den muslimischen Pathanen gegen die Gründung Pakistans gewesen waren. Der Anführer jener Bewegung, Abdul Ghaffar Khan, der als „Frontier Gandhi“ in die Geschichte eingehen sollte, war zunächst gegen eine Teilung des indischen Subkontinents und dann, als sich diese nicht hatte verhindern lassen, für ein von Pakistan unabhängiges „Paschtunistan“ unter Einschluss afghanischer Siedlungsgebiete. Auch der spätere Abfall Ostbengalens führte keineswegs zu einem stärkeren Zusammenhalt Restpakistans mit seinen vier Völkerschaften der Pundschabis, Sindhis, Belutschen und Pathanen. Deren Provinzen fanden bis heute nie wirklich zu einer Nation zusammen. Identitätsmerkmal blieb allein der Islam. Und der nahm vor allem in der Frontier Province immer radikalere Züge an.
Kein reibungsloser Machtwechsel
Dass Pakistan unter dem religiös moderaten Musharraf ungeachtet aller Krisen wirtschaftlich durchaus Fortschritte machte, war zwar nicht allein, aber doch vornehmlich amerikanischer Unterstützung zu verdanken, die sich in den vergangenen sechs Jahren auf rund zehn Milliarden Dollar belief. Im Kampf gegen den Terror blieb und bleibt der Westen nun einmal auf pakistanische Mitwirkung angewiesen, und von allen dort denkbaren Machtkonstellationen musste die mit Musharraf als Zentralfigur bisher als die immer noch erträglichste erscheinen.
Dass sich die Amerikaner hinter den Kulissen seit längerem schon für eine Art Partnerschaft zwischen dem General und Benazir Bhutto einsetzten, leuchtete insofern ein, als beide eher säkular als islamisch ausgerichtet sind und Frau Bhutto ungeachtet ihrer fragwürdigen politischen und administrativen Reputation mit der PPP eine recht gut organisierte Partei hinter sich weiß. Schwerlich zu bestreiten ist allerdings auch, dass die alarmierende Sicherheitslage im Lande alles andere als einen reibungslosen Wechsel von militärischer zu demokratischer Herrschaft erwarten ließ.
So ist Pakistan, dieses vor sechs Jahrzehnten geschaffene, aber von Grund auf missratene islamische Wunschgebilde, wieder einmal dort angelangt, wo es schon des Öfteren stand: am Rande des Abgrunds, aus dem als beklemmendes Echo der Notruf von Militärs widerhallt, die daran alles andere als unschuldig - und seit fast zehn Jahren nun auch noch atomar ausgerüstet sind.
Text: F.A.Z., 06.11.2007, Nr. 258 / Seite 3
Bildmaterial: AFP
http://www.faz.net/s/RubDDBDABB9457A437BAA85A49C26FB23A0/Doc~E961392F6DC234E31BCDC1E4E55AF5C0D~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html
Schrille Alarmrufe aus dem islamischen Wunschgebilde
Von Werner Adam
Mitglieder der islamischen Oppositionspartei Jamaat-i-Islami demonstrieren gegen Musharraf
05. November 2007
In den sechs Jahrzehnten seines Bestehens ist Pakistan bislang nicht weniger als zweiunddreißig Jahre lang von Männern in Uniform regiert worden. Zwischenzeitlich führten zivile Politiker eher schlecht als recht das Ruder, und zwar unter insgesamt zwanzig Ministerpräsidenten in ebenso vielen Jahren. Wenn immer die Militärs eingriffen, wollten sie sich selbstredend als Retter der Nation verstanden wissen.
So melodramatisch, wie jetzt Präsident und Armeechef Pervez Musharraf mit der Verhängung des Ausnahmezustands sein Festhalten an der Macht begründet hat, ist es vor ihm allerdings noch keinem pakistanischen General über die Lippen gekommen. Musharraf rechtfertigte seine vorläufige Absage an einen neuerlichen Anlauf in Richtung Demokratie mit der Behauptung, nur auf diese Weise sein Land vor dem „Selbstmord“ bewahren zu können.
Ein staatlicher Todesstoß
An schrillen Alarmrufen hat es noch nie gefehlt in der Geschichte dieses einzigen Staatswesens der Welt, dessen Raison d'être allein auf dem Islam basiert. Kein Wunder, denn der muslimische Nachfolgestaat Britisch-Indiens war 1947 als eine geographische Missbildung gegründet worden, bestehend aus zwei Landesteilen, die durch zweitausend Kilometer indischen Territoriums voneinander getrennt waren. Zwischen dem bengalischen Ostpakistan und den Völkerschaften in Westpakistan gab es, von der religiösen Ausrichtung abgesehen, weder kulturell noch ethnisch die geringsten Gemeinsamkeiten.
Schon bald zeigte sich, dass dieses Gebilde nur mit militärischer Strenge zusammenzuhalten war. Als es dann 1971 endlich zu den ersten freien Wahlen kam, für die sich damals der Militärherrscher Yahya Khan stark gemacht hatte, liefen diese buchstäblich auf einen staatlichen Todesstoß hinaus. Dank ihrer Bevölkerungsmehrheit fiel der Wahlsieg den Ostpakistanern zu, den die Westpakistaner mit dem politischen Heißsporn Zulfikar Ali Bhutto an der Spitze jedoch nicht anerkennen wollten. Und so wurde nach einem blutigen Bürgerkrieg, an dem Indien einen nicht unerheblichen Anteil hatte, aus Ostpakistan das unabhängige Bangladesch und aus Westpakistan eine politisch lange Zeit traumatisierte, weil nunmehr halbierte „Nation“, die sich fortan um so stärker islamisierte.
Zehntausende in Koranschulen
Dazu wiederum trug maßgeblich ein anderer Militärherrscher bei, der durch einen Putsch gegen den zivilen Premierminister Bhutto an die Macht gelangt war und letzteren durch den Tod am Strang ausschalten ließ: General Zia ul-Haq. Er spielte eine wichtige Rolle im „Heiligen Krieg“ gegen die sowjetische Besatzungsmacht im benachbarten Afghanistan, zumal westliche Waffenlieferungen an die afghanischen Mudschahedin vornehmlich über Pakistan liefen. Hier nun kam vor allem der Militärische Geheimdienst (ISI) unter dem pakistanischen General Hamid Gul mit ins unselige Spiel.
Der am Wochenende von Musharraf endlich in Gewahrsam genommene Gul mochte sich seinerzeit mit der Rekrutierung afghanischer und pakistanischer Glaubenskrieger nicht begnügen. Mit der Begründung, dass die Kommunisten internationale Brigaden hätten und der Westen sich auf die Nato stützen könne, redete er einer „gemeinsamen Kampffront“ aller Muslime das Wort - und handelte danach. Bis zu 35.000 Islamisten aus Algerien, Ägypten, Jordanien, Sudan und dem Jemen, aus Usbekistan, dem chinesischen Xingjang und selbst aus den Philippinen wurden in dem Jahrzehnt von 1982 bis 1992 in pakistanischen und afghanischen Koranschulen trainiert und zum Kampf nicht nur gegen die Sowjetarmee am Hindukusch, sondern zum Teil auch im indischen Teil Kaschmirs, im nordkaukasischen Tschetschenien und auf dem Balkan eingesetzt.
Ein mysteriöser Flugzeugabsturz
Aus den Millionen afghanischer Flüchtlinge, die in Pakistan Zuflucht gefunden hatten, ging unter dem Oberkommando des ISI schließlich auch die Bewegung der Taliban hervor. Die pakistanischen Militärs waren sich sicher, auf diese Weise nachhaltigen Einfluss auf den weiteren Gang der Dinge in Afghanistan nehmen zu können. Den Siegeszug der Taliban sollte Zia ul-Haq freilich ebenso wenig erleben wie den vorausgegangenen Abzug der Roten Armee aus Afghanistan. Er kam, zusammen mit dem damaligen amerikanischen Botschafter, 1988 nach elfjähriger Herrschaft bei einem mysteriösen Flugzeugabsturz ums Leben.
In den folgenden elf Jahren wurde Pakistan jeweils wechselweise von den beiden Zivilpolitikern Nawaz Sharif, dem Führer der Muslimliga (ML), und Benazir Bhutto, der Tochter Zulfikar Ali Bhuttos und Vorsitzenden der Pakistanischen Volkspartei (PPP), regiert. Beide sahen sich wieder und wieder Vorwürfen der Korruption und der Vetternwirtschaft ausgesetzt, bis 1999 schließlich abermals die Generalität eingriff: Pervez Musharraf übernahm die Macht und schickte Nawaz Sharif, der ihm nach einer Auslandsreise die Rückkehr nach Pakistan hatte verweigern wollen, ins Zwangsexil nach Saudi-Arabien, während sich Benazir Bhutto nach London absetzte. Kurz zuvor war Pakistan dem Beispiel Indiens gefolgt und hatte sich als Atommacht etabliert.
Einer der wichtigsten Verbündeten Amerikas
Nach den Anschlägen am 11. September 2001 in New York und Washington wurde Musharraf nicht ohne massiven Druck aus dem Weißen Haus zu einem der wichtigsten Verbündeten des amerikanischen Präsidenten Bush im „Krieg gegen den Terror“. Die militärische Ausschaltung der Taliban-Herrschaft in Afghanistan führte im Gegenzug dazu, dass das pakistanische Grenzgebiet zu Afghanistan zu einem Rückzugsgebiet sowohl für die Taliban als auch für Al Qaida wurde. Zugleich nahm in Pakistan die nicht zuletzt gegen Musharraf gerichtete antiamerikanische Stimmung zu, und mit ihr ging besonders in der „Northwest Frontier“ Province und in Belutschistan eine islamische Radikalisierung - lies: Talibanisierung - sondergleichen einher.
In beiden Provinzen lebten obendrein sezessionistische Tendenzen neu auf und erinnerten daran, dass sechzig Jahre zuvor starke Kräfte besonders unter den muslimischen Pathanen gegen die Gründung Pakistans gewesen waren. Der Anführer jener Bewegung, Abdul Ghaffar Khan, der als „Frontier Gandhi“ in die Geschichte eingehen sollte, war zunächst gegen eine Teilung des indischen Subkontinents und dann, als sich diese nicht hatte verhindern lassen, für ein von Pakistan unabhängiges „Paschtunistan“ unter Einschluss afghanischer Siedlungsgebiete. Auch der spätere Abfall Ostbengalens führte keineswegs zu einem stärkeren Zusammenhalt Restpakistans mit seinen vier Völkerschaften der Pundschabis, Sindhis, Belutschen und Pathanen. Deren Provinzen fanden bis heute nie wirklich zu einer Nation zusammen. Identitätsmerkmal blieb allein der Islam. Und der nahm vor allem in der Frontier Province immer radikalere Züge an.
Kein reibungsloser Machtwechsel
Dass Pakistan unter dem religiös moderaten Musharraf ungeachtet aller Krisen wirtschaftlich durchaus Fortschritte machte, war zwar nicht allein, aber doch vornehmlich amerikanischer Unterstützung zu verdanken, die sich in den vergangenen sechs Jahren auf rund zehn Milliarden Dollar belief. Im Kampf gegen den Terror blieb und bleibt der Westen nun einmal auf pakistanische Mitwirkung angewiesen, und von allen dort denkbaren Machtkonstellationen musste die mit Musharraf als Zentralfigur bisher als die immer noch erträglichste erscheinen.
Dass sich die Amerikaner hinter den Kulissen seit längerem schon für eine Art Partnerschaft zwischen dem General und Benazir Bhutto einsetzten, leuchtete insofern ein, als beide eher säkular als islamisch ausgerichtet sind und Frau Bhutto ungeachtet ihrer fragwürdigen politischen und administrativen Reputation mit der PPP eine recht gut organisierte Partei hinter sich weiß. Schwerlich zu bestreiten ist allerdings auch, dass die alarmierende Sicherheitslage im Lande alles andere als einen reibungslosen Wechsel von militärischer zu demokratischer Herrschaft erwarten ließ.
So ist Pakistan, dieses vor sechs Jahrzehnten geschaffene, aber von Grund auf missratene islamische Wunschgebilde, wieder einmal dort angelangt, wo es schon des Öfteren stand: am Rande des Abgrunds, aus dem als beklemmendes Echo der Notruf von Militärs widerhallt, die daran alles andere als unschuldig - und seit fast zehn Jahren nun auch noch atomar ausgerüstet sind.
Text: F.A.Z., 06.11.2007, Nr. 258 / Seite 3
Bildmaterial: AFP
http://www.faz.net/s/RubDDBDABB9457A437BAA85A49C26FB23A0/Doc~E961392F6DC234E31BCDC1E4E55AF5C0D~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
