Article

2022-04-12 India-Pakistan

[Dawn] WHEN a political leader makes a doubtful claim about a foreign conspiracy to oust him one is hardly surprised. Most politicians have a tenuous relationship with the truth. But what is astonishing is that an overwhelming majority of people in Pakistain have long believed such claims, focusing largely on the US.

Here is how the argument goes. Historically, the US has preferred a certain kind of government in Pakistain, such as a military regime, to serve its security and strategic interests. As the lifespan of such governments has begun and ended with the US connection, Washington must have brought them to power and removed them when they were no longer needed, it is argued.

The reality is that political dynamics in Pakistain have nearly always functioned fairly autonomously, and the primary, though not always the sole, stimulus for the rise and fall of governments has been domestic, and not external. Zia ul Haq

Continued from Page 4

...the creepy-looking former dictator of Pakistain. Zia was an Islamic nutball who imposed his nutballery on the rest of the country with the enthusiastic assistance of the nation's religious parties, which are populated by other nutballs. He was appointed Chief of Army Staff in 1976 by Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, whom he hanged when he seized power. His time in office was a period of repression, with hundreds of thousands of political rivals, minorities, and journalists executed or tortured, including senior general officers convicted in coup-d'état plots, who would normally be above the law. As part of his alliance with the religious parties, his government helped run the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, providing safe havens, American equipiment, Saudi money, and Pak handlers to selected mujaheddin. Zia died along with several of his top generals and admirals and the then United States Ambassador to Pakistain Arnold Lewis Raphel when he was assassinated in a suspicious air crash near Bahawalpur in 1988...
’s regime was already there before the Afghan jihad and the revival of US-Pakistain relations; in fact, it had a pariah status because of the 1977 coup, the execution of an elected prime minister, and Pakistain’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. It was during Zia’s time that Pakistain was sanctioned in 1979. But with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Zia became a celebrated leader in the West. Although Washington’s support for him had begun to waver before he died, his ’regime’ lived on.

Earlier, president Ayub Khan had challenged American interests in South Asia by opening up to China. With the 1965 war adventure, he fell out of favour with US president Johnson. But he continued to rule for another four years. Yahya Khan was disregarded until he helped set up the US-China rendezvous. Gen Musharraf had been isolated for a good two years until 9/11. The US re-engagement continued well beyond him.

US-Pakistain ties are not just led by America’s needs.

It seems that the US has abandoned the coup business. No doubt, it still acts to gain and maintain influence in other countries where its vital interests are at stake but it is contestable if it is still in the business of secretly making or breaking governments. Instead, it has gone to war, used the weapon of sanctions and supported mass movements for change like the so-called colour revolutions, all in full view.

Where its interests are not critical but still important, as in Pakistain, the US also tries to influence and sometimes manipulate policies. But it does so by established diplomatic messaging, often in coercive language that comes naturally to Washington. It also exploits the vulnerability of a regime without having to change it or holding out written threats of change.

The elitist, army-led and feudal-dominated ’organising’ idea of Pakistain has for long had the US as its external pillar. To its credit, from 1954 to 1965, the US strengthened Pakistain’s defence capabilities and potential for economic development, and helped launch the platform for progress. But that was the last time the US really helped Pakistain. After that neither Pakistain nor US-Pakistain relations have been the same.

Pakistain’s poor policy choices and endemic crisis of governance since have made it overly dependent on external financiers like the US and Saudi Arabia

...a kingdom taking up the bulk of the Arabian peninsula. Its primary economic activity involves exporting oil and soaking Islamic rubes on the annual hajj pilgrimage. The country supports a large number of princes in whatcha might call princely splendor. Fifteen of the nineteen WTC hijackers were Saudis, and most major jihadi commanders were Saudis, to include Osama bin Laden. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman quietly folded that tent in 2016, doing terrible things to the guys running it, and has since been dragging the kingdom into the current century...
who have used it for their own strategic purposes. The US may no longer be the external pillar of the system but it does remain a crutch, a potential strategic and financial threat, and the largest trading partner.

It is a relationship that is necessary for the country but vital for military regimes, a mixed bargain for civilian dispensations but much more for military rulers. No wonder successive governments in Pakistain have craved closer ties with the US, reflecting the leadership’s dependency syndrome more than Washington’s control of Pakistain.

Read: Opposition seeks military’s stance on ’foreign plot’ claim

The US-Pakistain relationship is not just led by America’s needs. It is driven in equal measure by Pakistain’s needs. The current US need for Pakistain is not dire enough for Washington to call for any drastic action of regime change. It is, in fact, the establishment’s interests that dominate in Pakistain. It continues to have a soft corner for Washington and is perceived as managing the internal dynamics to attain its desired ends that meet the interests of both countries. The US does not need to overthrow any government.

The Pak elite may have failed the people of Pakistain but not themselves. Over the decades, they have fought battles for power skilfully while maintaining the system that sustains them in power. The ’organising’ idea of Pakistain over which they have presided is owned and operated by them, and not by foreign powers.

The writer, a former ambassador, is adjunct professor at Georgetown University and Senior Visiting Research Fellow at the National University of Singapore.

Posted by trailing wife 2022-04-12 01:11|| || Front Page|| [11138 views ] Top
File under: Govt of Pakistan

14:06 swksvolFF
13:45 Lord Garth
13:33 trailing wife
13:32 Ebbuger Whuque4103
13:17 Frank G
13:01 SteveS
12:56 mossomo
12:55 mossomo
12:43 swksvolFF
12:41 mossomo
12:34 mossomo
12:25 Airandee
12:13 swksvolFF
12:02 Regular joe
11:54 Regular joe
11:51 Regular joe
11:51 Abu Uluque
11:21 SteveS
11:12 Jack Fleling2104
10:52 Nero
10:44 Procopius2k
10:44 Grom the Affective
10:40 Procopius2k
10:39 Procopius2k