Share |
The truths they don't want you to read....

Friday, December 28, 2007

Pakistan - nuclear anarchy

The murder of Benazir Bhutto robbed Pakistan of one of the best chances to return towards democracy, and one of the best opportunities for the West to stop Al-Qaeda at source.

But much nonsense has been written, and the 'Great Game' has claimed another victim who was being manipulated from abroad, leaving the Indian sub-continent in turmoil and Pakistan in a lawless state.

Ms Bhutto was never going to be the greatest Prime Minister, mainly due to the perception of her dirty hands through corruption charges brought against her husband. Which, although she denied, she intended to resolved by changing the law to prevent similar charges being brought against political leaders. If that doesn't ring alarm bells then what would.

Pakistan has been described as "the cornerstone of the fight against Al-Qaeda" on a number of news programmes last night, but that is so far from the truth as to be ludicrous.

The 'tribal areas' of North Waristan which are on the border with Afghanistan are effectively separate states, where Al-Qaeda rules with the tribal leaders, and the border is not just porous but non-existent. There has been no central government rule here ever, unless it has suited the tribal leaders.

The Taliban (which means 'religious students') were nurtured in the Saudi-financed madrassas of Pakistan where they learned the oppressive and poisonous tenets of Wahhabism, including Jihad against the West. At this time they were fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, so Osama Bin-Laden and his mates were being actively armed and supported by the West.

The madrassas of Pakistan also trained both sets of London Tube bombers, and continue to be highly active in training new militants.

Pakistan is probably better described as "the cornerstone of Al-Qaeda", something the West cannot say aloud as they are still manoeuvring around to get the Government they want, without thought of the likely consequences.

President Musharraf of Pakistan is our strongman in region, and the West fully support him in his very modest attempts to clamp down on terrorism. Fully support him in the sense of encouraging Ms Bhutto to come in and replace him with a strongly pro-Western and anti-extremist Government that would invite in the US to help root out Al-Qaeda. The poor woman was sent into the country with a target painted on her forehead, and Musharraf was asked to provide protection to the person who was there to undermine him. The consequences were almost inevitable.

Were the military (and Musharraf) behind the assassination? They probably turned a blind eye, and were not as diligent as they could be, and the first assassination attempt clearly had state input, as the attack happened in the only area where the street-lights weren't working.

Now the West is faced with continuing to give support to a President they openly tried to undermine, to fight a dangerous battle on their behalf which will cause much turmoil in his country. I think we can expect to see his level of commitment waning.

Meanwhile, Pakistan continues to illegally export nuclear technology to Iran and North Korea, provoking turmoil elsewhere and we support the regime on one hand and undermine it on the other. How long before they are passed to Al-Qaeda?

All the time, Pakistan and India sit there with nuclear weapons glowering at each other as they battle in Kashmir whilst Pakistan disintegrates as a viable state.

The solutions? I don't know, but I think that the outpouring of national grief that this murder has caused needs to be tapped into by the politicians, and I was pleased to see that the biggest opposition party has pulled out of the elections due on 8 January, to mourn the loss. It now appears the elections are going ahead anyway, on the instructions of Musharraf to meet his international promises, which leaves him with (at very best) a new PM without a real mandate, the politicians fighting about what could have been, a nation in shock and no real constraints on his authority. It is almost like he planned the best possible outcome for himself and the Army.

In the meantime, we should mourn the loss of a woman who was not scared to take her chances, despite threats, warnings and being set-up by the West.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

i noticed in the press that it is taking on an feeling ever more akin to JFK, Area 51 and the killing of Lady Di, I wonder to myself, is it for the same reasons?