Pakistan in Turmoil
By Israel Shamir
Benazir Bhutto’s assassination has moved unhappy Pakistan a step closer to an
unknown future which may include disintegration and American invasion at 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 the 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 have already compared her assassination with that of Prince
Ferdinand in Saraevo 1914, but even bloody and unnecessary World War I ushered
in an unexpected victorious revolution and derailed imperialist plans for half
a century.
Who killed her? The authorities try to blame some jihadis, but not only did al
Qaeda leaders deny their involvement, not only did Benazir’s posthumous letters
denounce the government rather than the Taliban, but Dr Shabir Choudhry, an
expert, has well commented:
“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 the 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 had 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 for the undermining and
dismantling of Pakistan, and the takeover of its nuclear devices. Frederick
Kagan and Michael O'Hanlon called in the New York Times (Pakistan’s
Collapse, Our Problem, November 18, 2007) for the invasion of Pakistan after
it descends into chaos, liaison with pro-American elements in the army, securing
the capital, and removing 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 has 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 for forgetting about democracy in
Pakistan, and instead, for giving full support to General Musharraf. The idea of
removing Pakistani nuclear weapons – so they would not fall into the hands of
terrorists – is being voiced again and again. In order to conceal this
plan, they speak now of Pakistan being unripe for democracy.
This is lie. The people of Pakistan are as good as anybody in Asia: they do not
want American dominance, and real democracy can only liberate them from the
American yoke. But the leaders of Pakistan have 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 exchanged for people’s rule free from Washington orders. One doubts
whether such a task can be achieved by elections; probably an insurgency based
on the 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 succeed in Pakistan.
What insurgency? An insurgency would be good only if it
fights against Western imperialism. There have been plenty of insurgencies
for imperialism, from Savimbi in Angola to the Contras in Nicaragua to al
Qaeda in Afghanistan. If an insurgency is blessed by an American president, if
it helps the imperialists -- like al-Qaeda did (and does) -- it can bring only
disaster to the people. In colour code, 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 these 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 in trapping the Soviets in the war by starting an
insurgency against the socialist government a 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 was allowed to become a nuclear power as a reward
for its support for the American-led war. But was the price worth it? Pakistan
was turned into a war base, and millions of refugees, thousands of weapons and
endless traffic in drugs has 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 the “Islamic bomb” became worthless
as Pakistan was turned into an American colony. Indeed there is no blessing in
the ill-gotten gains.
Even Reaganites, the 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 these 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 mujaheds. 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, whether 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 the alternative of reintegration of its provinces back into
India. The partition of India in 1947 was a tragic mistake, as tragic as the
partition of Palestine. It was engineered 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.”