Is the US serious about restoration of democracy in Pakistan ? There is certainly no shortage of rhetoric. But the super powers' track record in sabotaging and undermining democracies is far more prominent than promiting them. It conspired for years against democracies in South America ranging from Chile to Brazil. In Chile, the CIA spent millions to topple the elected government of Allende. US has been the most hated foreign government across the South American region - a sentiment that is now also reflected across the Middle East - if not the entire world - where it consistently backed the most undemocratic and suppressive regimes such as Family of Saud in Saudi Arabia, Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein of Iraq, Mubarak of Egypt, King Hussein and family in Jordan and many other non democractic and tyrant regimes across the region.
In Iran, the CIA again spent millions to topple the elected government of Mosadegh for the mere reason that he wanted to nationalize the Iranian oil industry. While many argue that oil has been the key determinant of US foreign policy in the Middle East and Asia - facts rebut this claim. This brings us to Pakistan and also our neighboring Afghanistan. Neither have any substantial oil reserves (at least not proven) but have experienced increasing intervention from the US, marked by their support of dictators in the region. It is also important to note that several countries around the world without any oil have seen frequent US intervention ranging from Japan, Korea to many states in South America and Africa.
Whatever the motivations in each case, democracy and promotion of democracy has been least important in its policies abroad. Like any other super power or state, its foreign policy has been dominated and continues to be dominated by self and national interest - which is hegemony and submissiveness of all states and punishment of those that challenge its supremacy.
So, how credible it is when the US government claims it wants democracy to return to Pakistan ? Not much, at least in view of its track record. Then what is it that the US wants from Pakistan ? It backed dictators like General Zia and now Pervez Musharaf and their suppressive regimes for decades. Why the u-turn ? Is it the growing pressure from the international community and domestic politicians and human rights activists or is it some hidden agenda - a conspiracy as the conspiracy theorists tend to believe ? It can be a combination of both. The US certainly raised little eye brow over the suspicious assisination of Benazir Bhutto - leader of Pakistan's most popular political party. There were few words of condemnation and the TV and press also had a field day immediately after she was shot dead in suspicious circumstances while campaigning for the general elections in late 2007.
However, the US clearly supported the line taken by the military-dominated government of Pakistan which was that she was killed by the bomb blast that happened - even though the available fottages clearly show that she was killed by a gun shot fired by a person in the crowd. Strangely, the Scotland Yard also toed the same line - even though they had little evidence to base their conclusions on as the scene of murder was immediately washed away after the incident and one wonders how and why they reached the conclusions they reached. But that's another subject that will be taken up later at some time.
What the event and its follow up in the US government and press shows that Benazir Bhutto was certainly not the US candidate for Prime Ministership in Pakistan. Some have speculated that she backed out from her promises that she once made to the US for promoting their agenda in Pakistan. Others have argued that Pakistan's army - specially its spy agency ISI - persuaded the US - by hook or crook - that Benazir is not their best bet for Pakistan and she better be removed the scene to which US, given their reliance on Pakistan army for the war on terrorism - probably gave its tacit approval. Only future events will reveal the true nature of events that led to her assasination. But it clearly shows the US's growing engagement with Pakistan and that future of Pakistan will be greatly determined by how the US wishes to protect its interest in Pakistan and the region in future.
Now there are different theories that are floating around on how the US wants to play its role and see the future developments in Pakistan. Democracy - as usual is certainly far from being a priority except rhetoric. So what are these theories ? One theory is that US wants to occupy Pakistan on one pretext or the other - insecure nukes being one - and control the Indian and particularly Chinese expansion in the region. China has been investing quite heavily in the infrastructure of Pakistan and particularly in the development of Gawadar Port in Baluchistan province that carries enormous economic benefits for China - topic of another article at some time in future. But why would US occupy Pakistan when it has an all powerful army that is openly subservient to its wishes and has so far loyally protected its interests in the country ?
Well, speculators argue that US's long run plan is to disintegrate Pakistan and in order to do so, it must make its presence grow considerably in the country. The aim is to balkanize Pakistan and set an example for others to follow in the region - i.e. Baluchistan's independence may follow by similar demands from Kurds in Iran, Iraq and Turkey. US certainly prefers smaller states because they are easy to control and dictate than bigger and powerful ones. They saw it in the case of Iran that spun out of US's control after the Revolution in 1978. If any doubt, then simply look at US's support for the independence of Kosovo in the Balkans. Some foreign authors, including some Canadian professor, has written extensively on the US's long run plan for Pakistan.
However, this theory has a number of flaws. One, it is not clear why the US would want to break up Pakistan when they have a very loyal army sitting in Pakistan. Two, how would a broken up Pakistan help US to contain Indian expansion ? Right now, Pakistan has been holding India back from a truly prosperous and free political existence. If it is gone, then what would happen to that balance of power that US has worked so hard for years to keep ? These are the questions that only those making the decisions would know the answers of.
However, one fact is established that US's current engagement in Pakistan is not based on its need for democracy in the country but is part of its long term plan for the country and the region. Most experts do agree that Pakistan has all the elements of a failed state (including Noam Chomsky that called Pakistan a paradigm failed state) and nothing can prevent its disintegration if the US actively facilitates it. Future developments, specially the role of Pakistan's army and the US engagements in Pakistan, will determine the actual nature of policy that the US may be following in the country and the region.
In Iran, the CIA again spent millions to topple the elected government of Mosadegh for the mere reason that he wanted to nationalize the Iranian oil industry. While many argue that oil has been the key determinant of US foreign policy in the Middle East and Asia - facts rebut this claim. This brings us to Pakistan and also our neighboring Afghanistan. Neither have any substantial oil reserves (at least not proven) but have experienced increasing intervention from the US, marked by their support of dictators in the region. It is also important to note that several countries around the world without any oil have seen frequent US intervention ranging from Japan, Korea to many states in South America and Africa.
Whatever the motivations in each case, democracy and promotion of democracy has been least important in its policies abroad. Like any other super power or state, its foreign policy has been dominated and continues to be dominated by self and national interest - which is hegemony and submissiveness of all states and punishment of those that challenge its supremacy.
So, how credible it is when the US government claims it wants democracy to return to Pakistan ? Not much, at least in view of its track record. Then what is it that the US wants from Pakistan ? It backed dictators like General Zia and now Pervez Musharaf and their suppressive regimes for decades. Why the u-turn ? Is it the growing pressure from the international community and domestic politicians and human rights activists or is it some hidden agenda - a conspiracy as the conspiracy theorists tend to believe ? It can be a combination of both. The US certainly raised little eye brow over the suspicious assisination of Benazir Bhutto - leader of Pakistan's most popular political party. There were few words of condemnation and the TV and press also had a field day immediately after she was shot dead in suspicious circumstances while campaigning for the general elections in late 2007.
However, the US clearly supported the line taken by the military-dominated government of Pakistan which was that she was killed by the bomb blast that happened - even though the available fottages clearly show that she was killed by a gun shot fired by a person in the crowd. Strangely, the Scotland Yard also toed the same line - even though they had little evidence to base their conclusions on as the scene of murder was immediately washed away after the incident and one wonders how and why they reached the conclusions they reached. But that's another subject that will be taken up later at some time.
What the event and its follow up in the US government and press shows that Benazir Bhutto was certainly not the US candidate for Prime Ministership in Pakistan. Some have speculated that she backed out from her promises that she once made to the US for promoting their agenda in Pakistan. Others have argued that Pakistan's army - specially its spy agency ISI - persuaded the US - by hook or crook - that Benazir is not their best bet for Pakistan and she better be removed the scene to which US, given their reliance on Pakistan army for the war on terrorism - probably gave its tacit approval. Only future events will reveal the true nature of events that led to her assasination. But it clearly shows the US's growing engagement with Pakistan and that future of Pakistan will be greatly determined by how the US wishes to protect its interest in Pakistan and the region in future.
Now there are different theories that are floating around on how the US wants to play its role and see the future developments in Pakistan. Democracy - as usual is certainly far from being a priority except rhetoric. So what are these theories ? One theory is that US wants to occupy Pakistan on one pretext or the other - insecure nukes being one - and control the Indian and particularly Chinese expansion in the region. China has been investing quite heavily in the infrastructure of Pakistan and particularly in the development of Gawadar Port in Baluchistan province that carries enormous economic benefits for China - topic of another article at some time in future. But why would US occupy Pakistan when it has an all powerful army that is openly subservient to its wishes and has so far loyally protected its interests in the country ?
Well, speculators argue that US's long run plan is to disintegrate Pakistan and in order to do so, it must make its presence grow considerably in the country. The aim is to balkanize Pakistan and set an example for others to follow in the region - i.e. Baluchistan's independence may follow by similar demands from Kurds in Iran, Iraq and Turkey. US certainly prefers smaller states because they are easy to control and dictate than bigger and powerful ones. They saw it in the case of Iran that spun out of US's control after the Revolution in 1978. If any doubt, then simply look at US's support for the independence of Kosovo in the Balkans. Some foreign authors, including some Canadian professor, has written extensively on the US's long run plan for Pakistan.
However, this theory has a number of flaws. One, it is not clear why the US would want to break up Pakistan when they have a very loyal army sitting in Pakistan. Two, how would a broken up Pakistan help US to contain Indian expansion ? Right now, Pakistan has been holding India back from a truly prosperous and free political existence. If it is gone, then what would happen to that balance of power that US has worked so hard for years to keep ? These are the questions that only those making the decisions would know the answers of.
However, one fact is established that US's current engagement in Pakistan is not based on its need for democracy in the country but is part of its long term plan for the country and the region. Most experts do agree that Pakistan has all the elements of a failed state (including Noam Chomsky that called Pakistan a paradigm failed state) and nothing can prevent its disintegration if the US actively facilitates it. Future developments, specially the role of Pakistan's army and the US engagements in Pakistan, will determine the actual nature of policy that the US may be following in the country and the region.
