PDA

View Full Version : Musharraf defies Bush, snubs Rice


tony mitra
11-04-2007, 03:51 PM
Source: Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Musharraf_defies_Bush_snubs_Rice/articleshow/2515610.cms)


Musharraf defies Bush, snubs Rice
3 Nov 2007, 2220 hrs IST,Chidanand Rajghatta,TNN

SMS NEWS to 58888 for latest updates

WASHINGTON: Pakistani military ruler Pervez Musharraf's has defied the advice of his American benefactors in imposing martial law and Emergency, but Washington appears set to finesse the situation yet again because of what it sees as the overall US interest in the so-called war on terror.

The first sign that Washington is ready to wink at Musharraf's crackdown came when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stopped short of condemning the development and instead described it as "highly regrettable."

She told CNN that the United States does not support extra-constitutional measures and urged restraint on all sides and a "swift return to democracy."

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the Bush administration was "deeply disturbed" by the developments while offering words of support to the Pakistani people.

"The United States stands with the people of Pakistan in supporting a democratic process and in countering violent extremism," McCormack, who is accompanying Rice on her visit to Turkey, told AP . "We urge all parties to work together to complete the transition to democracy and civilian rule without violence or delay."

But the statements fell well short of the kind of condemnations Washington routinely issues against countries, excepting vassal states, that suppress democratic rights, indicating that the administration was already finessing Musharraf's crackdown.

There was no word from Rice or her underlings about the arrest of the chief justice and his associates or about the crackdown on the media.

Musharraf's precipitate step came hours after the Bush administration sent high level envoys, including the top US military commander for the region, Admiral William Fallon, to dissuade him from moving in that direction. But the military dictator is believed to have argued before Fallon that the security situation in the country and the war against Al-Qaida and the Taliban demanded Emergency measures.

Musharraf also rejected Fallon's offer to send US troops to the region, saying American forces would only exacerbate the situation, and demanding instead that Washington supply more military hardware.

Musharraf's declaration of Emergency came only a day after Rice publicly said Washington would not be supportive of any extra-constitutional means and asked that he proceed with the scheduled parliamentary elections. Nearly a month ago, Rice had made a 2 a.m phone call to Musharraf to ask him not to impose Emergency when such a move seemed imminent.

With Washington shut down for the weekend, US mandarins and regional specialists have enough time to spin their way out of what is obviously a direct snub to a Bush administration policy of engineering a civilian-military deal in Pakistan.

That deal now appears to have come unstuck.

Washington though clearly had the inside scoop on Musharraf's impending moves.

Besides sending Fallon and Jordan's King Abdulla to persuade Musharraf not to go down the Emergency route, the US also baled out its current prima donna Benazir Bhutto, who fled to Dubai hours before the military action, ostensibly to meet her family.

But the scuttlebutt in Islamabad and Washington is that Benazir -- and the US -- knew the crackdown was coming, and she was advised to leave. How Washington will handle this public defiance by Musharraf of the line it laid down -- besides defying popular opinion in Pakistan -- will unravel over the next week.

Musharraf's journey from Washington's poster boy to possibly its problem child has been gradual but understated. Publicly, the Bush administration still swears by him; privately, it began swearing at him some months back when reports first surfaced that he was holding back on Washington in its war on terror.

But instead of dumping him overnight as it often does with odious dictators, Washington decided that the delicate war on terror business demanded a gradual transition in Pakistan, a country seen as the ground zero of world terrorism.

That was when the Bush administration decided to interject Benazir Bhutto, the discredited former prime minister who was not even getting a low level state department appointment till last year.

But with Musharraf in no mood to relent, Washington is now faced with a sticky new situation in a country now commonly described as the most dangerous place in the world.
---------------------------------

The situation in Pakistan is precarious. Many consider it far more dangerous for the world than whatever happens in North Korea or Iran. Pakistan is a thin long country with a rather unsustainable situation. Vertically, the thin nation is literally split into two, with the entire western section sparsely populated and more or less in control of tribals, many of whom are Talibanaized, with the region virtually not in control of the central administration. The entire eastern thread, with a common border with India is densely populated and more urbanized, but with serious frictions between the hard core Islamists, the secular people wanting a democracy, and the ruling military junta hand in hand with the army and the secret service. Mr. Musharraf seems keen to retain his dictatorial powers for years to come. Meanwhile the political leaders of the nation, such as Ms. Bhutto, has been embroiled with accusations of ineptitude and high corruption during previous tenures when they had been the political heads of Pakistan (before being tossed out through military coups).

To cap it off, Pakistan has both nuclear warheads and missiles, and the history of its nuclear development has been fraught with stolen technologies and proliferation of it to other unsavory nations. For example, it has been reported that Pakistan got its missile technology from North Korea (who themselves got it from the Chinese, who originally got it from the Soviets), and in exchange, it passed on the technology to make nuclear bombs to North Korea, a knowledge that Mr. A.Q. Khan acquired through a series of stolen documents, papers, designs and gadgets that were funneled to Pakistan over a period of ten or fifteen years, mostly from Europe and the US. It is also reported that Pakistan passed some of it to Iran and Lybia, among possibly other nations.

Finally, exactly who controls the nukes today, has been put into question. More importantly, if the nation descends into anarchy and civil war, or what might happen if the Taleban or AL Qaeda factiosn gain control of the missiles even momentarily, has been subject of debate.

USA has offered to send their troops to help secure and gain control of the western bad lands that are increasingly falling into the hands of the tribal warlords with sympathy for a Talebanized society. But Pakistan has refused this help since intrusion of foreign troops on its soil might actually make things worse than it is now.

No one can say for sure what the future stability of the region might look like, but it looks increasingly certain that the place will be a powder keg for a long while, with no easy, stable and homogenous formula in sight.

Scorpion
11-04-2007, 04:09 PM
I agree with you Tony. Pakistan has all the earmarks of a political and social disaster waiting to happen. An unstable dictatorial government, unprecedented social strife, terrorist interference, a marginally effective military and an immediate delivery capability of nuclear weapons anywhere in the region. Add to that the return of Bhutto and it appears that Pakistan is ripe for civil war. If that happens I can forsee India involving itself, at least to some degree.

suedanim
11-05-2007, 03:06 PM
I agree with you Tony. Pakistan has all the earmarks of a political and social disaster waiting to happen. An unstable dictatorial government, unprecedented social strife, terrorist interference, a marginally effective military and an immediate delivery capability of nuclear weapons anywhere in the region. Add to that the return of Bhutto and it appears that Pakistan is ripe for civil war. If that happens I can forsee India involving itself, at least to some degree.


Agreed. He is a dictator and never had any intention of reliquishing power in the first place. And yes... its only a matter of time before India reacts to these latest developments.

If ever there was a terrorist supporting nation Pakistan is the only one that can be easily identified by anyone with minimal knowledge of current events. AND it is nuclear!

With Musharrafs latest move, one has to wonder how long it will be before he too is overthrown by someone who favors al qaida and other anti-American terror groups in a very strong way. In fact...why isn't the United States asking why Pakistan is not doing more to remove or capture the terror groups inhabiting that country? Why hasn't the US invaded Pakistan and accused it of being a terrorist supporter?

Pogo
11-05-2007, 11:54 PM
With Musharrafs latest move, one has to wonder how long it will be before he too is overthrown by someone who favors al qaida and other anti-American terror groups in a very strong way. In fact...why isn't the United States asking why Pakistan is not doing more to remove or capture the terror groups inhabiting that country? Why hasn't the US invaded Pakistan and accused it of being a terrorist supporter?

The most reasonable conclusion is that our current administration doesn't have a problem with Pakistan's involvement in terrorism, including the attacks on 9/11.

preservanation
11-06-2007, 11:45 PM
The most remarkable thing is that there are some in this country that actively root against us and hope that things go haywire.
Yeah dems!
They will certainly fix all ills.
Do you know how?
Simple....Blame it on Bush.
No worries.
Hoooo Boy.

Pogo
11-07-2007, 12:14 AM
The most remarkable thing is that there are some in this country that actively root against us and hope that things go haywire.
Yeah dems!
They will certainly fix all ills.
Do you know how?
Simple....Blame it on Bush.
No worries.
Hoooo Boy.

So why should I be a fanboy for corporatism?

Kevin67
11-13-2007, 12:34 AM
Pakistan had this coming for a while. That country simply doesn't have much patriotism, or dedication to democracy and their fellow citizens. To the US, it isn't a direct threat, but I think it is to India.

Scorpion
11-13-2007, 01:34 AM
Obviously there is no love lost between India and Pakistan. The continued military action in the Kasmir attests to a hatred by one another by both countries.

If India percieves that Pakistan may loose control of the security of their nuclear arsenal I can envisage India attacking Pakistan to assure its own safety.

Kevin67
11-13-2007, 01:39 AM
^ And I believe India would be justified in that action despite the US hating them for it. Pakistan is becoming a huge threat in to India, and if India doesn't do something about it, Pakistan WILL strike first to get the upper hand. They wont hesitate to preserve US relations, they already don't care what the US has to say in their current "state of emergency"