Pakistan in Turmoil
By Israel Shamir – December 31, 2007
Benazir Bhutto’s assassination had moved unhappy Pakistan a step closer to unknown future which may include disintegration and American invasion on some stage. Her murder was organized by the Neocon team who intend to use the turmoil to take over Pakistani nuclear assets in the next stage of their world war. But do not fear future. Our enemies do not keep Fate in their thrall. They are cocksure, but they might lose. We should not be forever scared of pending changes; leave this fear to rich and feeble old men. A storm is ahead, but there is no status quo worth saving and preserving anywhere in Asia, least of all in Pakistan.
Some pundits already compared her assassination with that of Prince Rudolf in Saraevo 1914, but even the bloody and unnecessary World War One ushered in an unexpected victorious revolution and had derailed imperialist plans for half a century.
Who killed her? The authorities try to blame some jihadis, but not only al Qaeda leaders denied their involvement, not only Benazir’s posthumous letters denounce the government rather than Taliban. Dr Shabir Choudhry, an expert, commented well:
“Why would Al-Qaeda kill her? Maybe she was pro-West and went there to protect the Western interests, but she was not in power, and was not even close to getting elected. Even if she were elected Prime Minister of Pakistan, now most of the powers are vested in the post of the President, and not Prime Minister. Musharraf and his Ministers took pride in supporting and promoting American interest or 'War on terror'. They, in order to stay in power undermined the Pakistani or Muslim interest and have virtually made Pakistan a colony of America. So why target a person who had not yet become a Prime Minister, and have not practically done much to support the Western policy in Pakistan?”
The murder occurred just one month after the Neocons began a discussion on the pages of the NY Times calling to undermine and dismantle Pakistan, and take over its nuclear devices. Frederick Kagan and Michael O'Hanlon called in the New York Times (Pakistan’s Collapse, Our Problem, November 18, 2007) to invade Pakistan after it descends into chaos, liaise with pro-American elements in the army, secure the capital, and remove the bombs “to someplace like New Mexico; or a remote redoubt within Pakistan, with the nuclear technology guarded by elite Pakistani forces backed up (and watched over) by crack international troops… unless it fells into wrong hands [of Islamic terrorists]”. Abid Ullah Jan rightly noted that “Pakistan's military is not as concerned about the myth of these weapons falling into the hands of militants as they are fearful of America using Pakistan's engineered instability as a ruse for implementing a unilateral disarmament scheme.”
After the assassination, leading Neocons and extreme Zionists John Bolton and Michael Savage already called to forget about democracy in Pakistan, and instead, to give full support to General Musharraf. The idea of removing Pakistani nuclear weapons – so they would not fall into hands of terrorists – is being voiced again and again. In order to conceal this plan, they speak now of Pakistan being unripe to democracy.
This is lie. The people of Pakistan are as good as anybody in Asia: they do not want American dominance, and real democracy may only liberate them from the American yoke. But the leaders of Pakistan had sold out; and the worst are the military and intelligence. Thus the choice was grim: a pro-American military dictator who turned Pakistan into a US invasion base, and a pro-American ex-PM who was about to add prestige to the rotten regime. The regime of Pakistan has to go, to be changed for people’s rule free from Washington orders. One doubts whether such a task can be achieved by elections; probably an insurgency based on people’s will has a better chance, following achievements of such diverse inspiration models as Mao in China, Fidel in Cuba, Hezbollah in Lebanon. The insurgency is there, and with proper support it can win over Pakistan.
What insurgency? An insurgency can be good only if it fights against Western imperialism. There were plenty of insurgencies for imperialism, from Savimbi in Angola to Contras in Nicaragua to al Qaeda in Afghanistan. If an insurgency is blessed by an American president, if it helps imperialists, like al-Qaeda did (and does), it can bring only disaster to the people. In colour codes, green is good together with red.
The long shadow of the tragic ten-year-long Afghani war (1980 to 1989) is still with us, for the events can’t be understood without it. A few years ago, Zbigniev Brzezinski boasted (“How the US provoked the Soviet Union into invading Afghanistan and starting the whole mess”, Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, read here) how he succeeded to trap the Soviets in the war by starting insurgency against the socialist government long time before the Soviet troops came over to help the government. Al Qaeda and other mujaheds were but a local version of Contras, and they caused much sorrow to the people of Afghanistan. The Afghanis I have met say that the days of Najibullah’s pro-Soviet government were the best times their country ever knew.
Pakistan became a nuclear power as a reward for its support for the American-led war. But was it worth it? Pakistan was turned into a war base, and millions of refugees, thousands of weapons and endless traffic of drugs undermined the weak country. Afghanistan descended into living hell. Support of the war gave rise to the ICI, the real rulers of Pakistan. The nuclear weapons once touted as “Islamic bomb” became worthless as Pakistan was turned into an American colony. Indeed there is no blessing in the ill-begotten gains.
Even Reaganites, right-wing Republicans who provoked the Afghan war did not enjoy the fruits of victory. The anticommunist conservatives invited young children of Jewish Trotskyites to carry out the ideological war for them, and the young Neocons succeeded, but at the same time they completely displaced their erstwhile patrons. The conservatives became Palaeocons, out of power and out of influence, while their positions were taken over by Neocons.
The European and American Left (from French Communists to Noam Chomsky) agreed to play ball with their nephews the Neocons, condemned the USSR and warmly embraced the al Qaeda mujaheeds. For this sin, the left went into abeyance after the USSR was undone.
Our good and admired friend Edward Herman wrote recently (ZNet Commentary, December 16, 2007) of Great Satan and Little Satan, of the US and Israel. Whatever these two satans touch, rots. Whoever relies upon their help, loses his soul. The people of Pakistan deserve freedom, prosperity and equality, but no union with Satan will help them. Musharraf served the Great Satan, and Bhutto played ball with the Little Satan. Now the NY Times reported that the US plans to use the native mountain tribes of Pakistan to carry out their war. Unless the people of Pakistan reject Satan and his allies, be it called al Qaeda or ICI or CIA or Special troops, they won’t be free. As long as they still believe that something good can come out of Satan’s friendship, they are doomed. Their country will be dismantled, and their useless nuclear weapons won’t help them.
However, dissolution of Pakistan does not have to lead to havoc. There is an alternative of reintegration of its provinces in India. Partition of India in 1947 was a tragic mistake, as tragic as partition of Palestine. It was caused by the British imperialists, who planted the seeds of partition a century earlier, in 1857. In that year, the Brits killed millions of Indians while crushing the Great Uprising. Akhilesh Mithal I Itihaas wrote: “before 1857, there was an Indian Culture and Style, and there was no Hindu-Muslim divide. The defeat of 1857 meant a great culture fracture which continues to separate our people into mutually antagonistic shrapnel like fragments.” This great fracture can be healed.
Our friend Anthony Nahas wrote: “the Muslim population of Pakistan was - and is - smaller than that of India, though Pakistan was created to make Muslim's "safe" from presumed Hindu intolerance and oppression. If the Muslim population in India can live in peace, thrive and enjoy protection under secular law, what was the point of creating Pakistan in the first place? Although it is inconceivable for Pakistan to merge back into India, such an (impossible) event would probably be the greatest thing that could happen to both countries. It is true that Islam and Hinduism are the two beautiful eyes of one culturally diverse and pluralistic Indian subcontinent.”
Last updated 04/01/2008