Pakistan’s capacity to defy a superpower

[Neo]

Pakistan’s capacity to defy a superpower


Tuesday, August 22, 2006
javascript:; http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/print.asp?page=2006\08\22\story_22-8-2006_pg3_3

SECOND OPINION: —Khaled Ahmed’s TV Review

After the Cold War we discovered that we were on the right side, but refused to wipe our tears. The same sort of thing is happening now that we are placed in the anti-terrorist camp

The realist school of international affairs believes that there are three kinds of states: 1) the state that will successfully compel another to act according to its will; 2) the state that will not bend to the will of another state but could not compel other states to obey it and 3) the state that can neither resist pressure from nor can pressure other states into doing its bidding. The US is said to belong to the first category, India, the second, and Pakistan, the third. But the capacity to bend other states depends on the big power’s willingness to ‘compensate’ the obedient state.

Prime TV (June 26, 2006) had Dr Moid talking to editor Najam Sethi who said that the military rulers of Pakistan always ended up giving away more to America without proper bargaining than the civilian rulers. He said General Musharraf was losing a lot of support in the United States as well as in Pakistan because he had undertaken to do too much with very little domestic political support, especially from the two mainstream parties that made up the national vote bank. He however regarded Musharraf as the only statesmanlike figure in Pakistan who could make the major decisions needed to bring Pakistan back to normal. He was of the opinion that America always sought its objectives and was able to bend Pakistan to its self-interest, and the generals played into its hands.

Another angle to this issue is presented in The White House and Pakistan (OUP) by FS Aijazuddin who quotes a 1966 memorandum to President Johnson on the same theme: “Thus, while we can’t blame the Paks for being unhappy with us, it isn’t because we betrayed them; it is because their own policy of using us against India has failed. They know full well we didn’t give them $800 million in arms to use against India (but they did). Even so we built up Pakistan’s own independent position and sinews — to the tune of almost $5 billion in support. We’ve protected Pakistan against India; we had more to do with stopping the war Ayub had started than anyone else (just in time to save Paks).” After the Cold War we discovered that we were on the right side, but refused to wipe our tears. The same sort of thing is happening now that we are placed in the anti-terrorist camp.

Indus TV (June 20, 2006) asked Javed Jabbar, Iqbal Haider and Hameed Gul about the revival of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Iqbal Haider chose to highlight the conduct of the Taliban as purveyors of a way of life that was no longer acceptable to the world. He said the Taliban did not want the women educated and punished those who took part in any entertainment. He said he believed in freedom and democracy and simply could not support the Taliban. Javed Jabber pointed to the legal aspects of the rise of Hamid Karzai and his efforts to run Afghanistan in line with the recognised principles. He said Karzai was taking the world community along while the Taliban were feared by the world community. Hameed Gul insisted that everybody was against the Americans, the Taliban were a part of that global movement and were bound to win their war.

Ex- senator Iqbal Haider continues to be the most courageous intellectual in Pakistan. Curiously, his view of the Taliban is not shared by the PPP leader in the Senate, Raza Rabbani. The latter represents the cost of the PPP joining up with the MMA against Musharraf. Mr Jabbar persists in his informed realism and refuses to succumb to the common Pakistani line on Karzai.

AAJ TV (June 27, 2006) Saleem Bukhari said that through Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) the duplicity (doghula-pan) of the US could be exposed. He said after the nuclear deal concluded between India and the US, Pakistan had no way out but to go to the SCO. He said it was unfair that Iran should be prevented from making a nuclear bomb but Israel should be allowed to make one.

Mr Bukhari got the SCO totally wrong. It cannot be Pakistan’s make-weight against the US-Indian nuclear deal. Embarrassingly, SCO is against Pakistan because of its members’ line against terrorism, which they clearly believe to be Islamic and linked to Pakistan. Its latest declaration castigated the US because Uzbekistan was unhappy after providing military bases to it and because China and Russia want the US out of Central Asia. SCO members remain wary of Pakistan, due to the country’s ongoing association with the Taliban and other Islamic radical groups. Even if the SCO didn’t have such concerns, the organisation would probably be reluctant to accept Pakistan as a full member without doing the same for India.

Business Plus (June 27, 2006) Mubashir Luqman talked to astrologer Mariam Aftab who said that in the 1970s Bhutto was Capricorn and Zia who overthrew him was Leo. In the 1990s, Nawaz Sharif was Capricorn and Musharraf who overthrew him was Leo. She said Bhutto and Indira Gandhi belonged to the same star. Both lost their lives unnaturally. Their sons too died unnatural deaths. She predicted that Musharraf could be in power for another two and a half years, which placed his exit in 2010.

Leo overthrows and kills. General Zia overthrew Bhutto then killed him and accused Capricorn Bhutto of killing someone first. Leo Zia then was killed by someone and Justice Shafiur Rehman Commission Report on the subject has been made a ‘restricted’ document. Leo Musharraf has not killed anyone and says he was almost killed by Capricorn Nawaz and that was why he took over. Capricorns it appears share to some extent the Leo habit of occasionally killing people. Leo Musharraf has escaped death many times. Leos, take cover! *