Musharraf's Four Years in Power

[DUreader]

http://www.hipakistan.com/en/detail.php?newsId=en41456&F_catID=sd&f_type=source





Today Pakistan's fourth military government
completes its fourth year in power. While the
first three military rulers used naked martial
law as a 'legal' cover for governance, the fourth
one, using the power flowing from an unannounced
or covert martial law, issued the so-called
Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) to
'legalize' his rule while the Constitution that
was in existence on October 12, 1999, was
suspended.

The superior judiciary was made to take oath
under this order. This was as good as martial law
with the superior courts functioning at the
pleasure of the Chief of the Army Staff (COAS).

After this the story of the fourth military
government's march into a blind alley has been
almost the same as that of the three earlier
ones. Gen Musharraf has taken three years to
'restore' democracy but without as yet
transferring real power to the elected
parliament. Under the LFO, he is all powerful and
he has refused to take it to parliament for
assent on the plea that the Supreme Court has
validated it. Gen. Musharraf has also got himself
'regularized' as the constitutional president of
Pakistan by giving 'legal' cover to his
referendum through the LFO. Like Ayub and Zia,
Musharraf too has been adopted by Washington and
is being provided as much, if not more, help in
the spheres of economy, politics and foreign
affairs though the reasons and circumstances
cited by the US for doing so have been different
for each of the three generals.




snip


We are being paid handsomely for the services we
are rendering to the US in its war against the
elusive 'terrorists'. But then while the economy
has seemingly started showing signs of picking
up, the poverty line too appears to be widening.
No major investment has taken place either in the
public or private sector. Unemployment is
soaring. Foreign investment continues to be shy.
And the unending sectarian violence is not
helping either.


snip

[DUreader]

1. A chronology: 1999-2003. Long List of interesting details here

http://www.hipakistan.com/en/detail.php?newsId=en41448&F_catID=sd&f_type=source

1999

Oct 12: Nawaz government is dismissed, prime
minister, brother taken into custody. Joint Chiefs
of Staff Committee Chairman and Chief of the Army
Staff Gen Pervez Musharraf tells the nation in a
midnight address that the armed forces "have moved
in as a last resort to save the country."

Oct 12: Pentagon says Pakistani military's seizure
of key government buildings in Islamabad does not
appear to have affected control over the country's
nuclear weapons.

Oct 12: India's armed forces are put on high alert
after developments in Islamabad.

Oct 12: US reacts cautiously to the dismissal of
the Nawaz Sharif government, saying Washington will
seek the earliest possible restoration of democracy
in Pakistan.


snip

much more

[lostnfound]

2. Greg Palast: Musharraf got in due to Clinton/Blair 's energy interests

(No offense intended--I'd elect 50 Clintons before I'd elect 1 Bush--but it's CRUCIAL that we recognize how much U.S. foreign policy is warped by corporate connections.)

I remember reading in 'Best Democracy Money Can Buy' that Musharraf got into power when Pakistan tried to back out of a bribe-induced highway-robbery contract by Entergy & National Power. I searched the 'net and found this Palast interview where he discusses it: http://www.revolutionarycommunistgroup.com/frfi/170/170_int.html


The reason Musharraf came to power in Pakistan was National Power of Britain and Entergy Corporation of Little Rock, Arkansas, which had massive contracts to sell power to the Pakistan government. These contracts were outrageous. They were paying about as much for power in Pakistan as you are in England, which means about three times the US price. It was a rip-off. And these contracts were quite suspect because they were changed in favour of National Power, unilaterally. Why would Pakistan unilaterally up the price they had agreed to pay? They did that at a time when Benazir Bhutto was in power, and she seemed to be salting a helluva lot of money away in London, in various properties. Putting two and two together, the Pakistan Government charged National Power and its Pakistan operation with bribery and tried to cancel the contracts. Cancelling the contracts led to a takeover of the power stations and a banning of union activity by the military under Musharraf. Once that happened Musharraf had control of the money to pay back National Power and the US corporations.

Now, did I say that National Power planned a coup d’état in Pakistan so that they could get paid? No. Were their contracts and demands a major factor, which led to the coup d’état? Absolutely 100 per cent. In fact, the IMF and World Bank – at the demand of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton – cut off funds to Pakistan unless they paid off these power companies, which were very suspect and were the subject of bribery charges. You don’t have to pay a contract which is the fruit of bribery, by international law. But that didn’t seem to bother Mr Blair, who, by the way, was refusing at that time to sign the International Anti-bribery Convention. One wonders why.
So we end up with Musharraf being the guarantor to Tony Blair’s and Bill Clinton’s buddies, and, lo and behold, as someone from National Power said, ‘Now we have a way to collect our money’. You sure do. Musharraf was controller of the economy and the flow of hard capital to British and American corporations. The final step, taking power, was obvious and easy.

[RainDog]

3. Is Pakistan/the ISI the next "mujahadeen" blowback?

can't help but wonder, since it's blatantly obvious that the ISI was helping Al Qaeda when we invaded and since we allowed them to escape with who knows who, and since they are as radical as Osama, and in league with him.

in other words, isn't it great we're in league with Muslim fundies with nukes?

[lostnfound]

4. Yes, I think that's exactly right..

I think we need to look at international relations with something of an ecology mindset. When special interests are able to skew U.S. political decisions, it creates an imbalance within the other country because the will of their people (or even the interests of specific powerful groups) is thwarted; and the system will seek to find a new equilibrium point which allows those factions to have their influence. In many cases the new equilibrium entails the rise of fundamentalist or nationalist groups.