SOUTH ASIA THE VICTIM OF GLOBAL AGENDA
Pakistan is tangled in the web of foreign factors and domestic conflicts. The US and its Western allies, regional countries, judiciary, media, executive, religious leadership and feudal lords or industrialists, are the stakeholders of power here.
Unless a contender appeases these stakeholders, it cannot get the power. A realistic analysis of the last three decades reflects that Muslim leaders were either removed or assassinated, turn by turn, in a manner that appears to be 'just and democratic'. Several leaders in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, and now Egypt and Syria are some examples.
While addressing the Arab League, Libya's Col Qaddafi once warned the Arab leaders that “after his 'removal or hanging', their turn would come soon”, over which Bashar al-Assad and others laughed. Today, the noose has tightened against Assad and the turn is waiting for others too. Our political elite must know that when a foreign authority is confiding in you, he will be quick to get rid of you, when not needed.
A common pattern of deaths and assassinations of Pakistani leaders depicts that nationalist leaders have been killed or removed. In Pakistan, present political environment shows domination of regional political parties. These populist leaders are given safe havens in Western states and neighbouring countries, in the name of political asylum. These countries and their allies fund these separatist leaders and do much more covert things for them to weaken Pakistan and to disallow federal political parties to operate in tier areas of interest.
One does not need to go back much in history to observe as to how Liaquat Ali Khan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Zia-ul-Haq and Benazir Bhutto were assassinated. They were not killed due to domestic feuds. Their deaths had this commonality that allegedly foreign powers were involved and as such inquiries could not be made public. For the sake of stability of the country, there is a need to examine the pattern of 'removing' leaders, irrespective of their political merit, draw lessons from such incidents.
May 2013 elections in Pakistan can be viewed in the backdrop of international and domestic factors, interests and strategic environment. Pakistan, like most other countries, is a 'relatively' sovereign state. A country that is heavily under debt, and is forced to get loans to repay its loans, and accepts drone attacks obliquely, cannot be termed as completely sovereign.
Nations are prepared to sacrifice their citizens, as for example, in Afghanistan, where soldiers from such distant countries as France and England are laying down their lives for preservation of their national interests. There is no love-hate relationship between countries, but only national interests reign supreme. The United States and allies have their critical national interests in Central Asia as well as South Asia that are followed as a policy and are not changed following a change in government as a valid principle of statecraft. The interests relevant to Pakistan are, firstly, making a vigil at the ability of Russia, China, Iran or the Central Asian Republics (CARs) to dominate Afghanistan or to be able to approach or use 'warm waters' through Pakistan for their power projection or economic advantage. So, Afghanistan will remain destabilized. This interest is also shared by Russia which cannot see NATO forces operating peacefully in its backyard. As and when these national interests of US and Russia will be challenged, it will have a physical reaction by these countries. Consequently, Pakistani leaders who tend to accommodate US and Russia will be supported by them but only till their interests are served.
To keep Afghanistan and Pakistan destabilized, the presently working plan is to roll down insurgency from the line of Hindu Kush Range that horizontally divides Afghanistan into Pushtoon and non-Pashtoon areas. This plan has multiple advantages, as even after NATO departs, the seeds of enmity and revenge between Afghanistan, the Tribal Areas and Pakistan will keep germinating.
Secondly, Iran is an ideological, religious and political enemy of Western forces. In the past, Turkmenistan-Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project, other natural gas projects, any shipping or trade effort through land or Chah Bahar and Gwadar ports, has been vehemently resisted. Iran borders Balochistan and safe and firm naval, air and land bases or routes for attacking it exist through Balochistan and Mekran Coast. Western allies will be, therefore, seen supporting separatist Baloch movements on 'humanitarian grounds'. Economic development of Mekran region, Riko Dik deposits and improving economic ties with Iran or China will be disliked by the US and it will be of interest to observe if any government in Pakistan dares to venture in this area.
Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) and Balochistan have an interesting commonality for foreign interests. Both are reasonably well-populated by Shias, and both have Chinese intruding into these regions. GB provides access to China to ports, like Afghanistan can provide such access to Russia and CARs. It must be understood that the regions that provide economic or military accesses can never remain peaceful and will have to be sabotaged. The geographic and religious reality will never allow peace and development to these unfortunate regions of Pakistan also, unless a prolific Pakistani leadership is ready to bear the consequences. Only a prudent government that is able to cruise through these predictable foreign interests has chances to bring some relief to the people. All states have right to pursue their own interests legitimately. While we should understand our own and foreign interests, we should have our strategies ready to counter inimical interests and thus win freedom, economic stability and peace for our people.
The writer is an independent researcher. She can be contacted at:munazzakhan_ink@hotmail.com