|
WSWS : News
& Analysis : Asia
: Pakistan
Bush visit to Pakistan will intensify Musharrafs crisis
By Peter Symonds
4 March 2006
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email
the author
US President George Bush arrived in Pakistan last night amid
heavy security and a series of anti-US protests in cities across
the country. While the main purpose of the one-day trip is to
help shore up the shaky regime of President Pervez Musharraf,
the Bush administration is directly responsible for much of the
political turmoil confronting the Pakistani military strongman.
Having been forced by Washington to back its war on terror
in 2001 and to help topple the Taliban regime in neighbouring
Afghanistan, Musharraf increasingly has been viewed by broad layers
of the Pakistani population as a US stooge. Throughout the past
month, tens of thousands of people have taken to the streets to
demonstrate their opposition to the anti-Muslim cartoons published
in European and US newspapers. The protesters have also turned
their anger on the Musharraf regime for its subservience to the
US as well as its failure to address the economic and social crisis
facing millions of Pakistanis.
Anti-Bush demonstrations erupted in a number of Pakistani cities
yesterday and more are planned for today, which opposition groups
have declared a black day. In Rawalpindi, near the
airbase where Bush landed, police used batons to disperse about
1,000 protesters who had been chanting killer go back
and death to America. In the southern city of Karachi,
around 1,000 demonstrators attempted to march to the American
consulate, where a suicide bomber killed a US official and three
others on Thursday. At the largest rally in Multan, a Muslim cleric
told a crowd of 10,000 that Bushs visit was aimed at enslaving
the Pakistani nation and rewarding General Musharraf
for his patriotism to America.
Far from alleviating the political crisis facing Musharraf,
Bushs visit will intensify it by demanding that he take
more action to prevent anti-US insurgents infiltrating into neighbouring
Afghanistan. At Washingtons insistence, the Pakistani military
has already deployed some 70,000 troops in tribal areas along
the border with Afghanistan to hunt down Taliban and Al Qaeda
fighters. These repressive operations, as well as covert attacks
by US forces inside Pakistan, have generated widespread resentment
and hostility toward Musharraf.
An article entitled Musharraf losing his grip on
the Asia Times website on February 22 commented: The
[Islamabad] administration has already in effect been sidelined
in the tribal areas of North West Frontier Province where in South
and North Waziristan a Taliban-led administration is in place
and the Pakistani security forces cannot move beyond their district
headquarters of Wana and Miranshah. Similarly, Balochistan province
has turned into a quagmire, with the armed forces having lost
their iron grip to insurgents, who are now calling the shots.
Almost daily, the fierce resistance blows up gas pipelines and
electricity lines in the resource-rich region, and there is little
the Pakistani army can do.
In response to Afghan charges that Musharraf is not preventing
the infiltration of insurgents, Islamabad has accused Kabul of
helping the Balochistan rebellion. Pakistani Interior Minister
Aftab Khan Sherpao told the media yesterday that the issue would
be raised with Bush during his visit. Every terrorist in
Balochistan and Karachi has a covert foreign hand involved,
he said, without specifically naming Afghanistan.
Such pleas are likely to receive short shrift from Bush. The
Bush administration regards Musharraf as a key ally in assisting
US ambitions for dominance in the resource-rich Middle East and
Central Asia, particularly in helping the US occupation of Afghanistan.
It is prepared to back Musharraf politically and to provide economic
assistance in payment for services rendered. But Washington is
more intent on establishing a close strategic and economic alliance
with Pakistans rival India, which the US views as more important
as a regional power.
For his part, Musharraf is acutely aware of his dependence
on Washingtons continuing patronage. Significantly in the
lead up to Bushs arrival, the Pakistani army issued a statement
on Wednesday announcing that a military operation in North Waziristan
had killed more than 45 militants, mostly foreigners.
The Pakistani president will no doubt cite the news as evidence
that Pakistan is playing its part in the US war on terror.
Musharraf cannot expect much in return, however. Bush will
give his public backing for the regime and completely hypocritical
praise for its so-called steps toward democracy. Amid the mounting
political crisis in Pakistan, Musharrafs aides and the pro-military
Pakistan Muslim League (Q) have hinted that elections slated for
2007 may be postponed. There have also been suggestions that Musharraf
may stay on as president and head of the armed forcespositions
that give him broad dictatorial powers.
Bush and Musharraf are due to sign a bilateral treaty to enhance
trade and investment. Since 2001, Pakistan has been one of the
leading recipients of US aid, receiving around $US3 billion in
direct assistance between 2002 and 2005 including $1 billion in
military-related aid. Additional assistance has been given in
the form of reimbursement for Pakistani counterterrorism
operations.
Tensions over turn to India
Bush will certainly try to allay fears in Pakistani ruling
circles that the current relationship with the US is simply a
matter of short-term convenience for Washington that will be ditched
when its interests change. The Bush administration has repeatedly
declared that it wants a long-term relationship with Islamabad
and has designated Pakistan as a major non-NATO ally,
qualifying it for preferential military assistance. In a parting
speech on Thursday in New Delhi, Bush described Pakistan as another
important partner and friend. But none of this will mollify
concerns in Islamabad about Washingtons obvious tilt in
favour of India.
Particularly galling for the Pakistani regime is the nuclear
accord between the US and India announced on Wednesday. The agreement,
if finally ratified by the US Congress and implemented, would
in effect elevate India to the status of a recognised nuclear-armed
power. In return for accepting International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) regulation of its civilian nuclear programs, India would
have access to nuclear fuel and technology without having to sign
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or dismantle its military
nuclear program. The accord not only assists India materially,
but also enhances its standing as a regional power.
Musharraf will ask Bush for a similar agreement, but is sure
to be rebuffed. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told the
media on Thursday that a nuclear accord with Pakistan was not
possible at present because of proliferation concernsa
reference to the clandestine sale of nuclear technology to Iran,
Libya and North Korea by a network run by top Pakistani nuclear
scientist A.Q. Khan. The comments will not assuage concerns in
Islamabad that the US stance is discriminatory and further evidence
that the US places far more weight on its relationship with India,
than Pakistan.
The Pakistani president is also likely to ask Bush to do more
to push India to make concessions over Kashmir. While a so-called
peace process is underway in Kashmir, only cosmetic steps have
been taken to end the decades of rivalry, tension and war between
the two countries. The lack of cooperation following the devastating
earthquake in Kashmir last October is the most recent demonstration
of ongoing tensions. Islamabad fears that, without Washingtons
intervention, relations between the two countries will only worsen,
making any deal over Kashmir impossible.
However, apart from empty appeals for mutual trust and peace,
Bush is unlikely to offer Musharraf any support over Kashmir.
In fact, the US president has promised India that he will raise
the issue of cross-border terrorism with Musharraf.
For the Pakistani regime, which has taken substantial steps to
rein in Islamic fundamentalist militants opposed to Indias
control of Jammu and Kashmir, it is another sign of Washingtons
pro-Indian bias.
Bush is also expected to insist that Pakistan backs the aggressive
US stance against Iran and to reiterate the US demand that Islamabad,
as well as New Delhi, abandon plans for a multi-billion dollar
gas pipeline from Iran through Pakistan to India. The end of the
project would be a blow to both countries. Pakistan looked to
the pipeline for energy supplies and a much-needed economic boost,
and as an important card in its negotiations with India.
These unresolved issues highlight the underlying tensions in
US-Pakistani relations. It is worth noting that a fortnight before
Bushs visit, Musharraf made a highly visible trip to Beijing
where he sought Chinese assistance to expand Pakistans civilian
nuclear program. During the visit, the Pakistani president signed
13 agreements and a Memorandum of Understanding covering energy,
defence, trade and communications. China is a major supplier for
the Pakistani military and the two countries have extensive economic
ties. China is involved in the construction of a major port facility
at Gwadar in Balochistan.
The timing of Musharrafs trip to China was not accidental.
As well as strengthening ties with Beijing, the visit sent a rather
obvious message to Washington: if the US decides to downgrade
or abandon its alliance with Pakistan, Islamabad has the option
of closer relations with Beijing.
While Musharraf is currently tied to the US, there is a certain
political logic to the Bush administrations attempts to
woo India as a key element of its long-term anti-China strategy.
Regardless of its calculations, Washingtons backing for
New Delhi will inevitably strengthen Indias position as
a regional power, altering the previous fragile balance of forces
in South Asia and propelling Pakistan to further strengthen its
ties with China.
Thus the possibility arises that the protracted and bitter
conflict between India and Pakistan will become dangerously intertwined
with what is shaping up as the chief geo-political fault-line
of the early twenty-first centurythe potentially explosive
conflict between the US and China.
See Also:
Bush secures nuclear accord with India
[3 March 2006]
Protests against Bush in India: For an
international socialist strategy to fight imperialism
[1 March 2006]
Bush travels to South Asia
in pursuit of key strategic partnership with India
[28 February 2006]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |