WASHINGTON STRUGGLES TO SAVE MUSHARRAF
WASHINGTON DC - The move to impeach Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf has set off alarm bells in official Washington.
At this point, impeachment of Pakistan's self-appointed president and former military dictator is far from certain. Removing a president through parliamentary impeachment is unprecedented in Pakistan's history, and fraught with legal and political uncertainties. Impeachment requires a two-thirds vote of the joint houses of parliament. Claims by the democratic coalition that it has the required 295 votes seem overly optimistic.
The beleaguered Musharraf still has a few weeks to continue trying to undermine the shaky anti-Musharraf coalition of former PM Nawaz Sharif's Muslim League-N and Asif Zardari's Pakistan People's Party.
Zardari resisted for months Sharif's demands that Musharraf be impeached. The PPP leader feared that reinstatement of Pakistan's chief justices purged by Musharraf might reopen corruption charges against him. Washington offered Zardari numerous benefits if he thwarted proceedings against Musharraf. But public pressure finally forced the PPP to give in.
If impeachment does go ahead, President Musharraf has the legal power to dissolve parliament. But he is unlikely to do so without the full backing of Pakistan's military. So far, chief of staff, Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani, has kept the military out of politics. Dissolving parliament could plunge Pakistan into chaos when violence is growing in the tribal areas, Northwest Frontier and Baluchistan.
If Musharraf falls, the entire US strategy in Afghanistan, to which the US is about to send 10,000 more troops, is in grave jeopardy. Both Nawaz Sharif and Asif Zardari have expressed varying degrees of opposition to Pakistan's continued role in supporting the US-led occupation of Afghanistan and US attacks into Pakistan's tribal belt, Nawaz strongly, Zardari fitfully. Public opinion in Pakistan is almost totally against the Afghan War.
Without the use of Pakistani ports, supply depots and air bases, the US could not continue its occupation of Afghanistan. All heavy supplies, including fuel and ammunition, are trucked into Afghanistan from Pakistan. US aircraft flying round-the-clock air cover for western occupation forces rely on Pakistani air bases.
So Washington is desperate to keep faithful sepoy Musharraf in power at all costs. Its Plan A is by increasing the overt and secret payments being funneled from CIA to Musharraf and his supporters. Officially, the US has provided the Musharraf regime $11 billion since 2001. But secret CIA payments to the president and certain key army officers may be double that amount, or even more.
Musharraf's sole remaining source of power is his ability to hand out stacks of $100 dollar bills to rent loyalty. My sources in Washington say secret payments will not only be increased, but new sums will be used to induce members of parliament to vote against impeachment. The US Embassy in Islamabad, which has been hailing the Musharraf dictatorship as a `full democracy,' will lobby intensively to block a vote against Musharraf.
If Plan A fails, then Washington's Plan B is to throw its weight behind Pakistan's military and push the so-far reluctant Gen. Kiyani into politics. There is nothing new about this plan. Washington was close to Kiyani when he was Musharraf's number two, and has seen him as a replacement for Musharraf for over 18 months. Whether the highly professional Gen. Kiyani would go along with Washington's plans for him remains unknown. But proximity to power is a tremendous temptation, one to which previous Pakistani chiefs of staff have given in.
Washington would be very pleased to see the respected Kiyani replace the by now totally discredited Musharraf. America has a long tradition of disposing of dictators once they are no longer useful. Musharraf, increasingly isolated and besieged, must be keenly aware of this.
Washington could also live with Asif Zardari, who is considered amenable to US influence and financial rewards. Nawaz, by contrast, is deeply distrusted by the US for being `too Islamic' and insufficiently responsive to American interests. Having been humiliated by the Clinton administration in 1999 over the Kargil fighting with India, and then kept from power by the Bush White House, Nawaz is understandably cool on the United States.
The best thing Musharraf could do right now for Pakistan is to pack his bags and go into exile. That would at least partially make up for his disastrous rule and reaffirm Pakistan's democracy.
If Musharraf falls, the entire US strategy in Afghanistan, to which the US is about to send 10,000 more troops, is in grave jeopardy. Both Nawaz Sharif and Asif Zardari have expressed varying degrees of opposition to Pakistan's continued role in supporting the US-led occupation of Afghanistan and US attacks into Pakistan's tribal belt, Nawaz strongly, Zardari fitfully. Public opinion in Pakistan is almost totally against the Afghan War. Without the use of Pakistani ports, supply depots and air bases, the US could not continue its occupation of Afghanistan. All heavy supplies, including fuel and ammunition, are trucked into Afghanistan from Pakistan. US aircraft flying round-the-clock air cover for western occupation forces rely on Pakistani air bases. So Washington is desperate to keep faithful sepoy Musharraf in power at all costs. (Pls. also read this and the link* given there - MQM's Altaf Hussain: Right and Wrong)
Its Plan A is by increasing the overt and secret payments being funneled from CIA to Musharraf and his supporters. Officially, the US has provided the Musharraf regime $11 billion since 2001. But secret CIA payments to the president and certain key army officers may be double that amount, or even more. Musharraf's sole remaining source of power is his ability to hand out stacks of $100 dollar bills to rent loyalty. My sources in Washington say secret payments will not only be increased, but new sums will be used to induce members of parliament to vote against impeachment.
The US Embassy in Islamabad, which has been hailing the Musharraf dictatorship as a `full democracy,' will lobby intensively to block a vote against Musharraf.If Plan A fails, then Washington's Plan B is to throw its weight behind Pakistan's military and push the so-far reluctant Gen. Kiyani into politics.
In the following excerpt Cyril Almeida hit the nail on the head!
What will the military do, the media asked innocently after goading the politicians into this confrontation. Yes, indeed what will the born-again democrat Gen Kayani do? Even as they line up to throw stones at the ISI, the politicians have fallen over themselves to praise Kayani. For the record, Kayani's last job was the ISI chieftainship. But since everyone knows this, they must be assuming that Kayani was just doing his job, being a good soldier and following orders. In which case you must necessarily wonder about career ambition: corps commander, ISI chief, COAS, full stop "” or next stop? The madness is here By Cyril Almeida
However, in the same column where he alluded to Brother Sharipov outmaneuvering Goldy I would deem his logic suspect. He gave both the unelected billionaire brothers too much credit for intellect. Read it for yourself.
***
The issue becomes slightly murkier considering that Sindh is a province in which there has always been mass immigration and integration: Balochis and Pathans and Punjabis have settled in Sindh generations back, flowing into the province like the waters of the River Indus, and have put down roots, raised children, been born and lived and died in this province. Their descendants speak better Sindhi than I do: so, can we call these people Sindhis? Some achieve compromise by calling them Sindhi-Pathans, Balochi-Sindhis, and so on, while others are happy to call them Sindhis, seeing that they have integrated into the province, have no problem marrying their children to people in the greater Sindhi community, and have thrown their lot in with the province of Sindh. So far so good. But now we come to the trickiest question of all: what about those people settled in Sindh who can neither speak Sindhi nor have any association with the interior? Are these people Sindhis? Are we unpatriotic to Sindh if we regard them as such? Are we unpatriotic to our country if we don't? Who is a Sindhi? By Bina Shah
My definition conveyed to her is simple: every one who lives, dies and is buried in Sindh is a Sindhi. And more! We have many identities: only one soul.
****
|