- 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 (<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/opinion/18kagan.html?pagewanted=all>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]". (http://www.dictatorshipwatch.com/modules.php?
- op=modload&name=News&file=article&s%5C) 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 <http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Interview_Bahari.htm>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
(<http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2007-12/16herman.cfm> 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
(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/washington/19policy.html?
- bl&ex=1195707600&en=7857a1f63763a21e&ei=5087)
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."
-
- _,___
|
