Home >> South Asia >> India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal  Email  Print Mounting US meddling in Pakistan Muhammad Zain - 8/22/2007 US interference in Pakistan's internal affairs, as US media reports said it was prodding President General Pervez Musharraf to enter into a power-sharing deal with Benazir Bhutto, has reached a point, where many Pakistanis believe the 'friendly' country has not only undermined the sovereignty of their homeland, a frontline state in the so-called war on terror, but also shattered their hopes for return to real democracy in near future.
According a report in New York Times , General Pervez Musharraf has lost so much domestic support in recent months that American officials have gotten behind the idea that an alliance with Benazir Bhutto would be his best chance of remaining president. However, the US assertion raises many questions. First, when was General Musharraf popular among the people of Pakistan? Why the US should muster support for him, ignoring public sentiments in Pakistan ?
It is a fact that General Musharraf has never been a popular leader in the country. He has and still draws his strength from military uniform while his political party, the PML-Q, is banking on his uniform and law-enforcing agencies to rig election for its success. Left to itself, the party cannot win even a dozen seats. Only few individual leaders of the party can win in the Punjab. It has no roots in other provinces. General Musharraf has weakened considerably after the lawyers' movement and subsequent reinstatement of the chief justice of Pakistan, which has worried the US about his 'popularity.'
The US move indicates that it is more interested in saving a military ruler than facilitating Pakistan 's return to democracy. Then, there is another question – how the US would ensure a working relationship between two archrivals who declare each other a security risk? The PPP is traditionally an anti-establishment party and a majority of its workers will leave it when they are sure of a deal with a military ruler. On other hand, the PPP is dubbed as anti-state and responsible for the separation of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh ) by the establishment. In this scenario, any one can guess the future of a deal and working relationship between Benazir Bhutto and General Pervez Musharraf.
Undoubtedly, US meddling in Pakistan's internal affairs has increased with the passage of time. People in Pakistan have reasons to believe that the US masterminds regime change in Pakistan, when and where required. It is not by chance that civil governments were toppled in Pakistan when the US needed military rule in the country to advance its agenda after some domestic or international crisis.
Meanwhile, it is also not a coincidence that the US has opened floodgates of military and economic aid to Pakistan when there was a military ruler in the country, but imposed sanctions on it when there was a civil government in Pakistan . One wonders punishing laws, like the Pressler and Symington amendments, are introduced only during civil rule in Pakistan .
Pakistan 's history reveals that the US has encouraged military takeovers and then exploited the 'illegitimacy' of military rulers to advance its designs in the region. It supported General Ayub to fight communism until he unnecessarily went to war with India in 1965. The US pushed General Ziaul Haq to overthrow Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's government and manage his judicial killing for pursuing a nuclear programme.
During the Zia period, the US officially promoted 'jihad' to fight Soviet occupation forces in Afghanistan . US funding for arming and training Afghan and Pakistani youths for jihad led to the creation of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Had the US left Pakistan and Afghanistan alone, the menace of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda would not have been staring the world. Genuine Afghan fighters would have forced the Soviet troops to leave the country even if no country had helped them. US interference only compounded the problem for itself, Pakistan and the whole world.
Another fallout of the possible deal, backed by the US, is that it will deprive Pakistan of its biggest political party, the PPP, founded by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. According a recent survey whose result was published on August 14, PPP's popularity ratings have dropped to 12.9 percent since the last election. In the 2002 election, the PPP emerged as the biggest party with 28.42 percent votes despite widespread rigging. It clearly indicates how harmful even talk of a deal with a military ruler can prove for a political party in Pakistan. On other hand, the PML-N of Nawaz Sharif was rated as the most popular party in the survey for his unwavering stand against military rule. His party was fourth in the last election, behind the PPP, the ruling Q League and the MMA, a religious parties alliance, backed by the military rulers.
However, only the US could not be blamed for repeated interference in Pakistan. All political parties are equally responsible for it, as they look to the US for coming to power and regime change in Pakistan. It has seriously jeopardized the sovereignty of Pakistan, which has to bear the brunt of failed US policies in the region. The problems of Pakistan can be resolved only if the political parties promote democracy in their ranks and look to the masses for coming to power.
|
