[IbnAbdullah]

Thankless Americans

BASHARAT HUSSAIN QIZILBASH

A few days ago, the US President Bush telephoned President Musharraf to congratulate him and the nation on the country's 60th Independence Day. During these six decades, the Pakistanis have gone out of their way to keep their American friends humoured and happy. Instead of reciprocating these good gestures, the Americans have been a source of embarrassment, humiliation and grief to the Pakistanis.

Just before the creation of Pakistan, the then US Secretary of State George C Marshall communicated to "have the friendliest relations with the new Pakistan State when it is established. "This must have been very heartening for Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah. And when he assumed the charge of Governor General on 15 August 1947, the US was the only foreign country which sent an official representative to attend the formal ceremonies. The fragile nascent state of Pakistan looked towards the US for diplomatic and political support. Thus, in October 1947, the Quaid sent Mir Laiq Ali as his special emissary to the US with the request of a $2 billion loan over a period of five years. The State Department was requested to provide $700 million for industrial development, another $700 million for agriculture and $510 million for building the defence forces. These were the urgent needs but sadly the US government adopted the "wait and see" policy and remained non-committal. In fact, the observations of some important American figures were quite annoying for many Pakistanis. For example, Adlai Stevenson commented that the creation of Pakistan was a "tragic outcome of the senseless conflict between blood brothers" whereas Chester Bowles, a one-time US ambassador to India believed that the birth of Pakistan was an unfortunate product of religious fanaticism.

Despite such American insensitivity, the first Pakistani Premier Liaquat Ali not only categorically refused the Russian invitation to discuss the future of relations between the two states in 1948 but preferred to undertake the Washington yatra. In the next two decades, America's prime interest in this region was the containment of international communism. Pakistan became a willing partner in serving the US interests by joining the SEATO (1954) and CENTO (1955) military alliances. During the Ayub era, the two countries also signed a bilateral agreement in March 1959 under which "the USA...will take such appropriate action, including the use of armed force, as may be mutually agreed upon...in order to assist the Government of Pakistan at its request" and it also reaffirmed its support for the "national independence and integrity" of Pakistan. But during the 1965 Indo-Pak war, the US betrayed Pakistan. She not only refused to assist her but also suspended military aid to both the belligerents. This US policy hit Pakistan more than India because her army was partially and the air force was almost solely dependent upon the US support. And when we looked towards China for military help, the US ambassador Locke blandly told President Ayub in 1966 that his country did not want China to be the chief arms supplier to Pakistan. Sorrowfully, the US was doing all this arm twisting in spite of the fact that Ayub Khan had provided them an air base in Peshawar to spy over the Russian territory. And when one of American U-2 surveillance aircraft was downed, it was the Pakistani government that had to bear the Soviet wrath. Instead of being thankful to Ayub, the US had had a hand in his removal. Throughout the early years of our history, the people were given the impression that Pakistan was the bosom friend and the 'most allied ally" of the US in Asia but the hard fact is that between 1949 and 1964, the US gave India about ten times greater economic assistance than Pakistan.

After World War II, the primary objective of the US foreign policy was to defeat the growing threat of communism worldwide. A part of her strategy was to establish friendly relations with China, the most populous communist country to off-balance her rival superpower, the Soviet Union. It was none other than Pakistan which provided the historic opening to the Americans in July 1971 by arranging the US Foreign Secretary Dr Henry Kissinger's super-secret journey to Peking. Apparently, he came to visit President Yahya. It was said that due to overwork and an upset stomach, he had gone to rest in the cooler climate of Nathia Gali, near the Murree Hills whereas in actuality, he was put on a scheduled PIA passenger flight from Islamabad to Peking to negotiate the opening-up of relations with China. This 'diplomatic coup' was successful. The credit goes to Pakistan because in the entire history of international diplomacy, a few secrets may have been better kept than Kissinger's clandestine mission. It was a great service to the American nation. But what did Pakistan get in return? Blood and tears! A few months later, India attacked East Pakistan. Pakistanis were confident of great support from the Americans but they were shocked, when, at the height of the crisis in November 1971, first, the US government cancelled export licences for $3.6 million worth of military equipment to Pakistan - merely to please India - and, on November 13, the then US Secretary of State William Rogers officially stated, "United States values good relations with both nations (India and Pakistan) and has no intention of joining either side in the event of war." The question is that why didn't the US fulfil the 1959 agreement with us? And if she knew she wouldn't be able to abide by that agreement then why did she seal that agreement in the first place? The Pakistani nation cannot forget this breach of trust!

In the mid-1970s, the estranged Americans turned into bullies. Subsequent to the Indian atomic explosion the Pakistani Premier Zulfikar Ali Bhutto launched the country's maiden nuclear programme. He had successfully sealed a deal to purchase a reprocessing plant from the French with the approval of the International Atomic Energy Agency. When the US President Ford failed to pressurise Bhutto to renounce this deal, he prevailed upon Canada to cancel all nuclear assistance to Pakistan. When the valiant Bhutto decided to go ahead with the atomic programme, the same Kissinger threatened our elected prime minister that if he did not give up the nuclear ambitions, the US would make a horrible example of him. Well! Bhutto was hanged! And the Pakistani nation has not forgotten that either.

With the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the international situation turned explosive. The American chameleon changed its colours once again. In 1979, the Carter administration had suspended all development aid to Pakistan on the unsubstantiated allegation that we were manufacturing a nuclear device. In a political somersault, the US Under-Secretary of State James Buckley called Pakistan "an essential anchor of the entire Southwest Asia region" on 12 November 1981, and the US Secretary of State Alexander Haig emphasised on the creation of a 'strategic consensus' from Turkey to Pakistan, dubbing the latter as a 'front-line state'. We provided an all-out support to our American friends in their hour of need but what did they reward us with: guns and drugs, and the monster of militancy.

Even now, in their paranoid 'war against terror' Pakistan has captured and handed over to the Americans the highest number of Qaeda operatives but instead of appreciation, the Pakistani nation has been and humiliated. Second class US politicians like Barack Obama and third rate state officials are threatening with unilateral military strikes inside Pakistan, in clear violation of our national sovereignty. By their words and actions the American governments have proved to be the most thankless to their benefactors. It is high time that they open their eyes and reconfigure policies towards Pakistan because what President Ayub prophetically said to the US Congress in his address in 1961, holds equally true today: "If there is real trouble, there is no country in Asia where you will be able to put your foot in. The only people who will stand by you are the people of Pakistan." Not any more Mr Bush! Enough is enough.
Email: qizilbash2000@yahoo.com

The Nation

[IbnAbdullah]

Lost freedom

NAUMAN ASGHAR

The saga of Pakistan from soup to nuts is an untidy display of leaders jockeying for authority. Pakistan was carved out of undivided India on August 14, 1947 and every year this day is celebrated by its inhabitants with much zeal and fervour. On this independence day, a million dollar question for all of us Pakistanis is that whether we have preserved the freedom secured for us by our forefathers after a long hectic struggle. This query can be answered by taking stock of our activities over the past sixty years.
To begin with, Quaid-e-Azam who did not live long enough to give this country a stable democratic system. Liaquat Ali Khan, the first prime minister, too was soon assassinated and thus a leadership vacuum was created in the newly born state. The combination of lack of an efficient mentor and a host of initial problems landed this state in a vortex of political-cum constitutional crisis. This deeply entrenched crisis sapped the country's meagre institutional capacity. For the first nine years we did not have a constitution of our own and during this period 'political expediency' and 'gunning for power' remained the guiding principles of our political system.

The economic picture of the country is also similarly shaded. About 65% of Pakistan's citizens live below the income of $2 per day. Given such a situation, the children of these poor people are constrained to work at an early age and so the trend of child labour is on the rise in our country. Pakistan's economy has not kept pace with the growth of its population and civilians seem to have done at least as bad a job as the generals at managing the nation's finances. Today, the government claims that the growth rate is above 6.0 per cent but there is no corresponding palpable reduction in poverty and unemployment rates, thanks to the officials cooking up figures in order to delude the outside world. Thus, the cause of democratisation has been seriously damaged by the poor performance of the past and present governments. The nation must try to bring good leadership to the stage so that it may steer the country out of present predicament.
In a nutshell, at this time our country is politically unstable, economically a banana republic, and socially a fragmented society and therefore we are unable to exercise our territorial sovereignty. Hence, we have lost our freedom that our forefathers got after a long fight with British and Hindus.
Email: naumanasghar8@yahoo.com

The Nation

[Aryan_]

Good articles, especially the first one.

[ChotooMotoo]

I just wanna know... what would you have done if you had been Musharaff, and had the US threaten you to do it or have your country bombed out of existance? Would you have done what they asked and sacrifice a few hundred lives for the greater good, or would you have stuck to your guns and had Pakistan turn into Iraq?

[IbnAbdullah]

Originally Posted by ChotooMotoo

I just wanna know... what would you have done if you had been Musharaff, and had the US threaten you to do it or have your country bombed out of existance? Would you have done what they asked and sacrifice a few hundred lives for the greater good, or would you have stuck to your guns and had Pakistan turn into Iraq?

If I was at the place of Musharraf, I would be an 'honourable' man with some 'respect' for myself and for my nation, like Ahmede Najad of Iran. Iran is weaker than Pakistan militarily but is handling Americans very successfully. I have sever differences on aqeeda with them, but if there is something good in kuffar, I always appreciate that.
I would protect my country as North Koreans are protecting themselves from Americans.

In fact Americans don't attack nations like Pakistan, Iran, Korea, they are a bunch of Cowards, they attack only countries like Afghanistan, Somalia and Iraq; see before attacking Iraq they made sure through UN inspectors that Iraq had nothing to defend herself, then before invading Iraq they made Saddam destroy their Thamud missiles too..

Even Musharraf and the Military knew that Americans were only bluffing, they couldn't attack us, it's only that Musharraf is the Traitor of the Nation, an American agent, from the likes of Mir Jafar and Mir Sadiq, who work for the Enemies.

[Aryan_]

Originally Posted by ChotooMotoo

I just wanna know... what would you have done if you had been Musharaff, and had the US threaten you to do it or have your country bombed out of existance? Would you have done what they asked and sacrifice a few hundred lives for the greater good, or would you have stuck to your guns and had Pakistan turn into Iraq?

I'm with IbnOsama on this. Just because a country is more powerful than you doesn't mean you succumb to their wishes...we don't apply that logic to Indians and the same should apply to any other country. And anyway, it's starting to look like America will attack Pakistan anyway.

Iraq is a different situation, the reasons for it being in a mess don't really apply to Pakistan.

[ChotooMotoo]

Originally Posted by Aryan_

I'm with IbnOsama on this. Just because a country is more powerful than you doesn't mean you succumb to their wishes...we don't apply that logic to Indians and the same should apply to any other country. And anyway, it's starting to look like America will attack Pakistan anyway.

Iraq is a different situation, the reasons for it being in a mess don't really apply to Pakistan.

Thank you for your very civil reply.

So you would have told the US to sit on it and spin eh? What do you think the consequence of that would have been?

[hershel_krustowski]

Originally Posted by IbnAbdullah

I have sever differences on aqeeda with Iranis, but if there is something good in kuffar, I always appreciate that.

hey hey hey, no need to bring the wahabis/saudi lovers into this.

[IbnMardhiyah]

Originally Posted by ChotooMotoo

I just wanna know... what would you have done if you had been Musharaff, and had the US threaten you to do it or have your country bombed out of existance? Would you have done what they asked and sacrifice a few hundred lives for the greater good, or would you have stuck to your guns and had Pakistan turn into Iraq?

Its funny how almost all Pakistanies put up that excuse for Musharraf.

Of course the third option is, and always was .. flip the birdie, tell everyone to screw off, be they the IEA or the USA, and hunker down to protect Pakistan's national sovereignty. Musharraf could have replied back and said that no, it wasn't strictly a bi-polar world seen through dark "with-us-or-against-us" colored shades, but rather Pakistan was going to sit this one out, just as America had sat out previous conflicts between Pakistan and India.

What goes around, comes around.

[Aryan_]

Originally Posted by ChotooMotoo

Thank you for your very civil reply.

So you would have told the US to sit on it and spin eh? What do you think the consequence of that would have been?

Not exactly, but I wouldn't have done what Musharraf did either. Including handing over the Taliban ambassador to America - he could have been representing Hitler, but we were obliged by international law to protect him. Also, allowing the usage of Pakistani bases to bomb Afghanistan while we were completely kept in the dark on the campaign...something that continues to this day. That's not how you treat an "ally".
What do you think the consequence of that would have been?[/quote]

Doesn't really matter in my opinion. I'm inspired by something Martin Luther King said:

"Cowardice asks the question - is it safe? Expediency asks the question - is it politic? Vanity asks the question - is it popular? But conscience asks the question - is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular; but one must take it because it is right"

[m_ali_qazi]

Originally Posted by ChotooMotoo

I just wanna know... what would you have done if you had been Musharaff, and had the US threaten you to do it or have your country bombed out of existance? Would you have done what they asked and sacrifice a few hundred lives for the greater good, or would you have stuck to your guns and had Pakistan turn into Iraq?

greater good??? what greater good, enslavement to a colonial force? What about the backlash for that? Its inherent in human nature to be proud and free. Where do you think all this extremism is coming from in the first place?

[IbnAbdullah]

Constitution supremacy remains a distant dream

Prof Dr Waheed Ishrat

LAHORE - A new Pakistani nation has emerged out of the current crisis which is sensitive towards supremacy of Constitution, sanctity of human rights and safeguarding democracy and its values. The journey started from zero when Pakistan did not have a common pin for its offices, is now a nuclear power. It has a vast infrastructure of development, natural resources, highways, motorways, means of communications, trade & industry. The persistent threat of Russia’s access to hot waters looming large in earlier decades has since been averted, Afghanistan was liberated from Russian yoke and as a result of Afghan jehad, central Asian Muslim states became independent. The emergent conscientious Pakistani nation is united on many issues. It unites within no time as it did on the issue of judiciary’s honour and linguistic feuds. The nation has shown its commitment to Islam and universal laws of justice. We have also shown interest in higher education and now a network of universities and colleges have emerged. The media has also emerged as a strong, viable, independent entity having its commitment to the national causes. The black uniform has shown its mettle against khaki.

However, we failed to make Pakistan a real Islamic, democratic and welfare state. The Army ruled the country on one pretext or the other. It never accepted the role of politicians. Ayub Khan even defied the Quaid’s orders and was suspended. Later he enforced Martial Law. The supremacy of constitution and the parliament remained a distant dream. The reasons behind separation of East Pakistan were lack of continuity of the political process and a deep sense of deprivation among Bengalis which was exploited by India and Soviet Union.

Instead of eliminating feudalism and jageerdari system, it was strengthened. The dictators took shelter behind jageerdars and feudal who provided arms to them. Pakistan failed to eliminate feudalism as India did. The Army also used bureaucracy and the unholy tripartite alliance of Army, jageerdars and bureaucrats usurped democracy and rule of people by the people.

Another setback was the failure to resolve longstanding Kashmir dispute while it could be liberated. In reply to Kashmir dispute, Khalistan was in the making but a civil government secretly provided lists of Sikh militants and maps to India and thus frustrated this movement.

The Army’s image has been tarnished. It lost confidence of the people as it enjoyed in 1965, the fruits of independence could not reach to the common man nor the people could attain economic welfare except a few people in the Army and elite class. The people are committing suicides. The beggars population has increased and crowd of beggars are seen pouncing on every crossing. Pakistan has also failed in promoting the national language Urdu while national language was identity of the nation. Urdu was badly ignored while English was promoted forgetting that a child better learns in own language. Contrary to that other nations preferred their own languages. British scholars like Thomas Moor and Francis Beacon studied in Muslim universities in Arabic but translated the Arabic literature in their own language English. Pakistan was created on the basis of an ideology but it stuck amidst prejudices of linguistics, sectarianism, regionalism etc. The Mohajirs who migrated to Pakistan in the name of Islam preferred to call them as a separate entity of mohajirs. They should have been organised under Muslim Qaumi Movement instead of Mohajir Qaumi Movement. They tread on the path of facism and goondaism forgetting that ideology and thought are the real strength of a nation. We also detained our hero and nuclear scientist Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan while India coronated its nuclear scientist Dr Kalam in the coveted office of President of India. We daily hurl threats on Dr Qadeer. The rulers forget that Pakistani nation is still alive and won’t allow anyone to lift Dr Qadeer for interrogation abroad. We have battered our benefactor. Nobody would dare now to become Dr Qadeer. Pakistan also has been kept hostage by the multi-nationals. The rulers have become agents of America. We chase to kill Osama and Mullah Omar when they say kill them. They drop idea of enforcement of emergency on a phone call from US State Secretary Rice. Our foreign policy is a failure and American specific. We must have taken along all. Our alliance could have been with China, Iran, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Turkey and Central Asian and OIC countries. Our foreign office could not create a balance in foreign policy.

Our rulers let loose unprecedented tyranny on Lal Masjid inmates. They were brutally killed. Their bodies were burnt with use of gases and phosphorus. Our clergy wanted to enforce Islam through Army while they forget that no ideology can be implemented through force. They also forget that a dictator cannot develop a country. Under the pretext of war against terrorism. Militancy is a reaction of their misdeeds, violence and oppression. Instead of resorting to violence they could have talks and debates.
As told to Rana Latif

Prof Dr Waheed Ishrat is a distinguished educationist. Currently he is visiting Prof of Philosophy, Government College University, Director Iqbal Academy and Dy Director Iqbal Inte-rnational Institute of Research. He is also the author of 25 books on philosophy and literature.

The Nation

[LEGALEAGLE]

Appeasement is like feeding logs to a fire...