[vishaw]

The Destabilization of Pakistan

by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto has created conditions which contribute to the ongoing destabilization and fragmentation of Pakistan as a Nation.
The process of US sponsored "regime change", which normally consists in the re-formation of a fresh proxy government under new leaders has been broken. Discredited in the eyes of Pakistani public opinion, General Pervez Musharaf cannot remain in the seat of political power. But at the same time, the fake elections supported by the "international community" scheduled for January 2008, even if they were to be carried out, would not be accepted as legitimate, thereby creating a political impasse.
There are indications that the assassination of Benazir Bhutto was anticipated by US officials:
"It has been known for months that the Bush-Cheney administration and its allies have been maneuvering to strengthen their political control of Pakistan, paving the way for the expansion and deepening of the “war on terrorism” across the region.
Various American destabilization plans, known for months by officials and analysts, proposed the toppling of Pakistan's military...
The assassination of Bhutto appears to have been anticipated. There were even reports of “chatter” among US officials about the possible assassinations of either Pervez Musharraf or Benazir Bhutto, well before the actual attempts took place.

The Balkanization of Pakistan
Already in 2005, a report by the US National Intelligence Council and the CIA forecast a "Yugoslav-like fate" for Pakistan "in a decade with the country riven by civil war, bloodshed and inter-provincial rivalries, as seen recently in Balochistan." (Energy Compass, 2 March 2005). According to the NIC-CIA, Pakistan is slated to become a "failed state" by 2015, "as it would be affected by civil war, complete Talibanisation and struggle for control of its nuclear weapons". (Quoted by former Pakistan High Commissioner to UK, Wajid Shamsul Hasan, Times of India, 13 February 2005):

"Nascent democratic reforms will produce little change in the face of opposition from an entrenched political elite and radical Islamic parties. In a climate of continuing domestic turmoil, the Central government's control probably will be reduced to the Punjabi heartland and the economic hub of Karachi," the former diplomat quoted the NIC-CIA report as saying.
Expressing apprehension, Hasan asked, "are our military rulers working on a similar agenda or something that has been laid out for them in the various assessment reports over the years by the National Intelligence Council in joint collaboration with CIA?" Ibid)

Continuity, characterized by the dominant role of the Pakistani military and intelligence has been scrapped in favor of political breakup and balkanization. According to the NIC-CIA scenario, which Washington intends to carry out: "Pakistan will not recover easily from decades of political and economic mismanagement, divisive policies, lawlessness, corruption and ethnic friction," (Ibid) .
The US course consists in fomenting social, ethnic and factional divisions and political fragmentation, including the territorial breakup of Pakistan. This course of action is also dictated by US war plans in relation to both Afghanistan and Iran.
This US agenda for Pakistan is similar to that applied throughout the broader Middle East Central Asian region. US strategy, supported by covert intelligence operations, consists in triggering ethnic and religious strife, abetting and financing secessionist movements while also weakening the institutions of the central government.
The broader objective is to fracture the Nation State and redraw the borders of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan.




NOTE: Please refer this source link for further details.
The Destabilization of Pakistan

[satish]

Right since its inception terrorism was Pakistan's state policy now this very terrorism will be a decisive factor for its division.

As you suggested Pakistan may face Yugoslav-like fate, it’s better to divide it into three region Baluchistan (which is already facing the heat of separatism),NWFP and border areas with Afghanistan as the Al-Qaeda hub,and Punjab along with eastern Pakistan, as three independent entities..

[chanda_s]

honestly, i feel itis in indi's interest to ensure pakistan is undivided and gets back to democracy. the bangladesh episode has proved that in the long run, religion is thicker than anything else. by 1975,pakistan was the enemy no.1 of the bangladeshis and india their saviour and soulmate. but now the roles have reversed.

just imagine three more unfriendly countries in the neighbour hood. three small states are not viable independently in the geographical context of pakistan. since they are otherwise not viable, there is every chance that they would turn into rouge states perhaps exporting terror, drugs and becoming a safe haven for criminals. there is bound to be civil war in these countries which would invariably spill over into india.

therefore i feel it is better to have a united pakistan with a democracy than have three rogue states not knowing what to do with the nuclear and missile stockpiles.

[harshabanad]

The problem of Pakistan is the issue of " Religion over State".The majority of Pakistani people believe in Islamic laws over state laws, with only the minority supporting the Democracy. Moreover, with various tribes and ethnic cultures prevailing in Pakistan, it is very hard to have a democratic set up just as in America , India or the U.K. The tribal leaders have great controls in their respective regions. The only way to curb such extreme religious affiliations is to have the military rule. Pakistani military could be the only organization which could effectively control terrorism and keep the country's nuclear arsenal intact.
And, in countries like Pakistan, political leaders derive their powers from supporting Islam. If they go against Islam they would face the same fate as Ms Bhutto.
But yes, if the military promotes terrorism, the only option for
India is to completely secure its borders and wait and watch.
As of now, in near future I see a greater threat from Bangladesh than Pakistan because, Pakistan is too busy in its internal affairs and the power has shifted from Musharrf. I somehow felt Pakistan ( and India)safe under Musharrf. The democratic theory is unfit for Pakistan.

[vishaw]

Originally Posted by harshabanad

I somehow felt Pakistan ( and India)safe under Musharrf. The democratic theory is unfit for Pakistan.

I don't think that uder a dictator Pakistan is secure. Though we can say that under Musharaf some how the tensions on the border became less starined but they were there. Infact the paucity in tension was due to the vigil of U.S over Musharaf and not his personal attribute or desire. And when a state is ruled by a dictator then all are not happy under it. Only dmocracy has the solution for all the unrest though the initial path may be difficult. And Harshabanand do not forget that it is under Musharaf only internal problems in Pakistan has arisen. Some how he never wants democracy to creep in, he is playing under the hands of US and division of Pakistan is a plan of US, and so it is clear that silently he is working for this plan of US... Today only I read in Hindu, that on the day of her assasination, Benazir was to meet some American Senator and was to tell them about Generals plan to dislodge elections using US aid. This is a very complex situation for Pakistan, whom they are trusting is infact cheating them.

And as far India is concerned, India should not directly enter the political scenario of Pakistan, as as usual her intentions will be doubted. Instead through UN and SAARC, India should try that Pakistan becomes democratic. And as far the problem of border issue with Pakisatn, this issue should be at rest for while and security at Loc is must as the situation can take any turn. India should be equally worried on Pakistans plight as well as if any threat from Bangladesh because if we see closely the internal trouble of Pakistan is not internal in its roots it is nexus of International players and India can be the most effected Nation being a neighbour.

[chanda_s]

this is an interesting article on pakistan; how it has become the world's most dangerous place. source is the economist. (ignore the author's constant repitition of 'Miss Bhutto'. you may read it as Mrs.Bhutto'

THE war against Islamist extremism and the terrorism it spawns is being fought on many fronts. But it may well be in Pakistan that it is won or lost. It is not only that the country's lawless frontier lands provide a refuge for al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, and that its jihad academies train suicide-bombers with global reach. Pakistan is also itself the world's second most populous Muslim nation, with a proud tradition of tolerance and moderation, now under threat from the extremists on its fringes. Until recently, the risk that Pakistan might be prey to Islamic fundamentalism of the sort its Taliban protégés enforced in Afghanistan until 2001 seemed laughable. It is still far-fetched. But after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, twice prime minister, nobody is laughing. This, after all, is a country that now has the bomb Miss Bhutto's father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, craved so passionately as prime minister in the 1970s.

There are many other reasons why the murder of Miss Bhutto (and some 20 other people unlucky enough to be near her) makes Pakistan seem a frightening place (see article). That terrorists could strike in Rawalpindi, headquarters of the Pakistani army, despite having advertised threats against Miss Bhutto, and despite the slaughter of some 150 people in Karachi on the day she returned from exile last October, suggests no one is safe. If, as many in Pakistan believe, the security services were themselves complicit, that is perhaps even scarier. It would make it even harder to deal with the country's many other fissures: the sectarian divide between Sunni and Shia Muslims; the ethnic tensions between Punjabis, Sindhis, Pushtuns and “mohajir” immigrants from India; the insurgency in Baluchistan; and the spread of the “Pakistani Taliban” out of the border tribal areas into the heartlands.
In search of statesmen

Miss Bhutto's murder has left her Pakistan People's Party (PPP), the country's biggest, at risk of disintegration. It is now in the hands of her unpopular widower, Asif Ali Zardari, and her 19-year-old son, Bilawal, who by rights should be punting and partying with his classmates at Oxford, not risking his neck in politics. The election whose campaign killed Miss Bhutto was due on January 8th, but the Election Commission has delayed it by six weeks. The PPP will reap a big sympathy vote. But bereft of Miss Bhutto, the party—and the country—look desperately short of leaders of national stature. Other Bhutto clan-members are already sniping at her successors.

The other big mainstream party, led by her rival Nawaz Sharif, another two-time prime minister, is also in disarray. Both parties have been weakened by their leaders' exiles, as well as by persecution at the hands of President Pervez Musharraf's military dictatorship. In truth, both Miss Bhutto and Mr Sharif were lousy prime ministers. But at least they had some semblance of a popular mandate. The systematic debilitation of their parties benefits the army, which has entrenched itself in the economic as well as the political system. But it also helps the Islamist parties—backed, as they are, by an army which has sometimes found them more congenial partners than the more popular mainstream parties. The unpopularity of the Musharraf regime, hostility towards America, and resentment at a war in neighbouring Afghanistan that many in Pakistan see as directed at both Islam and their ethnic-Pushtun kin, have also helped the Islamists.

So, ironically, America's support for Mr Musharraf, justified as necessary to combat extremism next door, has fostered extremism at home. Similarly, in the 1980s America backed General Zia ul Haq, a dictator and Islamic fundamentalist, as his intelligence services sponsored the mujahideen who eventually toppled the Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan. In the process, they helped create what Miss Bhutto called a “Frankenstein's monster”—of jihadist groups with sympathisers in the army and intelligence services. The clubbable, whisky-quaffing, poodle-cuddling Mr Musharraf is no fundamentalist. But the monster still stalks his security forces.
Two straws to clutch

Yet Pakistan's plight is not yet hopeless. Two things could still help arrest its slide into anarchy, improbable though both now seem. The first is a credible investigation into Miss Bhutto's murder and the security-service lapses (or connivance) that allowed it to happen. Mr Musharraf's willingness to let a couple of British policemen help the inquiry is unlikely to produce this. Every time a bomb goes off in Pakistan, people believe that one of the country's own spooks lit the fuse. Until there has been a convincing purge of the military-intelligence apparatus, Pakistan will never know true stability.

Second, there could be a fair election. This would expose the weakness of the Islamist parties. In the last general election in 2002, they won just one-tenth of the votes, despite outrageous rigging that favoured them. Even if they fared somewhat better this time, they would still, in the most populous provinces, Sindh and Punjab, be trounced by the mainstream parties. An elected government with popular support would be better placed to work with the moderate, secular, professional tendency in the army to tackle extremism and bring Pakistan's poor the economic development they need.

Sadly, there seems little hope that the security forces will abandon the habit of a lifetime and allow truly fair elections. The delay in the voting—opposed by both main opposition parties—has been seen as part of its plan to rig the results. The violence that has scarred the country since Miss Bhutto's assassination may intensify. The army may be tempted to impose another state of emergency; or it may cling on to ensure that the election produces the result it wants—a weak and pliable coalition of the PPP and Mr Musharraf's loyalists.

For too long, Mr Musharraf has been allowed to pay lip-service to democratic forms, while the United States has winked at his blatant disdain for the substance. The justification has been the pre-eminent importance of “stability” in the world's most dangerous place. It is time to impress upon him and the generals still propping him up that democracy is not the alternative to stability. It is Pakistan's only hope.

source. Pakistan | The world's most dangerous place | Economist.com

[vishaw]

The major crisis that Pakistan wittinesses now is just a repetition of the past. This kind of the situation for Pakistan is not new. I find that the major problem with Pakistan is the identity crisis. The whole idea of Pakistan and its formation was absurd, the nation for Muslims so that there rights can be protected from the Hindu majority in India. But the formation of Bangladesh in 1971 simply kicked that notion. Pakistan though a Islamic state but is the mixture of different races. People of Punjab are mainly those that have been migrated from UP in India and those that were in Punjab never supported the Muslim League. Then the people in Baluchistan Province are more close to Iran and those of the NWFP, are a different faction identical to Afghan tribes, no way resemble to others. Sindhis are again small in number when taken into account other provinces. When Pakistan was formed, they don,t know with whom to link, they could not link with freedom fighters whom India considered, as it would associate them with India. They cannot boast of their Islamic origin as many of them are converts. And India represented far more number of Muslims than the Pakistan as Islamic state. They then started associating themselves with the invaders whom Indian history accuse as the plunders. They started linking them with every thing that goes against India. But in reality the Soil. the culture, the custom , the language of Punjab and Sindh is still so merged with India. This all led them to confusion and in order to propagate them selves different their internal troubles as well as troubles with India started, from the very day the Pakistan got separated.

But this is history, and now what is good for Pakistan, is to establish democracy as soon as possible; it really needs a leader of nationalistic character that can bind the whole nation together. Forgetting past if Pakistan cooperates with India then the miseries will be things of past and Pakistan can emerge as a great nation in South Asia. History had made Pakistan and India to separate but future lies in mutual understanding. We can only wish that responsible government forms there that can relate better with India as well as others.

[vishaw]

After Bhutto

Bhutto’s assassination was both shocking and tragically predictable. Since returning to Pakistan, the former prime minister faced three assassination attempts. The fourth took her life. She could have been the first woman secretary general of the United Nations. But she wanted to return home and help rebuild Pakistan.
Bhutto would likely have won the elections, writes FPIF contributor S. Abbas Raza, and helped to rein in the fundamentalists, both religious and political. Instead, her death leaves Pakistan in a political muddle. “In a final, tragic, coup de grace for democracy in Pakistan, it has been announced that Benazir Bhutto’s 19-year-old son Bilawal Bhutto will eventually become chairman-for-life of the PPP,” writes Raza in The Bhutto Dynasty Must End Now. “Worse, while we wait for him to grow up, the party will be co-chaired by Asif Zardari, Benazir Bhutto’s corrupt playboy husband who still faces charges in several countries. What hope can there be for democracy in the country when its largest, most populist political party completely lacks even a semblance of internal democracy, choosing instead a cult of personality in its abhorrent, dynastic succession?”
While Pakistan struggles to define a post-Bhutto future, larger geopolitical forces are reshaping the region. China and India, the world’s most populous nations, are joining hands with Russia to explore an alliance to counter U.S. power. As Tarique Niazi explains in Pushback to Unilateralism, “The growing convergence in the worldview of China, India and Russia brought them into a trilateral dialogue, which in Chinese President Hu's words would see ‘the three nations work together for further communication and coordination in major international and regional issues and promote the solution of disputes and differences through dialogue.’”
Finally, on a lighter note, William Hartung has done a humorous roundup of George W. Bush’s foreign policy successes for 2007. One of those successes: the U.S. president finally knows the name of Pakistan’s leader. Hartung writes in Best of Bush 2007: “When he was running for president the first time around, a reporter asked George W. Bush who the leader of Pakistan was, and he said ‘General. I can't name the General. General.’ He also said that ‘this guy is going to bring stability to the country.’ Now Bush knows that ‘this guy’ is named Musharraf - but he's still working on the nuances (like pronouncing ‘Pervez’).”




by JOHN FEFFER
Source: FPIF

[Ruchi_S]

Hi All,

My question to you all is:
What actions should India along with world community should take so that:

1)The crisis in Pakistan doesn't get intensified leading to its fragmentation
2)The friction in Pakistan doesn't spillover to India.

thanks
Ruchi.