Pakistan facing 'mortal threat'

[Coventina]

Source: BBC

Pakistan is facing a "mortal threat" from internal militancy, UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband has said.

Mr Miliband told the BBC that politicians must unite to face a "very grave situation" that was worsening.

(snip)

He pointed to the fallout between President Asif Ali Zardari and former PM Nawaz Sharif, who was last week banned from elected office by the Supreme Court.

Mr Miliband urged politicians to unite, saying: "I think that the degree of political disunity that exists at the moment is only contributing to the problem."

He added that country's economic decline in the global credit crunch was also a major factor.



Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7927859.stm

[tekisui]

1. Pakistan is a failed state.

The civilian government is hanging on by a thread, and one event could lead to a total collapse.

[Bigmack]

3. Sure Am Glad We Have

nuclear weapons to protect us from them....oh dear....THEY have them too.... And it looks like soon we won't even know for sure who "they" are......... Ms Bigmack

[Tim01]

7. Off topic, sorry.

Is that Thich Nhat Hanh in your avatar? I love Thich Nhat Hanh.

[tekisui]

9. Yes it is.

Welcome to DU.:hi:

[Tim01]

10. Thanks,

It has been a while since I did any proper reading. I really should get back to it.
BTW You may find his teachings mesh quite well with some of the native american teachings, Lakota is an example.

[cosmicone]

8. It has been a failed state from the 1950's

We kept propping up military dictators all throughout history and not guiltless. We are still beholden to the Pakistani military, seeing it as a pillar of stability when in fact it is the very institution that created and has been training and funding the Taliban. If we stopped funding Pakistan, Taliban will be defunded as well.

If any humanitarian aid is to be given, it should be given through private NGOs who have a better track record than the military.

A weakened Pakistani military = weakened Taliban = success in Afghanistan for the US.

[peace_to_world]

11. I think you need to check

I think you need to study Pakistan's history more carefully.You are calling a nation that became a nuclear power a failed state since 1950s.We are indeed passing through a hard crisis and are in a battle for survival but we have not lost the battle yet.

[cosmicone]

13. I know all about Pakistani history...

First, the whiskey-drinking, cigar-smoking, womanizing pseudo-muslim MA Jinnah was recruited by the brits and fed a big ego that he would make a great Prime Minister and that Mahatma Gandhi was being unkind to "his people" (situated hundreds of miles away in Sindh and Baluchistan and Punjab.) The brits financially supported MA Jinnah who said unless he becomes PM, he won't allow a united India, thus a partition resulted, dividing India up along lines that the brits drew. (Gandhi should never have agreed to it and waited the brits out but Nehru was in a big hurry to become a PM himself.) Nehru's affair with Lady Mountbatten (whether genuine love or the brits used sex as a partition-enhancer one will never know) greased the skids.

MA Jinnah became PM, a constitution was formed, he was elected. When Jinnah died, soon General Ayub Khan seized power, attacked India, got his ass kicked. He went in exile in Switzerland with millions.

There was a civilian elected government for a few years but then General Yahya Khan seized power, arrested democratically elected Sheikh Mujib-ur-Rehman because he was a Bengali and the Punjabis couldn't stand a Bengali being a PM hahaha. Millions of Bengalis were killed, tortured and hundreds of thousands of Bangladeshi (East Pakistani) women were raped by (West) Pakistani soldiers. Then Yahya Khan attacked India, got his ass kicked, 91,000 Pakistani soldiers surrendered led by Gen AAK Niazi. India dismembered Pakistan, formed Bangladesh, Mujib was released and became Bangladesh's first PM. Yahya went into exile with millions.

Zulficar Ali Bhutto was elected, became PM, signed the peace treaty with India (the Shimla accord) wherein Pakistan negated ALL UN resolutions on Kashmir and agreed to make it a bilateral issue.

General Zia ul Haq seized power, arrested ZA Bhutto, hanged him after a kangaroo court trial and became the longest reigning Pakistani dictator. Zia formed the terrorist movements and started using terror as official state policy through a bunch of front organizations like Lashkar e Tayyaba.

Zia was assassinated (no one knows by whom) and there were two brief civilain PMs (Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif) but then General Musharraf attacked India in Kargil, got his ass kicked, arrested Nawaz Sharif, seized power and sent Nawaz into exile.

Musharraf did the usual dictator things like curbing press freedoms, continued funding terrorists to attack India, actively supported Al Q'aeda and the 9/11 attacks, exported the nuclear tech to Iran, N Korea and Libya, blamed it on AQ Khan. (Like AQ Khan could really do it without Musharraf knowing!) Musharraf also fired the supreme court chief justice, precipitated a crisis, killed Benazir Bhutto but Musharraf lost the elections anyway.

Now we have Zardari (who was jailed by Zia ul Haq hahaha) who kept the corrupt supreme court and is about to arrest Nawaz Sharif the opposition leader and former PM.

So see, Pakistan cannot sustain a civilian government because the nutcase generals want to seize power. The army has become too powerful but is relatively hollow. There is no economy other than begging to the US or China for a handout and carrying their bags & water. No democratic institutions, no true freedom of press, military and ISI sponsored jihadis rampantly in control in most parts. It is a failed state and shall remain a failed state till the end of time unless it is balkanized into manageable units with a weakened army and no ISI.

No funding for Pak = no funding for military/ISI = no funding for Taliban and Al Q'aeda.

[Bhaisahab]

17. man, you are psychotic n/t

[cosmicone]

19. Psychotic? Which part was incorrect? Show links!! n/t

[Bhaisahab]

22. Psychotic in your vitriolic outbursts against Pakistan

That's uncool and does not behoove a DU member with an 'Om' symbol for an avatar.

Just my 2 paisas.

[cosmicone]

23. Actually,

there was no vitriolic outburst. It is a matter of perspective.

Secondly, your post seems to suggest that "vitriolic attacks" are okay as long as they are not against Pakistan.

Thirdly, it suggests that it would behoove a DU member provided he/she didn't have an Om symbol as an avatar!

I don't get the reaction of Pakistanis to even truthful posts.

[Bhaisahab]

26. ...

Secondly, your post seems to suggest that "vitriolic attacks" are okay as long as they are not against Pakistan.

No. it did not 'seem to suggest' that vitriolic attacks are okay. It said you routinely make vitriolic attacks against Pakistan

Thirdly, it suggests that it would behoove a DU member provided he/she didn't have an Om symbol as an avatar!
No, it doesn't suggest that. It says I wouldn't associate a member with an Om symbol to harp on and on about 'balkanization' and other such irresponsible ideas on the way forward for a country close to our hearts, and the world's best interests.

I don't get the reaction of Pakistanis to even truthful posts.
I'm an Indian. It's right up there in my profile. Oh, and truth - well, like you said, it's a matter of perspective.

Clearly, my friend, we belong together yet dwell in different cosmoses.

Peace.

[cosmicone]

28. I completely disagree

You are no authority to judge what is vitriolic or not. You are also no authority to decide what is responsible and irresponsible with respect to the future plans.

P.S. Ultimate balkanization of Pakistan is considered favorably by the highest levels of the Indian government. It makes the Kashmir problem go away once and for all.

It started with Goa, then Hyderabad, then Junagadh, then Bangladesh, then Neelam valley, then Siachen ... and it will continue whether you like it or not.

Perhaps you're getting too much bakshish from the Dawood Ibrahim organization.

Peace as well :)

[Bhaisahab]

29. WTF?

Perhaps you're getting too much bakshish from the Dawood Ibrahim organization.

That's a low. Even for you. Goodbye and good night.

[smitra]

21. Generally correct, but a few errors...

MA Jinnah did not become PM after Pakistani independence on August 14, 1947. He became Governor-General, and Liaquat Ali Khan became PM. None of them faced an election, and Jinnah died in September 1948, and Liaquat Ali was assassinated in 1951. The first nationwide elections were not held till much later (1970?). The first constitution was adopted in 1958 and Pakistan became a republic. Civilian politicians made a mockery of the political process, including the first President Iskander Mirza, and Ayub Khan took over as military dictator soon after.

Ayub Khan did not go into exile in Switzerland, he remained in Pakistan. No civilian govt. took over after him, he handed over power to Gen. Yahya Khan in 1969. Yahya did not go into exile too, he died in Rawalpindi, Pakistan in 1980.

Zardari was not jailed by Zia-ul-Haq (military dictator from 1977-88). He married Benazir in 1987 or so, and Zia died a year later. I think he was jailed during Musharraf's tenure.

Edit about Links: Most of this info is available in the relevant Wikipedia pages on Jinnah, Ayub Khan, etc.

[cosmicone]

24. Thank you, you are correct except that I still believe that

Zia had jailed Zardari for graft and Benazir lived in exile in London. The charges were never dismissed and one of the reasons why Zardari wouldn't reinstate the supreme court chief justice is because Zardari may be convicted in an honest court.

[smitra]

25. Right about not reinstating the Chief Justice...

But Zardari's corruption began to show starting in 1990, 2 years after Zia died. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asif_Ali_Zardari), Zardari spent 1997-2004 in jail, essentially during Nawaz Sharif's and Musharraf's rule. And yes, Benazir lived in London/Dubai during this period.

Btw, the Wikipedia page says that Zardari's current net worth is nearly $ 2 billion! Surprising for someone from the area, esp. for someone who has no major corporate presence.

It is not surprising that as President he wants to control the judicial branch.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

2. this is bad. pakistan becoming the next afghanistan will be bad for the region and for the US

[bemildred]

4. Gee, who could have predicted this? nt

[Sultana]

5. Can we take back the nuclear weapons?

A shit storm is brewing, it would hell if the Islamists get their hands on it.

[ohio2007]

6. Pakistani Taliban militants kill pro-gov't mayor in northwest

Islamabad, Mar 6,IRNA -- Pakistani Taliban Friday blew up vehicle of a pro-government local mayor in country’s Northwest, police said. In another incident, the Taliban kept on attacking schools and destroyed a boy school in Bajaur tribal region, according to officials.
The car of Khairullah Khan, a mayor in Bannu district, was blown up using a remote control device, police officer Iqbal Marwat said.
Khairullah Khan was a leading member of a ‘Lashkar’, or army, of the locals who had banned the entry of Taliban in his area.
Marwat said that Khan was living under threats from the Taliban militants, who are behind similar attacks on the security forces, government officials and elected members.
Police said that Khan died at the scene and his friend was injured in the bomb attack.
Meanwhile officials said that Taliban militants blew up a school in Bajaur tribal region, taking the number of destroyed schools to 40 in six months.
http://www5.irna.ir/En/View/FullStory/?NewsId=385164&IdLanguage=3

[JCMach1]

12. Zardari is about as much a political leader as my cat...

Only my cat would get more done... i.e. at least catch some birds.

[cosmicone]

14. Yeah but

can your cat deny supporting terror with a straight face while begging for more welfare handouts on CNN and BBC?

[JCMach1]

15. Now there's a trick... also while clamping down on Pujabi opposition via deep-sixing

Sharif...

No, my cat would never do that.

[truebrit71]

16. Pakistan falls into total anarchy in less then 18 months...

...at some point very soon the Indians are going to get involved in this situation to some degree or other..the fact that neither country likes the other and both are nuclear powers does NOT bode well for world peace...

I fear that the world's first nuclear war will be waged between these two countries...soon...what that means for the rest of us I do not know...

[Bhaisahab]

18. And that first warhead

is going to probably go off under my ass, here in Mumbai! :hippie:

[cosmicone]

20. I seriously doubt it

Pakistani nuke program is not as advanced as one may think. In 1998 when India conducted its tests, Pakistan had to scramble to conduct its own and when they didn't have sufficient technology, Pervaiz Musharraf and Nawaz Sharif made several trips to China begging for some nukes to do a tit-for-tat test. The chinese obliged in exchange for a naval base in Gwadar in Baluchistan. They gave some old nukes to Pakistan to do the fireworks so that Pakistani ego could be protected.

Whatever nukes Pakistan has are minimal. The Western estimates of 100 are overblown. Even if all the centrifuges they have were used 24/7, they could not possibly have made enough fissile material for 100 nukes.

Mossad has been keeping tabs on the Pakistani nukes for a while and their monitoring of the situation doesn't alarm Israel even though Pakistan has a delivery system to put Israel in range. RAW's conclusion has been the same. This is exactly why no one in Indian government is worried about Pakistani nukes. Those so called nukes are only good for nuclear blackmail by Pakistan. "Ignore our shenanigans and keep giving us money or the nukes will fall in the wrong hands" blackmail.

There are other reason why India won't get involved -- India is vying for a seat as a permanent member of the UN security council and a show of restraint helps India garner votes from the five existing permanent members. (India already has enough votes in the general assembly.) The second, and more pragmatic reason is "why murder a patient already dying of cancer?" It is going to happen anyway. Economically, politically and militarily, whatever Pakistan is doing is NOT sustainable.

[ohio2007]

27. imo, the last civilized act committed by a collapsing civilized Pak nation

would most like be to destroy the warheads in a missile silo "fire" accident before the missile base falls to the Taliban.


The most likely scenario since the missiles are located in an uncivilized area of the country and those cave dwellers wouldn't have the smarts as to which end was up anyway.

I think such news would be leaked to only a chosen few with the need to know.
jmo.

Fear and loathing in Pakistan

snip
Late last month, the chief of Pakistan's army, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, made an unpublicized visit to the White House to meet President Obama's new national security advisor, retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones Jr.

The meeting did not go well.

snip
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-mcmanus8-2009mar08,0,1315383.column

guess we can all wait and find out at this point eh ?

[ohio2007]

30. Pakistan and Mexico, facing similar predicaments, struggle to avoid the ‘failed state’ label.

If you googled the phrase ‘failed state’ this past week, the search result would toss up links to several online definitions of the same as well as news stories and blog posts about two countries: Pakistan and Mexico.

Separated by oceans, continents and socio-political contexts, the two countries find themselves facing similar crises. While one tackles militants and the other fights drug cartels — vastly different organisations — the fallout has been similar: destabilisation, compromised governance and deteriorating security.


snip

From the US perspective, the destabilisation of either Pakistan or Mexico would be catastrophic. Indeed, both countries have been described as ‘a threat to US national security’. A collapse in Pakistan would create a nationwide haven for militants and expose the country’s nuclear weapons to misuse. A Mexican implosion, meanwhile, would spill thousands of migrants and a robust drug trafficking infrastructure across US borders. With the nature of US involvement in both countries, however, the similarities end.

In Mexico, the army is a cohesive entity, loyal to the civilian government. Mexican President Felipe Calderon has so far deployed 25,000 troops, but to little avail. For that reason, the US army is now stepping in to train Mexican troops to take on drug gangs. Moreover, the US government is helping Mexico to crack down on gun trafficking (the parallel smuggling enterprise that keeps drug cartels well-armed).



snip

In Pakistan, meanwhile, longstanding tensions between the army and civilian government make coherent action against the militants impossible. The army’s scattered loyalties and propensity for double games have also been the subject of much local consternation. Troop deployment in the northern areas and tribal belt has thus proved largely unsuccessful, failing to stem militancy and instead causing collateral damage and earning civilian ire.

It doesn’t help that the Pakistani government is not consistent in its strategy against the militants, switching constantly between confrontation and negotiation. (In Mexico, negotiating with a drug cartel would be totally out of the question; given the similar methodologies of the militants, however, you’d think the same logic would apply here.)

The government’s pandering to cultural quirks is also problematic. In any situation where militias threaten the state, de-weaponisation seems like a good idea. In Swat, however, militants recently engaged in a semantic tango, insisting that they would ‘lay down’ — rather than surrender — their arms, since a Pakhtun could not be expected to live without his gun.

snip
More importantly, Pakistan should heed the warning of the Mexican example, where the rewards of drug trafficking are enabling cartels to out-arm the state. Recently, growing evidence of the link between the Taliban and Afghanistan’s drug trade has been emerging. In February, it was reported that the Taliban generate between $300m and $400m a year from drug trafficking, a figure that was widely understood to be a gross under-estimate. If drug-related financing were to increasingly spill over to militants in Pakistan, they would have access to unlimited financing for state-of-the-art weapons and communications technology. In that case, Pakistan will be saddled with its own — and Mexico’s — problems.

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/Dawn%20Content%20Library/dawn/news/pakistan/a-tale-of-two-countries-szh

[Eryemil]

31. As long as their nuclear arsenal is dealt with... n|t