PAKISTAN Special

 

By: URI AVNERY

169 years before the Gaza War, Heinrich Heine wrote a premonitory poem of 12 lines, under the title “To Edom”. The German-Jewish poet was talking about Germany, or perhaps all the nations of Christian Europe. This is what he wrote (in my rough translation):

For a thousand years and more
We have had an understanding
You allow me to breathe
I accept your crazy raging

Sometimes, when the days get darker
Strange moods come upon you
Till  you decorate your claws
With the lifeblood from my veins

Now our  friendship is firmer
Getting stronger by the day
Since the raging started in me
Daily more and more like you.

Zionism, which arose some 50 years after this was written, is fully realizing this prophesy. We Israelis have become a nation like all nations, and the memory of the Holocaust causes us, from time to time, to behave like the worst of them. Only a few of us know this poem, but Israel as a whole lives it out.

In this war, politicians and generals have repeatedly quoted the words: “The boss has gone mad!” originally shouted by vegetable vendors in the market, in the sense of “The boss has gone crazy and is selling the tomatoes at a loss!” But in the course of time the jest has turned into a deadly doctrine that often appears in Israeli public discourse: in order to deter our enemies, we must behave like madmen, go on the rampage, kill and destroy mercilessly.

In this war, this has become political and military dogma: only if we kill “them” disproportionately, killing a thousand of “them” for ten of “ours”, will they understand that it’s not worth it to mess with us. It will be “seared into their consciousness” (a favorite Israeli phrase these days). After this, they will think twice before launching another Qassam rocket against us, even in response to what we do, whatever that may be.

It is impossible to understand the viciousness of this war without taking into account the historical background: the feeling of victimhood after all that has been done to the Jews throughout the ages, and the conviction that after the Holocaust, we have the right to do anything, absolutely anything, to defend ourselves, without any inhibitions due to law or morality.

WHEN THE killing and destruction in Gaza were at their height, something happened in faraway America that was not connected with the war, but was very much connected with it. The Israeli film “Waltz with Bashir” was awarded a prestigious prize. The media reported it with much joy and pride, but somehow carefully managed not to mention the subject of the film. That by itself was an interesting phenomenon: saluting the success of a film while ignoring its contents.

The subject of this outstanding film is one of the darkest chapters in our history: the Sabra and Shatila massacre. In the course of Lebanon War I, a Christian Lebanese militia carried out, under the auspices of the Israeli army, a heinous massacre of hundreds of helpless Palestinian refugees who were trapped in their camp, men, women, children and old people. The film describes this atrocity with meticulous accuracy, including our part in it.

All this was not even mentioned in the news about the award. At the festive ceremony, the director of the film did not avail himself of the opportunity to protest against the events in Gaza. It is hard to say how many women and children were killed while this ceremony was going on – but it is clear that the massacre in Gaza is much worse than that 1982 event, which moved 400 thousand Israelis to leave their homes and hold a spontaneous mass protest in Tel-Aviv. This time, only 10 thousand stood up to be counted.

The official Israeli Board of Inquiry that investigated the Sabra massacre found that the Israeli government bore “indirect responsibility” for the atrocity. Several senior officials and officers were suspended. One of them was the division commander, Amos Yaron. Not one of the other accused, from the Minister of Defense, Ariel Sharon, to the Chief of Staff, Rafael Eitan, spoke a word of regret, but Yaron did express remorse in a speech to his officers, and admitted: “Our sensitivities have been blunted”.

BLUNTED SENSITIVITIES are very evident in the Gaza War.

Lebanon War I lasted for 18 years and more than 500 of our soldiers died. The planners of Lebanon War II decided to avoid such a long war and such heavy Israeli casualties. They invented the “mad boss” principle: demolishing whole neighborhoods, devastating areas, destroying infrastructures. In 33 days of war, some 1000 Lebanese, almost all of them civilians, were killed – a record already broken in this war by the 17th day. Yet in that war our army suffered casualties on the ground, and public opinion, which in the beginning supported the war with the same enthusiasm as this time, changed rapidly.

The smoke from Lebanon War II is hanging over the Gaza war. Everybody in Israel swore to learn its lessons. And the main lesson was: not to risk the life of even one single soldier. A war without casualties (on our side). The method: to use the overwhelming firepower of our army to pulverize everything standing in its way and to kill everybody moving in the area. To kill not only the fighters on the other side, but every human being who might possibly turn out to harbor hostile intentions, even if they are obviously an ambulance attendant, a driver in a food convoy or a doctor saving lives. To destroy every building from which our troops could conceivably be shot at – even a school full of refugees, the sick and the wounded. To bomb and shell whole neighborhoods, buildings, mosques, schools, UN food convoys, even ruins under which the injured are buried.

The media devoted several hours to the fall of a Qassam missile on a home in Ashkelon, in which three residents suffered from shock, and did not waste many words on the forty women and children killed in a UN school, from which “we were shot at” – an assertion that was quickly exposed as a blatant lie.

The firepower was also used to sow terror – shelling everything from a hospital to a vast UN food depot, from a press vantage point to the mosques. The standard pretext: “we were shot at from there”.

This would have been impossible, had not the whole country been infected with blunted sensitivities. People are no longer shocked by the sight of a mutilated baby, nor by children left for days with the corpse of their mother, because the army did not let them leave their ruined home. It seems that almost nobody cares anymore: not the soldiers, not the pilots, not the media people, not the politicians, not the generals. A moral insanity, whose primary exponent is Ehud Barak. Though even he may be upstaged by Tzipi Livni, who smiled while talking about the ghastly events.

Even Heinrich Heine could not have imagined that.

THE LAST DAYS were dominated by the “Obama effect”.

We are on board an airplane, and suddenly a huge black mountain appears out of the clouds. In the cockpit, panic breaks out: How to avoid a collision?    

The planners of the war chose the timing with care: during the holidays, when everybody was on vacation, and while President Bush was still around. But they somehow forgot to take into consideration a fateful date: next Tuesday Barack Obama will enter the White House.

This date is now casting a huge shadow on events. The Israeli Barak understands that if the American Barack gets angry, that would mean disaster. Conclusion: the horrors of Gaza must stop before the inauguration. This week that determined all political and military decisions. Not “the number of rockets”, not “victory”, not “breaking Hamas”.

WHEN THERE is a ceasefire, the first question will be: Who won?

In Israel, all the talk is about the “picture of victory” – not victory itself, but the “picture”.  That is essential, in order to convince the Israeli public that the whole business has been worthwhile. At this moment, all the thousands of media people, to the very last one, have been mobilized to paint such a “picture”. The other side, of course, will paint a different one.

The Israeli leaders will boast of two “achievements”: the end of the rockets and the sealing of the Gaza-Egypt border (the co-called “Philadelphi route”. Dubious achievements: the launching of the Qassams could have been prevented without a murderous war, if our government had been ready to negotiate with Hamas after they won the Palestinian elections. The tunnels under the Egyptian border would not have been dug in the first place, if our government had not imposed the deadly blockade on the Strip.

But the main achievement of the war planners lies in the very barbarity of their plan: the atrocities will have, in their view, a deterrent effect that will hold for a long time.

Hamas, on the other side, will assert that their survival in the face of the mighty Israeli war machine, a tiny David against a giant Goliath, is by itself a huge victory. According to the classic military definition, the winner in a battle is the army that remains on the battlefield when it’s over. Hamas remains. The Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip still stands, in spite of all the efforts to eliminate it. That is a significant achievement.

Hamas will also point out that the Israeli army was not eager to enter the Palestinian towns, in which their fighters were entrenched. And indeed: the army told the government that the conquest of Gaza city could cost the lives of about 200 soldiers, and no politician was ready for that on the eve of elections.

The very fact that a guerrilla force of a few thousand lightly armed fighters held out for long weeks against one of the world’s mightiest armies with enormous firepower, will look to millions of Palestinians and other Arabs and Muslims, and not only to them, like an unqualified victory.

In the end, an agreement will be concluded that will include the obvious terms. No country can tolerate its inhabitants being exposed to rocket fire from beyond the border, and no population can tolerate a choking blockade. Therefore (1) Hamas will have to give up the launching of missiles, (2) Israel will have to open wide the crossings between the Gaza Strip and the outside world, and (3) the entry of arms into the Strip will be stopped (as far as possible), as demanded by Israel. All this could have happened without war, if our government had not boycotted Hamas.

HOWEVER, THE worst results of this war are still invisible and will make themselves felt only in years to come: Israel has imprinted on world consciousness a terrible image of itself. Billions of people have seen us as a blood-dripping monster. They will never again see Israel as a state that seeks justice, progress and peace. The American Declaration of Independence speaks with approval of “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind”. That is a wise principle.

Even worse is the impact on hundreds of millions of Arabs around us: not only will they see the Hamas fighters as the heroes of the Arab nation, but they will also see their own regimes in their nakedness: cringing, ignominious, corrupt and treacherous.

The Arab defeat in the 1948 war brought in its wake the fall of almost all the existing Arab regimes and the ascent of a new generation of nationalist leaders, exemplified by Gamal Abd-al-Nasser. The 2009 war may bring about the fall of the current crop of Arab regimes and the ascent of a new generation of leaders – Islamic fundamentalists who hate Israel and all the West..

In coming years it will become apparent that this war was sheer madness. The boss has indeed gone mad – in the original sense of the word.

Yet another brilliant article by Dr Mazari, highlighting how a compromise of Pakistan's sovereignity is being very brazenly facilitated by incompetent Pakistan governmet. How the new prime minister and his cabinet views these advancements and what is their aproach towards checking this dangerous trend is yet to be seen. Indicators are not very encouraging, though. It is obvious that these dwarfs are only busy killing their time in tackling the matters of a lesser importance and are incapable of objectively assessing the present threat to Pakistan's very existence.

BY: SHIREEN M MAZARI
While the nation continues to watch the "back and forth" drama over the restoration of the judges issue, increasingly aware of where it will all end; and while the poor look beyond the judicial issue to the basics of survival in the face of rising costs of staple food and utilities; scant attention is being paid to the rapid threats to the country's sovereignty that are emerging from different quarters that are linked together in an overarching strategic partnership – that is India and the US with the UK an avid supporter. If one only examines events that took place April 23 to April 29 and connects them up, it becomes clear that either by default or by design Pakistan is in danger of losing its sovereignty.

To begin with, take the incident of April 23 when NATO forces (actually US forces) along with some Afghan soldiers attacked FC posts in Bajaur Agency. What is intriguing is the way in which this direct assault on the country's sovereignty was explained away. First we were told that it was a misunderstanding. Then some of us were told that in fact this action was in response to firing from across our side of the international Pakistan-Afghan border.

However, on exploring further it transpires that the firing from our side took place a day earlier so the violence from the US troops was not an immediate response to the firing -- although it is difficult in any case to actually assess the exact spot of the initial firing given the nature of the border. Instead, this was a pre-planned operation, conducted a day later, targeting our FC posts at a time when there were a few FC personnel on duty, and involved 600 US troops along with Afghan soldiers as well as helicopter gunships and tanks! Also, the attack continued for a fair length of time so that the FC was able to call in reinforcements -- again not simply an immediate response to fire from militants! Instead, it seems the US military deliberately targeted our paramilitary forces – to teach them some sort of "lesson".

Interestingly, this attack came a few days after reports that US commanders were seeking to widen their attacks inside Pakistan . Worse still, some of our border posts were occupied by the US-Afghan combine -- but we kept quiet and there was no contemplated retaliation. Why?

Now we hear that the peace talks with our tribal people are breaking down. Clearly a mischievous hand can be discerned, especially when one sees the bizarre story of a handbill being circulated in Peshawar inviting people to join the Taliban. The Taliban have denied the authenticity and, on this count, they are probably right because the language being used -- for instance the words "Janat ka direct ticket" -- is more in line with western advertising ruses than Taliban language! Also, the mobile number given in English makes little sense as does the fact that the handbill is in Urdu rather than in Pushto. It would appear the timing is directly an effort to sabotage the ANP's political strategy of dealing with the tribal issue and it does not take too much intelligence to understand who is indulging in such dirty tricks.

To add to efforts at our demoralisation, last week also saw the French Prime Minister declare that Pakistan will "fall" if France leaves Afghanistan ! Honestly, is this what we are being reduced to? Nor is this all. British Foreign Secretary, Milliband, who seems to find no other place to give him the sort of feel-good sense that Islamabad does, has decided to explain to the world on our behalf that "Pakistanis voted for democracy nor Talibanisation"! So are we supposed to feel more confident about ourselves after this statement?

But the British must be feeling pleased with us these days because in another clipping of our sovereignty we have now allowed the British to deploy an airline liaison officer at Islamabad airport -- in other words, the state of Pakistan has delegated its powers to Britain to block the departure of passengers from Islamabad to the UK! Is this a reciprocal renunciation of a chip of our independence? Are we going to be allowed to have similar privileges at British airports to block the travel to Pakistan of undesirables from Britain -- especially "sleeper" terrorists? Of course not! This also happened in the seven-day time period being discussed here, which seems to have been particularly good for those seeking to undermine our sovereignty as a nation.

For it was also in this period that we had former Indian National Security Adviser, Mishra, suggesting that India become part of the US-EU or NATO combine to fight terrorism in Pakistan ! This is like Pakistan suggesting we help India fight terrorism in its northeastern provinces or Hindu extremism in Gujarat ! But we do know that the US is seeking to bring India militarily into Afghanistan and one really wonders when we will react strongly to these efforts -- when it is already too late? Incidentally, the US continues to adopt its arrogantly imperial approach towards Pakistan and now we hear that despite paying the market price for the F-16s, we are not going to get the cutting edge technology India will get with its F-16s. Clearly the F-16 saga will not alter, but let us hope we are not reduced to wheat and soya beans again!

Of course, we are still going the extra mile, unilaterally, to support India on all fronts. We have now agreed in principle that India can export wheat to Afghanistan through Wagah – opening up the long sought after land route by India . Hopefully, this decision will include certain safeguards like ensuring that the transportation from Wagah to the Afghan border is done by Pakistani transporters and that India pays a transport levy. Since the decision has been taken on principle, one must wait to see how it is operationalised, but to allow India physical access through Pakistan 's sensitive areas surely cannot be contemplated. Will India allow us to transport foodstuff to Nepal through the land route from across India ?

At least some political leaders are showing a commitment to reciprocity with Mr Nawaz Sharif demanding a linkage between the Sarabjit case and the case of Pakistani prisoners languishing in Indian jails. No one seems to have shown any sensitivity to this issue at all. Even more critical, commutation of Sarabjit's death sentence to life imprisonment should first be linked to an overall decision by the state to commute all death sentences and, in fact, move to end the death penalty which does not deter most murders and only penalises the poor -- many of whom are wrongly condemned for lack of a good defence. After all, if an Indian who killed innocent Pakistanis is to live why not the poor Pakistanis rotting on death row? Is a foreign life worth more than a Pakistani life for us?

Imagine if so much of our sovereignty was chipped away in a mere seven days, how much of it has already been lost after our embrace of the US-led "global war on terror" post-9/11! Has it all been willingly done?

BY: MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY 

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto has created conditions which contribute to the ongoing destabilization and fragmentation of Pakistan as a nation. The process of U.S.-sponsored "regime change,“ which normally consists in the re-formation of a fresh proxy government under new leaders has been broken. Discredited in the eyes of Pakistani public opinion, General Pervez Musharaf cannot remain in the seat of political power, but at the same time, the fake elections ported by the "international community" scheduled for January 2008, even if they were to be carried out, would not be accepted as legitimate, thereby creating a political impasse. There are indications that the assassination of Benazir Bhutto was anticipated by U.S. officials: "It has been known for months that the Bush-Cheney administration and its allies have been maneuvering to strengthen their political control of Pakistan, paving the way for the expansion and deepening of the ‘war on terrorism’ across the region. Various American destabilization plans, known for months by officials and analysts, proposed the toppling of Pakistan 's military... The assassination of Bhutto appears to have been anticipated. There were even reports of “chatter” among U.S. officials about the possible assassinations of either Pervez Musharraf or Benazir Bhutto, well before the actual attempts took place.

Political Impasse: "Regime change" with a view to ensuring continuity under military rule is no longer the main thrust of U.S. foreign policy. The regime of Pervez Musharraf cannot prevail. Washington's foreign policy course is to actively promote the political fragmentation and balkanization of Pakistan as a nation. A new political leadership is anticipated but in all likelihood it will take on a very different shape, in relation to previous U.S.-sponsored regimes. One can expect that Washington will push for a compliant political leadership, with no commitment to the national interest, a leadership which will serve U.S. imperial interests, while concurrently contributing under the disguise of "decentralization,” to the weakening of the central government and the fracture of Pakistan 's fragile federal structure. The political impasse is deliberate. It is part of an evolving U.S. foreign policy agenda, which favors disruption and disarray in the structures of the Pakistani State . Indirect rule by the Pakistani military and intelligence apparatus is to be replaced by more direct forms of U.S. interference, including an expanded U.S. military presence inside Pakistan … This expanded military presence is also dictated by the Middle East-Central Asia geopolitical situation and Washington's ongoing plans to extend the Middle East war to a much broader area. The U.S. has several military bases in Pakistan . It controls the country's air space. According to a recent report: "U.S. Special Forces are expected to vastly expand their presence in Pakistan as part of an effort to train and support indigenous counter-insurgency forces and clandestine counterterrorism units" (William Arkin, Washington Post, December 2007)… The official justification and pretext for an increased military presence in Pakistan is to extend the "war on terrorism.” Concurrently, to justify its counterterrorism program, Washington is also beefing up its covert support to the "terrorists." 

The Balkanization of Pakistan: Already in 2005, a report by the U.S. National Intelligence Council (NIC) and the CIA forecast a "Yugoslav-like fate" for Pakistan "in a decade with the country riven by civil war, bloodshed, and inter provincial rivalries, as seen recently in Balochistan." (Energy Compass, 2 March 2005). According to the NIC-CIA, Pakistan is slated to become a "failed state" by 2015, "as it would be affected by civil war, complete Talibanisation, and struggle for control of its nuclear weapons.” (Quoted by former Pakistan High Commissioner to UK , Wajid Shamsul Hasan, Times of India, 13 February 2005): "Nascent democratic reforms will produce little change in the face of opposition from an entrenched political elite and radical Islamic parties. In a climate of continuing domestic turmoil, the Central government's control probably will be reduced to the Punjabi heartland and the economic hub of Karachi ," the former diplomat quoted the NIC-CIA report as saying. Expressing apprehension, Hasan asked, "Are our military rulers working on a similar agenda or something that has been laid out for them in the various assessment reports over the years by the National Intelligence Council in joint collaboration with CIA?" (Ibid)  Continuity, characterized by the dominant role of the Pakistani military and intelligence has been scrapped in favor of political breakup and balkanization… According to the NIC-CIA scenario, which Washington intends to carry out: "Pakistan will not recover easily from decades of political and economic mismanagement, divisive policies, lawlessness, corruption, and ethnic friction." (Ibid). The U.S. course consists in fomenting social, ethnic, and factional divisions and political fragmentation, including the territorial breakup of Pakistan . This course of action is also dictated by U.S. war plans in relation to both Afghanistan and Iran … This U.S. agenda for Pakistan is similar to that applied throughout the broader Middle East Central Asian region. U.S. strategy, supported by covert intelligence operations, consists in triggering ethnic and religious strife, abetting and financing secessionist movements while also weakening the institutions of the central government…The broader objective is to fracture the Nation State and redraw the borders of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

Pakistan's Oil and Gas reserves: Pakistan 's extensive oil and gas reserves, largely located in Balochistan province, as well as its pipeline corridors are considered strategic by the Anglo-American alliance, requiring the concurrent militarization of Pakistani territory… Balochistan comprises more than 40% of Pakistan 's land mass, possesses important reserves of oil and natural gas, as well as extensive mineral resources… The Iran-India pipeline corridor is slated to transit through Balochistan. Balochistan also possesses a deep seaport, largely financed by China, located at Gwadar on the Arabian Sea , not far from the Straits of Hormuz where 30% of the world's daily oil supply moves by ship or pipeline. ( Asia News.it, 29 December 2007) Pakistan has an estimated 25.1 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of proven gas reserves of which 19 trillion are located in Balochistan. Among foreign oil and gas contractors in Balochistan are BP, Italy's ENI, Austria's OMV, and Australia 's BHP. It is worth noting that Pakistan 's state oil and gas companies, including PPL which has the largest stake in the Sui oil fields of Balochistan, are up for privatization under IMF-World Bank supervision… According to the Oil and Gas Journal (OGJ), Pakistan had proven oil reserves of 300 million barrels, most of which are located in Balochistan. Other estimates place Balochistan oil reserves at an estimated six trillion barrels of oil reserves both onshore and offshore 

Covert Support to Balochistan Separatists: Balochistan's strategic energy reserves have a bearing on the separatist agenda. Following a familiar pattern, there are indications that the Baloch insurgency is being supported and abetted by Britain and the U.S… The Balochi national resistance movement dates back to the late 1940s, when Balochistan was invaded by Pakistan . In the current geopolitical context, the separatist movement is in the process of being hijacked by foreign powers… British intelligence is allegedly providing covert support to Balochistan separatists (which from the outset have been repressed by Pakistan 's military). In June 2006, Pakistan's Senate Committee on Defence accused British intelligence of "abetting the insurgency in the province bordering Iran "  

Ten British MPs were involved in a closed door session of the Senate Committee on Defence regarding the alleged support of Britain 's Secret Service to Balcoh separatists (Ibid). Also of relevance are reports of CIA and Mossad support to Baloch rebels in Iran and Southern Afghanistan … It would appear that Britain and the U.S. are supporting both sides. The U.S. is providing American F-16 jets to the Pakistani military, which are being used to bomb Baloch villages in Balochistan. Meanwhile, British alleged covert support to the separatist movement (according to the Pakistani Senate Committee) contributes to weakening the central government. The stated purpose of U.S. counter-terrorism is to provide covert support as well as training to "Liberation Armies" ultimately with a view to destabilizing sovereign governments. In Kosovo, the training of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) in the 1990s had been entrusted to a private mercenary company, Military Professional Resources Inc (MPRI), on contract to the Pentagon… The BLA bears a canny resemblance to Kosovo's KLA, which was financed by the drug trade and supported by the CIA and Germany 's Bundes Nachrichten Dienst (BND)… The BLA emerged shortly after the 1999 military coup. It has no tangible links to the Baloch resistance movement, which developed since the late 1940s. An aura of mystery surrounds the leadership of the BLA. Washington favors the creation of a "Greater Balochistan" which would integrate the Baloch areas of Pakistan with those of Iran and possibly the Southern tip of Afghanistan, thereby leading to a process of political fracturing in both Iran and Pakistan … "The U.S. is using Balochi nationalism for staging an insurgency inside Iran 's Sistan-Balochistan province. The ‘war on terror’ in Afghanistan gives a useful political backdrop for the ascendancy of Balochi militancy". Military scholar Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters, writing in the June 2006 issue of The Armed Forces Journal suggests in no uncertain terms that Pakistan should be broken up, leading to the formation of a separate country: "Greater Balochistan" or "Free Balochistan .” The latter would incorporate the Pakistani and Iranian Baloch provinces into a single political entity… In turn, according to Peters, Pakistan's North West Frontier Province (NWFP) should be incorporated into Afghanistan "because of its linguistic and ethnic affinity.” This proposed fragmentation, which broadly reflects U.S. foreign policy, would reduce Pakistani territory to approximately 50 percent of its present land area. Pakistan would also lose a large part of its coastline on the Arabian Sea …                                                                                                  

Although the map does not officially reflect Pentagon doctrine, it has been used in a training program at NATO's Defense College for senior military officers… This map (as described), as well as other similar maps, has most probably been used at the National War Academy as well as in military planning circles…   "Lieutenant-Colonel Peters was last posted, before he retired to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, within the U.S. Defence Department, and has been one of the Pentagon’s foremost authors with numerous essays on strategy for military journals and U.S. foreign policy." (Ibid)               

"Strong Economic Medicine": Weakening Pakistan's Central Government: It is by no means accidental that the 2005 National Intelligence Council (NIC)-CIA report had predicted a "Yugoslav-like fate" for Pakistan pointing to the impacts of "economic mismanagement" as one of the causes of political breakup and balkanization… "Economic mismanagement" is a term used by the Washington-based international financial institutions to describe the chaos which results from not fully abiding by the IMF's Structural Adjustment Program. In actual fact, the "economic mismanagement" and chaos is the outcome of IMF-World Bank prescriptions, which invariably trigger hyperinflation and precipitate indebted countries into extreme poverty… Pakistan has been subjected to the same deadly IMF "economic medicine" as Yugoslavia: In 1999, in the immediate wake of the coup d'etat which brought General Pervez Musharaf to the helm of the military government, an IMF economic package, which included currency devaluation and drastic austerity measures, was imposed on Pakistan .

Pakistan 's external debt is of the order of US$40 billion. The IMF's "debt reduction" under the package was conditional upon the sell-off to foreign capital of the most profitable state owned enterprises (including the oil and gas facilities in Balochistan) at rock bottom prices . Musharaf's Finance Minister was chosen by Wall Street, which is not an unusual practice. The military rulers appointed at Wall Street's behest a vice-president of Citigroup, Shaukat Aziz, who at the time was head of Citi-Group's Global Private Banking. Citi-Group is among the largest commercial foreign banking institutions in Pakistan .  There are obvious similarities in the nature of U.S. covert intelligence operations applied in country after country in different parts of the so-called "developing World.” These covert operations, including the organization of military coups, are often synchronized with the imposition of IMF-World Bank macro-economic reforms. In this regard, Yugoslavia 's federal fiscal structure collapsed in 1990 leading to mass poverty and heightened ethnic and social divisions. The U.S. and NATO sponsored "civil war" launched in mid-1991 consisted in coveting Islamic groups as well as channeling covert support to separatist paramilitary armies in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Macedonia. A similar "civil war" scenario has been envisaged for Pakistan by the National Intelligence Council and the CIA: From the point of view of U.S. intelligence, which has a longstanding experience in abetting separatist "liberation armies,” "Greater Albania" is to Kosovo what "Greater Balochistan" is to Pakistan's Southeastern Balochistan province. Similarly, the KLA is Washington 's chosen model to be replicated in Balochistan province.

The Assassination of Benazir Bhutto: Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in Rawalpindi , no ordinary city. Rawalpindi is a military city host to the headquarters of the Pakistani Armed Forces and Military Intelligence (ISI). Ironically Bhutto was assassinated in an urban area tightly controlled and guarded by the military police and the country's elite forces. Rawalpindi is swarming with ISI intelligence officials, which invariably infiltrate political rallies. Her assassination was not a haphazard event. Without evidence, quoting Pakistan government sources, the Western media in chorus has highlighted the role of Al-Qaeda, while also focusing on the possible involvement of the ISI… What these interpretations do not mention is that the ISI continues to play a key role in overseeing Al Qaeda on behalf of U.S. intelligence. The press reports fail to mention two important and well-documented facts: 1) the ISI maintains close ties to the CIA. The ISI is virtually an appendage of the CIA. 2) Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA. The ISI provides covert support to Al Qaeda, acting on behalf of U.S. intelligence. 

(This paper was originally published in Jan 2008.The contents of this article are entirely writer’s own views and PAKISTANSpecial Team may not agree with some or all for obvious reasons.)