From the always interesting Asia Times, yet another worrying article about Pakistan:
Appearances can be deceptive, though
I can’t pretend that I know Pakistan very well, but all we hear coming from that country is really scary me each time, whether it is about nuclear proliferation, “honor” killings, or the madrasas.
And now this:
(…)
This has sent shivers down the spines of those in the corridors of power: Qazi Hussain Ahmed has played this card with devastating results twice before. On the first occasion he mobilized thousands of Jamaat-i-Islami workers against the Nawaz Sharif government in 1993. It fell within a few weeks. He repeated this move in 1996, this time bringing down the administration of Benazir Bhutto.
The authorities now fear that the MMA’s renewed political activism will mobilize religious forces in the country.
Over the past few years, since Musharraf signed on to the “war on terror”, jihadi activists have had a hard time of it. They feel betrayed by the religious leadership, which has not supported them, notably in the tribal areas of Waziristan, where the jihadis tried to oppose military efforts to root out Taliban and foreign militants.
According to most estimates, more than 50,000 persons are committed to jihadi movements in Pakistan. However, deprived of a political platform and a common strategy, they are ineffective. Now, if they can align with the robust new religious-political movement of the MMA, they will get a new life.
The MMA’s agitation, with the huge crowds it can mobilize against Musharraf, is bolstered by every rise in prices, the deteriorating law-and-order situation across the country, and widespread opposition to military operations, especially in Balochistan against tribespeople there.
(…)
An economic bomb
In addition to the problems outlined above, Musharraf faces a potential killer blow in the economy. Despite the government’s presentation of rosy figures, many feel this is a game of smoke and mirrors.
According to a report of the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) – the central bank – the country had liquid reserves of US$12.860 billion ($10.055 billion with the SBP and $2.805 billion with other banks) on March 19. At the end of February, the trade deficit was $2.45 billion and the deferred bill for imported oil was $2.75 billion.
(…)
The country thus does not have the foreign-exchange reserves that would be needed should sanctions be imposed on the country – always a possibility should Pakistan suddenly fall out of favor with the US, the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund. (How Pakistan will meet the multibillion-dollar bill for promised F-16s from the United States is another matter.)
Political and economic realities are pushing Musharraf further and further into a corner.
So, if I get this right, in addition to having tons of jihadists, a military unhappy to be shamed by the US State Department but still dreaming of “doing it” with India, out-of-control nuclear scientists, a religious/populist opposition ready and able to take the streets against the (military) government, the country is feeling the pinch of high oil prices…
Nice and not the stuff of nightmares!
Anybody have less black news to share about that country? Please?!
in the larger situation in Pakistan and what it may mean but,
Why is putting a person’s religion on his/her passport a key demand of the Pakistani religious right? Are special rights conferred upon people of the “right” religion?
It really echoes of yellow stars, which is pretty scary (not that the rest of the article isn’t scary too). Does anyone know much about religious tensions there? My first guess is that it is anti-Hindu, given tensions with India, but perhaps it is anti-Shiite, or both.
is the one of two countries founded as a religious republic (Israel is the other – though this is open to debate). As such, it views itself as a standard bearer of Islam. The tensions between the shiites and sunnis is fierce. That overlays tensions between tribes, and between Islamic clerics and other religions (there is a sizable Christian minority for example). With the increased presence of the US military, the efforts to oust the Taliban (a favorite amongst the populace for its’ pro-Islamic stance), and the efforts of the gov’t to drag the country into the 21st century, reactionary backlash is bubbling pretty strongly. Since the gov’t is populated with the more westernized and educated class, they are a natural foil against which to build a coalition. The undereducated clerics can rally uneducated zealots around an Islamic standard, and if they have a suitably non-Islamic seeming President to rail against then rebellion is an easy goal to obtain. They’ve done it twice in recent history, as Jerome noted. I don’t expect Pakistan to be a stable place in my lifetime. That said, the city of Peshawar (where the U2 that the USSR shot down took off from) is an American military base for all intents and purposes. The US won’t be run out without a fight. And with Bush handling things, I don’t expect diplomacy is the high card.
That said, Karachi is a hotspot and these things have gone on since the country was founded (in the 1940’s). They’ve always calmed back down before. But past performance is not an indicator of…etc.
the last several years. The last thing the US wants in Pakistan is democracy, any more than they want it in Iraq or Saudi Occupied Arabia.
While it is true that the US may have bitten off more than it intended in South Asia, it is making a mighty effort to chew. Should it happen to choke, it will not be the first imperial power to do so.
I don’t have any positive news to add, just more negatives. Such as:
As they say, it’s another wonderful day in the merry old land of Pakistan..
Pax
Jerome, what’s up with Bush selling F-16s to Pakistan — which are used to carry nuclear weapons? And why is Bush advancing tiny Pakistan over the much larger, more democratic India?
I think it’s worth mentioning that F-16s are not intended as bombers; they were designed after the Vietnam war as air superiority/dogfighting planes. They can be modified to carry a couple bombs, like most combat aircraft, but not of the quantity or size of the B-1 or B-52. Although I suppose designer’s intent may be moot; were Pakistan to use a nuclear bomb, they’d choose the most advanced delivery vehicle available, which may well be a (wing of) F-16(s).
Help me here — that former So. Dakota senator, and I can’t think of his name — is it Larry Pressler? — was on BBC World Service last week, and said that the F-16s are for carrying nuclear weapons…
he was very upset about the sale and the snubbing of India. Said he spent years on the floor of the senate trying to get people to pay attention to Pakistan’s nuclear threat/sales but they all thought he was full of it.
I’d heard nothing about this. I am shocked. If true that Pakistan wants the F-16s as bomb deliverers, then the sales are blatantly irresponsible.
for an inside look at what’s going on, you can go to the karachi english-language daily, Dawn
http://www.dawn.com/
Thanks for this, Jerome.
The U.S. has been playing this game for a long time, using political and economic coercion to control oil supplies and the regions where they are found. When democracy finally does come to Pakistan, the vote will not favour the U.S., and Bush’s house of cards will suffer a major setback.
The Americans are fools not to be switching as fast as possible to petroleum alternatives.