Wrong-Footed Bush Forced to Rethink Policy on Pakistan
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration was yesterday hurriedly trying to find a Plan B for Pakistan after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. 
US officials based in Pakistan were sounding out senior members of her opposition Pakistan People’s party about a possible successor. They were also in contact with members of the other main opposition party, the Pakistan Muslim League, led by Nawaz Sharif, even though the US had previously opposed his return to Pakistan because of links between his party and Islamist extremists.
President George Bush called for the election to go ahead, though he avoided mention of whether Pakistan should stick to the January 8 timetable. An announcement on whether to delay the election has been left until the end of the three days of mourning.
Asked whether the US was confident that Pakistan could stage an election in January, the US state department spokesman, Tom Casey, said: “Well, we’re going to see what happens.”
The assassination of Bhutto has thrown into disarray Bush administration hopes of establishing a degree of security in Pakistan. Since 9/11, Bush has relied on the military-run government of President Pervez Musharraf as an ally in the fight against the Taliban and al-Qaida. With Musharraf’s loss of popularity, the administration placed its hopes on a return to democracy and the emergence of a Musharraf-Bhutto coalition.
US intelligence analysts warned that al-Qaida, which has a hold in Pakistan’s tribal areas - where the US believes Osama bin Laden is hiding - and in cities such as Karachi would be strengthened by the chaos in the aftermath of the assassination.
John McLaughlin, former acting director of the CIA, predicted that the chaos would last for weeks at least and that the capacity of Pakistan’s authorities to deal with al-Qaida during that time would be diminished.
The Bush administration is worried that Pakistan could fall into the hands of radicals, undermining its battle against the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan and raising the spectre of nuclear weapons in the hands of Islamists hostile to the west.
The present head of the CIA, Robert Gates, warned last week that al-Qaida was focusing its efforts on Pakistan.
The US helped engineer the return of Bhutto to the US in October after eight years of self-imposed exile. It will be harder for US officials to persuade Musharraf, who has stood down as commander of the army to contest the election as a civilian, to enter into a coalition with Sharif, given the degree of enmity between them.
On Thursday Bush called on Pakistan “to honour Benazir Bhutto’s memory by continuing with the democratic process for which she so bravely gave her life.” But he made no mention of January 8.
Gordon Brown, who also spoke to Musharraf, echoed Bush’s comments, calling on him to “stick to the course he has outlined to build democracy and stability in Pakistan”. He did not specifically say elections should be held on January 8.
“This was a cowardly terrorist act designed to destabilise democratic elections. The international community is united in its outrage and determination that those who stoop to such tactics shall not prevail,” he said. Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, made a similar call for the election to go ahead.
Stephen Cohen, a specialist on India and Pakistan at the Brookings Institution, a non-profit policy studies thinktank, described Bhutto’s death as a “blow to the idea of a liberal, moderate Pakistan” that made him fear for that country.
“Its further decay will affect all of its neighbours, Europe and the United States in unpredictable and unpleasant ways,” he said.
Explainer: The nuclear arsenal
The Pentagon is working on contingency plans to prevent Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal falling into the hands of Islamist radicals and insisted yesterday that the arsenal was safe in spite of the upheaval in the aftermath of the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.
Pentagon spokesman Colonel Gary Keck said: “At this time, we have no need for concern.” However, the Bush administration is less confident about the future. The US administration has spent $100m (£50m) over the last six years on improving the security of Pakistan’s nuclear programme.
One of the contingency plans would involve US special forces, working with Pakistan’s military and intelligence services, to spirit away any weapons at imminent risk. But the US cannot be confident that the Pakistan military would cooperate at such a time.
In spite of US aid to help with security, the Pakistan government has remained suspicious of US intentions, fearing that it might plant devices capable of neutralising the weapons.
As a result, Pakistan has withheld information about the location of all its arsenal and other specifics. Pakistan’s nuclear scientists and technicians go to the US for training.
Pakistan carried out its first nuclear test in 1998 and claims to have about 80 to 120 warheads. It has many decoys to confuse would-be thieves.
Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are stored in bunkers in about half-a-dozen military bases and, to provide a degree of safety, the components are kept separately.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
so is Pakistan an autonomous country? This article makes it a little unclear.
Wrong-footed? Maybe
But for a retarded guy he sure has good coordination, as the minute he proclaimed that it was an act done by terrorists he was ready to impose Al Qaeda as The Usual Culprit on Musharraf with the quid pro quo of “Blame Al Qaeda or we take you out, now”.
This gives him plenty of time to find a replacement–the other opposition guy, Sharif, is pro-US and can be installed if Musharraf decides to hang onto power by canceliing the January elections.
Damage control has been carried out just fine.
Yup Sharif is the new Bhutto our man in Pakistan. I heard that Bhutto was killed because she would have allowed troops on the ground in Waziristan. Pakistan funds the Taliban out of Waziristan and sends them across the boarder to Afghanistan to wreck havock on a daily basis so this is probably the strategy to stop that.
1. Ewen MacAskill writes, “The present head of the CIA, Robert Gates, warned last week that al-Qaida was focusing its efforts on Pakistan.”
I believe that Robert Gates is the Secretary of Defense. The Director of CIA is an Air Force General, Michael V. Hayden.
2. Ewen MacAskill writes, “Nawaz Sharif . . . the US had previously opposed his return to Pakistan because of links between his party and Islamist extremists.”
But moonraven writes, “This gives . . . Bush]plenty of time to find a replacement–the other opposition guy, Sharif, is pro-US and can be installed if Musharraf decides to hang onto power by canceliing the January elections. Damage control has been carried out just fine.”
And dcbeltway writes, “Yup Sharif is the new Bhutto our man in Pakistan.”
********************
So just how “pro-US”, and how much “our man” does the US think he is?
3. “The US helped engineer the return of Bhutto to the US in October . . . ” — that is, “the return of Bhutto to Pakistan, although this is a very interesting Freudian slip, and not only in the context of geoff29’s question/comment, “so is Pakistan an autonomous country? This article makes it a little unclear.”.
4. Gordon Brown is quoted as saying of the assassination, “This was a cowardly terrorist act designed to destabilise democratic elections.”
Those closest to Bhutto do not believe that the act was carried out by a “terrorist”; nor, according to numerous US news accounts, do many others in Pakistan.
But who ever carried it out, and whatever one thinks of its morality, I’ve never understood the criteria on which actions in which the actor is certain to die if successful in his or her aims are regarded as “cowardly”.
The US will convince him to be their man, and to do EXACTLY what they tell him, or he, too, will be toast.
Sharif is NOT the new US stooge in Pakistan. The US has for years been undermining Sharif because his party is too Islamist, and has worked with Musharraf to ban Sharif in running in the “elections”.
I suspect the new US man will be Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani, the new Army Chief of Staff. It will be a continuation of the dictatorship, but that has never stopped the US from supporting a stooge government before.
Real life has developed from art, i.e. Mickey Mouse, 007, Superman etc. So many adults these days have seen this art-ifical stuff and somehow think they can become what they have seen. For those of us who remember ” Superman” think back to the kids who put a bed sheet and jumped out of a window. Somehow or other Bush has taken on these “super powers”. He is not sure which one he is. Gordon Brown needs to sit back and see his own path not that of Bush. Wehn dubya’s daddy was head of the CIA dubya got to sit around the office at times and play out roles. He is sick. Now US will need to have Plan B, well since dubya really is not capable of ever thinking you can bet Plan B really might be Plan A all the time.
two very important things were blogged here at cd,in the last couple days.1)the interview of benazir bhutto in november,where she matter-of-factly stated…osama bin laden had been murdered.bhutto is a royal insider and has been for a long while,nobody knows the inner-sanctum,like her.why isn’t
that interview on every news channel ?how are some of the lesser followers of osama,responding to the news ?if blackwater was recently denied to bhutto,did that have anything to do with the b.w.-style murder ? and number two on the top ten list of blogging is:2)the shares of stock in uranium,held by the british royal family and many other ‘royal’ nabobs. the possibilities can wander to all sorts of revelations,about uranium and its role in the present.
Hector,
your observations are interesting, but I’m confused as to what you were trying to say precisely?
Although I agree that the commentary on the assassination that we read portrays a westernized interpretation of an act which would be very difficult to understand unless we were living there, still I don’t get your overall thesis.
We all hope Pakistan comes to rest and peace.
But every time I read the US president’s comments or suggestions and the like about the affairs of other nations, it makes my blood boil.
I hope with all my heart that we will soon live in a world where the US attends to cleaning up its own sordid affairs and the US president has nothing to say and no influence at all on the affairs of other lands.
Of all the US heads of state I have known, Bush is hands down the least qualified to comment on other lands’ internal affairs—not that he is qualified to say much about anything.
But it should be that no US president thinks he can call the shots in other lands.
Maybe Bush will put on a sheet and dive out of a window when he is in Tel Aviv or Bethlehem when he discovers that the “holy land” is a lot like the land back home or anywhere else on the planet. He needs to get out more, and flying out the window of an upper floor of a hotel would be a good start for him.
I was on a trek in Death Valley recently with a woman from Iran and one day she said, “I love the U.S. and the U.S. people, but I wish the U.S. would get over this idea that they have a right to tell people in other countries what to do.” I told her, “I couldn’t agree more.”
It’s a bird, it’s a plane. it’s dumb dumb…
nayoibi:
The Bush Gang isn’t going to support any news of the death of their Number One Bogey Man.
I don’t see how he could be alive, if he really had kidney failure and needed dyalisis all this time. I have chronic kidney disease as a result of lifelong systemic lupus and I sure as hell would not want to be hiding out in remote mountains in Pakisan or Afghanistan. I don’t think they have many dialysis units there.
If he IS still alive, he is stil onthe CIA payroll.
The Bush/Cheney controlled mass-media are not to be trusted in anything they are saying about the events in Pakistan. This especially includes CD articles that rely heavily on quotes from Bush and the corporate mass media.
Here are two critical views with more background information essential to understanding what is happening:
—————————————————–
Bhutto assassination heightens threat of US intervention in Pakistan
By Bill Van Auken
29 December 2007
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/dec2007/bena-d29.shtml
—————————————————–
Anglo-American Ambitions behind the Assassination of Benazir Bhutto and the Destabilization of Pakistan
by Larry Chin
Global Research, December 29, 2007
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7699
——————————————————
Considering that Dubya, Cheney, & Co. were wrong footed by Hurricane Katrina & the lack of actual WMD’s in Iraq; it is not surprising this incompetent administration is now scrambling.
i saw the news today,oh boy.bushie still leading the hunt for osama,new tape due out at any moment. stranglehold on the news.is the weight of the bhutto-bonanza gonna break the chains?
Given that Pakistan is a bit beyond the “they-want-to-acquire-enrichment-capability” stage of their nuclear development, and the flood of Taliban and Al-Queda forces from Afghanistan pushed by the US into that nation, with what words and what rationale will the Bush Administration attempt to return to their call for the need to attack Iran?
Their Spin machine would have to go into orbit.
A few hours after Benazir Bhutto had been killed ABC news started spewing spin. They claimed that Al-Qaida had done it. The problem is that Musharraf has supported the Taliban for quite some time, and the other problem is that Osama Bin Laden is probably dead. Bhutto also knew the one likely to kill her was Musharraf. Bush pumped billions into Pakistan and Musharraf has been a Taliban supporter the whole time. The whole thing is either a major gaffe on Bush’s part, or he is intentionally idiotic.
The Bushies keep Osama on the payroll so that they can keep playing the terrorist card to continue our imperialism. I sometimes think that the standing orders are “dont get him”. If we ever got him, our poor dumb congress wouldn’t have a reason to continue to waste our money on the military & Blackwater & Co. and would have to concentrate on healing our country. It’s much easier to maintain the status quo.
Musharraf has been playing Bush, Cheney and Rice for fools for years. We now know that most of the billions of dollars lavished on his dictatorial regime, ostensibly to fight the Taliban and al Qaeda, has actually gone to arm against and cause problems for the world’s largest democracy, India. Despite this massive swindle, Bush and Congress keep pouring on the funds. Most Pakistanis suspect that the powerful Interservices Intelligence Service was behind the murder; at the very least, the government failed to provide proper security when they knew her life was in grave danger. The hosing down of the crime scene, lack of an autopsy and statements of a doctor and the women who washed her body that she was shot certainly raise suspicions.
The US has gotten only more instability for its lavish subventions and hypocritical support of this foul regime. The Indians know a lot about Pakistan and obviously desire a stable, secular neighbor–as do most Pakistanis. But nobody seems to be paying attention to either of them.
Nayoibi: on the uranium issue Afghanistan and Pakistan have lots of uranium as a natural resouce. Hence why they may be seen as strategicaly important by the US.
AlanK: no its the opposite as Al Qaeda and the Taliban flooded Afghanistan and now they’ve gone back to Pakistan who was always their idealogical and financial benefactor see here at the National Security Archive: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB227/index.htm
By the way it was under Benazir Bhutto when the Taliban first arrived on the scene in Afghanistan and she helped to fund them. Afghanistan suffered tremendously as a result. Later according to Wikipedia she regretted her actions in supporting the Taliban. How convenient. I’m married to an Afghan most Afghans are furioius with Pakistan about this issue and I get an earful about it from my in laws all the time. I personally would rather see the Afghans and Pakistanis work together more in peace. Ain’t gonna happen anytime soon as there is a lot of bitterness there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto
WTF: good point I don’t know much about Sharif but there will be someone who will be the US’s man or woman on the ground in Pakistan not sure who that will be.
I feel for the innocent Pakistani people in all this caught up in this madness between fundamentalist crazies and a brutal dictatorship and all sorts of neocons messing with them. I also feel for the Indians and Afghans as I am sure they are looking across the boarder with deep apprehension.
My friend and classmate, Mir Murtaza Bhutto´s assassination on Benazir´s watch does not implicate Benazir. Upon receiving a frantic call from her sister Sanam (Sunny), Benazir, who was devastated, immediately flew from Islamabad to Karachi in the wee hours of the morning to be by her younger brother who died of multiple gun shot wounds (at close range) at the Mideast Hospital in Clifton, Karachi. Later, investigations led the public to believe that Benazir´s husband Asif Ali Zardari was behind the killing, which was yet another attempt by the powers that be to discredit Benazir and remove her govt. from power.
Now just because Benazir was assassinated on Gen. Musharraf watch, does not implicate the General. In fact, Musharraf has been a target of the same Islamic fundamentalist elements in Army Intelligence (ISI) & for this very reason he was trying to discourage Benazir from campaigning so openly. While BB´s death was a great loss for Musharraf, it was a bonanza for the ISI, who I am more than certain, is involved in this perfidious and loathsome act of murdering Benazir.
And then these fanatics in the Pakistan Army Intelligence have the audacity to call themselves devout Muslims! Perhaps killing is acceptable in their version of the Quran.
This article is closer to the mark than many others published on Commondreams on this issue. Far from being a “martyr for democracy” who bravely opposed big, bad Musharaf, Mrs Bhutto was the US puppet and her death has thrown Washington’s plans into disarray. For this simple reason the US could not have been behind her assassination, so JFK nostalgiaists please sit down! To put things in perspective, Musharaf is not a completely compliant Washington stooge either. On the contrary, he has lost Washington’s support in recent times for two good reasons, (1) he will not allow US troops into Pakistan and (2) he is very cosey with the Chinese who he is using to give him leverage against the Anglo-American bullies. Mrs Bhutto was making her “come back tour” with the blessing of the west (and the Western media who have adopted her as their darling) on the basis of promising to reverse these two policies. Washington/london was trying to engineer her election and in exchange she would allow US troops into Pakistan territory and distance Pakistan from China. China remains the hidden player here. Mrs Bhutto’s assassination is a major blow for Bush - this underlines the fact that Musharaf is no compliant toy. He is essentially a nationalist pragmatist. He will do US bidding as far as he needs to, but the US cannot rely on him by any means. Mrs Bhutto would have been far more reliable as far as the West is concerned. And “democracy” would have been far more to Anglo/American liking because power would be weilded by the financed pro-western middle class and less by the army. The army in Pakistan, by the way, is a very broad-based institution mainly consisting of the sons of poor families from the lower classes. In some ways it is a far more representative institution than any other - certainly more so than the class of bourgosie lawyers that Musharaf quite rightly reined in recently. Elections and “democracy” in Pakistan is madness. The best option for such a country is benevolent military rule. “Democracy” is a luxury that comes AFTER stability and prosperity. The West wants “democracy” because “democratic” governments are more easily manipulated and bought and sold than is the Pakistan army. The “democracy” mantra from Washington and London is just imperialism with a make-over. The hidden issue here is that the West wants to dislodge China from this strategically crucial region. When I was last in Pakistan I was amazed by the Chinese presence everywhere. Banners over highways ‘Pakistan and China - friends forever!’ Hell, Chinese food has become the country’s second cuisine! Any analysis of Pakistan politics that fails to mention China just aint worth reading.
dcbeltway,i sure appreciate your capacity for compassion and your sincere empathy and your post was insightful.i have a friend with close ties to afganistan and she prays for them,continuously.i hope something is listening.
bhutto’s death a blow to bush ?in light of her recent interview,i would have to conclude it was more a relief to bush,as in “shutyourmouthbitch.”
i apologize for crudeness,but honestly i think bush and his posse plan on making a quick get-a-way,soon as he’s out of office.i am hard-pressed to believe that he gives a shit about us or pakistan,once he is singing in bharain or parachuting in paraguay or hunkering down in his swanky bunkers.they are the kings of outsourcing,i am sure he’s looking for someone to blow up the mess,he’s leaving behind.
sorry again, trying to stay positive.it is essential,vital,important,must keep chin up,unless it becomes necessary to duck.
wrong-footed nayoibi,will quit,while behind.gotta go.
I disagree with you, Hermes7. Musharraf is very unpopular, and the West wanted to see an election to replace him. Bhutto or Sharif were seen as the most logical opponents.
Despite Bhutto’s assassination, and Sharif boycotting the election, the West is still wanting the election to go forward. I think there won’t be an election, because the current government has what they want now. China’s presence there is not surprising–they are getting involved in many places around the globe where energy is concerned, just like we are.
Read the post above yours from Pilgrim101. The ISI has a scary influence over the government in Pakistan, and Afghanistan as well. I have heard on NPR that photos from the assassination show the shooter, and a separate person behind him with the explosives. This is meant to destroy ISI’s connection to the murder. The Pakistani government, naturally, has rejected an international probe.
Oh, and Hermes– I forgot to take you to task for your statement: “The West wants ‘democracy’ because ‘democratic’ governments are more easily manipulated and bought and sold than is the Pakistan army.”
We don’t need ‘democracy’ to buy a government; in fact we would prefer a military dictatorship to sell weapons to. But a ‘democracy’ lends a veneer of righteousness to our mission that covers our corporatist agenda.
i returned to the forum last night because i was excited about the revelation of bhutto’s interview claiming bin laden,murdered.it has been very hard to stay positive today,because they have been trotting osama around all day on the television.no mention of bhutto’s last televised words,simply mindblowing.bhutto’s return to pakistan was an enigma from the start.not electable, too many enemies, the majority of the people did not trust her.the last televised interview,seemed to bring a couple of her enemies to the forefront,never mentioning the united states,her blunder had the potential to screw-up george’s agendas.bhutto claimed to her inner circle,that blackwater had been promised for her security by u.s.,then denied.were they a presence in pakistan,on that day?it did have some classic mercenary taint.where is the outed sheik omar ?is he a suspect?.didn’t any terrorists hear that interview,it was on al-jazeera. the woman in that interview seemed to know her days were numbered. i came back to the forum,because i thought i smelled,impeachment and it made me smile.i need to leave,this is still a wolves-den and no impeachment or punishment in sight for the monsters.
What a splendid dish of western propaganda. Who’s the chef?
QUOTE: “BillB December 29th, 2007 4:38 pm
… Gordon Brown needs to sit back and see his own path not that of Bush. Wehn dubya’s daddy was head of the CIA dubya got to sit around the office at times and play out roles. He is sick. Now US will need to have Plan B, well since dubya really is not capable of ever thinking you can bet Plan B really might be Plan A all the time.”
Yes, Gordon Brown needs to learn what it means to MYOB and then strongly apply it himself.
Bush is sick? Sure, and I believe it’s Ray McGovern who posted an article at CD over the past year or so and in which he refers to analyses of psychologists and/or psychiatrists, who do or essentially do describe Bush as psychopathic and pathologically demented; although may have used slightly different words.
As for who comes up with Plans A and B, we need not fret; it’s definitely not GW Bush. If the Carlyle Group’s board gave him a swift boot because, as they said, he was just too stupid, albeit may’ve said dumb instead of stupid, well, he’s definitely not bright enough to be able to come up with any plans for U.S. govt agendas or “programs”, projects, whatever.
About the only thing he’s allowed to do is to get what he wants for food, grub, go to the toilet, as long as it’s not at an inopportune moment according to the ruling elites anyway, and so on. If he has to go to the toilet or wants to eat at what’s deemed to be an inopportune moment, then the leading opportunists will tell him to hold it in, to apply the old sphincter muscle, or to drink water to calm his hunger; perhaps not a probable response, but maybe not very unlikely, either.
As for “Plan B really might be Plan A all the time”, it’s surely something to keep in mind until really proven to be distinct or alternative plans; something I believe no one has yet done.
Some additional articles, though which I haven’t yet read:
“Pakistan gov’t accused of cover-up
Al-Qaida denies involvement in slaying despite official accusations
Global Research, December 29, 2007
The Associated Press”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7702
“Benazir Bhutto assassination sparks mass protests
by Farooq Tariq
Global Research, December 29, 2007
Left Click”,
That’s http://leftclickblog.blogspot.com , btw.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7700
“Benazir Bhutto named her assassins almost two months ago
Pinning down the financiers of these extremists groups with their known connection to Pakistani intelligence
by Rev. Richard Skaff
Global Research, December 29, 2007″,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7701
I believe the following appeared at CD, also, but will post this link just in case.
“The assassination of Benazir Bhutto heaps despair upon Pakistan: A tragedy born of military despotism and anarchy
Now her party must be democratically rebuilt
by Tariq Ali
Global Research, December 29, 2007
The Guardian - 2007-12-28″
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7698
“Who killed Benazir Bhutto? The main suspects
by Jeremy Page
Global Research, December 27, 2007
The Times ”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7687
“US prepares to increase occupation forces in Afghanistan
by Joe Kay
Global Research, December 27, 2007″
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7686
Is that troop increase related? I don’t know, but suppose that the answer minimally is ‘maybe’.
QUOTE: ” redjeff December 29th, 2007 11:12 pm
…
… China’s presence there is not surprising–they are getting involved in many places around the globe where energy is concerned, just like we are.”
YES AND NO. Yes China is seeking energy resources from African countries, the Middle East, Venezuela, and possibly other places. But NO, China is NOT doing it “just like we are”; China is doing it in legitimate business terms and has been reported to be providing excellent deals with heads of states, such as in Africa. In at least one country there, China has obtained a successful agreement and pays the state govt whatever the deal or agreement states, but China also went beyond this and invested in localities to provide improved health care or health care where there was none, food, and other things the poor need. China does NOT employ war of any kind, much less wars of aggression, to negotiate and establish excellent business agreements with the states it seeks resources from and when they accept. More would credibly accept these deals with China if it wasn’t for U.S. hell applied against these therefore reluctant heads of states.
Those who deal with China have improving heads of state; while those who refuse continue with their hellish reigns. DUE … “COURTESY” OF U.S.A.
China is also for presence in Pakistan and developing the relations, while of course and again NOT in the manners of the U.S.A. China is of far greater friendship capability with Pakistan than the U.S.A., and likely no one in Pakistan is unaware of this; that a good, or strong relationship with China is surely a good thing for Pakistan to achieve and agree to.
China’s of course looking out for its own best interests in the relationship with Pakistan; China doesn’t want the U.S.A. having strong influence in countries bordering China, which Pakistan happens to be among. China, if I recall what I read correctly, is also working on developing relations with India, pretty much that whole eastern part of the world.
To no degree is any of this about China surprising at all. Pleasantly surprising is the good that China provides when countries or states agree with business relations with China; not so much a surprise, really, for China’s not known for going around the world with applications of wars of aggression, but surprisingly good news nonetheless. After all, we mostly know of the U.S. reining in hell on the world.
I read one or two articles posted at www.globalresearch.ca on this about China and in Africa, particularly; but I don’t recall the title of the article, yet just did a Web search of GR and found the following, the one I had in mind.
“USA out-flanked in Eurasia Energy Politics?
by F. William Engdahl
Global Research, June 3, 2006″
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ENG20060603&articleId=2571
QUOTE: “…
China everywhere in African oil states
In its relentless quest to secure future oil supplies ‘at the source,’ China has also moved into traditional US, British and French oil domains in Africa. In addition to being the major developer of Sudan’s oil pipeline which ships some 7% of total China oil imports, Beijing has been more than active in West Africa in the states bordering the oil-rich Gulf of Guinea, source of vast fields of highly-prized low-sulphur oil.
Since the creation of the China-Africa Forum in 2000, China has scrapped tariffs on 190 imported goods from 28 of the least developed African countries, and cancelled $1.2 billion in debt.
Indicative of the way China is doing an end-run around the customary IMF-led Western control of African states, China’s export-import bank recently gave a $2 billion soft loan to Angola. … The loan is to be used for infrastructure projects. …
Chinese infrastructure projects underway in Angola include railways, roads, a fibre-optic network, schools, hospitals, offices and 5,000 units of housing developments. A new airport with direct flights from Luanda to Beijing is also planned.
…”
Following are a couple other articles posted at GR and mentioning China in Africa and for natural resources.
“Are USAID Gorilla Conservation Funds Being Used To support Covert Operations in Central Africa
by Georgianne Nienaber and Keith Harmon Snow
Global Research, September 20, 2007
OpEdnews.com”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6828
QUOTE: “On September 17, 2007 a “resource hungry” China signed an agreement to invest five billion dollars in Congo’s infrastructure. Anglo-European interests are now using the military occupation of General Laurent Nkunda—backed by client regimes in Uganda and Rwanda, by Jean-Pierre Bemba and MONUC—to leverage their position with Kabila.”
“China and USA in New Cold War over Africa’s Oil Riches
Darfur? It’s the Oil, Stupid…
by F. William Engdahl
Global Research, May 20, 2007″
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070520&articleId=5714
Read enough and it becomes clear that China and the West are definitely and strongly seeking energy resources, only China, alone, does this correctly; the West reining hell on earth, as usual.
China also has a long standing detente with India, and not messing with Pakistan is probably a big part of the deal.
Speaking of India, the reaction to Islamists in Pakistan having nuclear weapons would be like the Israelis finding the PLO has one. Things could get worse.
Hopefully Pakistani patriots are in control of the bombs, are above the politics, and will verifiably destroy or deactivate them.
I wouldn’t call it ‘wrong-footed’ the author is being kind to Bush. I would call it INCOMPETENCE!!! It has never been quite so glaring as it is right at this moment. He doesn’t have a clue what he is doing. Everyone knew Pakistan was a bigger threat than Iraq. But we all know why Bush didn’t bother with them. They don’t have the oil reserves that Iraq and Iran have.
QUOTE: “bbr-001 December 30th, 2007 8:59 am
China also has a long standing detente with India, and not messing with Pakistan is probably a big part of the deal.”
Which are you talking about “not messing with Pakistan”, India or China? If India, then it’d make sense to me; while if China, then I don’t understand what you’re talking about. China doesn’t really “mess” with any other countries, putting aside Taiwan, which, from what I have gathered, was once a part of China.
China surely doesn’t want the U.S. to have strong power in Pakistan, and knows the U.S. and NATO are building up in eastern Europe and Central Asia, encroaching en masse upon Russia, all in the vicinity of China and while the encroachment can be perceived as also aimed at it, China.
China strategically wants good relations with Pakistan and India, which are both nuclear-armed countries, and while unfriendly towards each other, both nonetheless are variably allied with the U.S. and therefore West. The U.S. gaining too much influential power there should be a real concern for China, as well as the for the U.S. and the rest of the world.
bbr-001 then says, “Speaking of India, the reaction to Islamists in Pakistan having nuclear weapons would be like the Israelis finding the PLO has one. Things could get worse.”.
Still not clear. What are you saying, that the PLO suddenly having a nuclear weapon and/or Israel learning of this could make the situation worse than it already is? If so, then it might well help to improve the situation … for everyone, for the PLO would then have some real deterrence capability.
bbr-001 closes with, “Hopefully Pakistani patriots are in control of the bombs, are above the politics, and will verifiably destroy or deactivate them.”.
I really don’t care that Pakistan is nuclear-armed; many countries are, the U.S. is the sole one to have used atomic weapons, it, and Israel, are the sole countries that today threaten others with nuclear bombing, etc. I think it’s more likely Pakistan would keep the nuclear weapons for questions of deterrence capability; no one is likely to attack a nuclear-armed country.
I somehow don’t think the Taliban, f.e., would use those nukes if they gained control of the Pakistani govt or direct access to the nuke buttons or controls.
They were oppressive towards women’s rights and a “little” too brutal in punishing people deemed to be criminals, but that’s definitely no analogy for use of nuclear weapons. I don’t think they’d ignore or take the risk of retaliation against them for their launching of nuclear missiles; and am not sure that they’d launch or use such weapons even if there wasn’t a danger of retaliation against them. I can’t say that they would.
Mike said: I somehow don’t think the Taliban, f.e., would use those nukes if they gained control of the Pakistani govt or direct access to the nuke buttons or controls.
I disagree Mike they’d point them straight at Karzai in Kabul and then they would re-take Afghanistan. That would only be the start. God help all of us if the nukes ever fell into their hands.
The ISI built the Taliban from the ground up… that said, Bhutto and family bled the nation dry of its money with their corruption at all levels of government leavbing the majority of the population broke and hungry. Bhutto was getting death threats before she left the country and seemed to be very aware she was going to be killed coming back. When will the US learn that people are not stupid simply because they may not read English or understand what lies they are being sold? Bhutto was never part of any democracy in Pakistan. Ask a Pakistani. nukes are already in the hands of the ISI… Bush made possibly a fatal error in the “war on terror” when he parked his ships in Karachi’s ports “enlisting” the support of Pakistan. then marching into Iraq while the Afghan blood in Kabul was still fresh. Seems to me if anyone had studied any of the intel reports on 9-11 or Al-Qaeda Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have nmore to be concerned about than Iraq. The best thing the US can do now is to get out - like in most places that we have a military presence - and relearn how to do things like communicate, negotiate and discuss things before just acting rashly and out of hand all by themselves pretending to be some sort of benevolent world power. Bhutto was a corrupt dicatator that spent her peoples money while often letting them go hungry. The only thing she really did was keep the fundamentalists from oppressing Pakistani women in most places but never in Waziristan.
The best thing anyone can do at this time, IMHO, is to not swallow the Al Qaeda “solution” to this assassination.
They said very clearly that they don’t assassinate women, and that the crime was committed by a coalition of the Pakistani ISI and the army–with orders from the top.
And stirring up the pot about Bhutto’s corruption or that of her widower or son, are just taking the bait and not staying on track.
I think folks are so used to surfing the channels that they get all the cars off on the sidings, and nothing going down the main track.
Stop that shit.
Mike C:
China and India have had border issues and at least one war over the years. China backed the communist North Korean regime after WWII leading to the brutal Korean war, annexed Tibet, and would like to take over Taiwan.
Some time over the years, China has decided to stop trying to export Maoism and and become a good neighbor in the community of nations.
Part of that was resolving differences with India, and that includes not interfering in the balance of power between India and Pakistan.
India and Pakistan have disputed Kashmir from day one, and both countries have extremistis. India is very nervous. There are terrorist bombings all the time. Any actual or even perceived escalation such as international terrorists like al qaeda joining, or Pakistani extremists getting the nuclear weapons might set off a “preemptive” plan. India has promised the next war with Pakistan will result in a “final solution”. My point is all this is bubbling just beneath the surface, and the potential outcome unthinkable.
Mike C:
China and India have had border issues and at least one war over the years. China backed the communist North Korean regime after WWII leading to the brutal Korean war, annexed Tibet, and would like to take over Taiwan.
Some time over the years, China has decided to stop trying to export Maoism and and become a good neighbor in the community of nations.
Part of that was resolving differences with India, and that includes not interfering in the balance of power between India and Pakistan.
India and Pakistan have disputed Kashmir from day one, and both countries have extremistis. India is very nervous. There are terrorist bombings all the time. Any actual or even perceived escalation such as international terrorists like al qaeda joining, or Pakistani extremists getting the nuclear weapons might set off a “preemptive” plan. India has promised the next war with Pakistan will result in a “final solution”. My point is all this is bubbling just beneath the surface, and the potential outcome unthinkable.
Mike Corbeil–
That was the longest correction of remarks I’ve ever seen! Of course, you are right about the Chinese method of persuasion vs. the American style. I wasn’t meaning to equate China with the U.S., only to mention that both countries are in a global competition for energy resources. But thanks for your remarks.
I see that the PPP has put another Bhutto at the head of its party. Are ALL the Bhuttos suicidal?
Hermes7 — “The West wants “democracy” because “democratic” governments are more easily manipulated and bought and sold than is the Pakistan army.”
Nothing is further from the truth. The opposite of this is in fact true !!!
Hermes7 — “Elections and “democracy” in Pakistan is madness. The best option for such a country is benevolent military rule.”
Horseshit. This sounds like just another colonialist-imperialist fuck shooting his mouth off !
redjeff - the PPP IS the Bhutto party - that’s how it became so corrupt to begin with and I think that her history is VERY relavant to what is happening in Pakistan moonraven.
you wrote;
And stirring up the pot about Bhutto’s corruption or that of her widower or son, are just taking the bait and not staying on track.
this is a crock moonraven and you should know it - surfing and posting as much as you do… Solomon dais well before me - first get an understanding. Well, I posit that the biggest breach of US security and the biggest failure of the so called war on terror has been the US failure as both a govt and a people to even begin to understand what is happening in South and Central Asia as well as the Middle East. The govt is most culpable for its lies and misleading of the people through base propaganda and mass media hysteria. the people are to blame for having lost their ability to critically analyze things for themselves and having become of lazy minds waiting to be spoon fed information from a govt that has much to gain in this never ending war.
you also wrote:
They said very clearly that they don’t assassinate women, and that the crime was committed by a coalition of the Pakistani ISI and the army–with orders from the top.
who is “they” and unless they are part of the ISI or the “top” order issuers how do “they” know so much so soon?
She had to know she would be killed since she was not arrested upon her arrival. Governments like Myanmar’s place their dissident leaders on house arrest when they cannot afford to kill you. In Pakistan the ENTIRE Bhutto family is corrupt - not just the widowers son. In fact I was shocked that Musharaf did not arrest her as she originally fled the country to avoid being arrested for corruption charges and abuse of power. I am saddened for Pakistan and for the Bhutto family for their loss but please lets not make a saint out of yet another pro-Western corrupt dictator propped up by US and UK military strength.
Here is something most folks still do not grasp in the US although our own elections are soon to bring the point home; in Pakistan most people do not care for Musharaff or Bhutto.
Nice post ‘gyptian - the Pakjistani Army has always been for sale… just like ou so called democracy. Also there have NOT been ANY democratic States since the Greek City-states. the US is a Republic and its own citizens do NOT have a Constitutional guarantee to vote for Presidential Electors - its called the electoral college and was literally spelled out word for word in the Supreme Court’s 2000 ruling on Bush v. Gore, which was the ONLY case ever heard by any US Supreme Court that cannot be used as precedent. so please Hermes7 - tell me where this democracy is that you speak of?
“They said very clearly that they don’t assassinate women ..”
They do. Further more they have no qualms about killing women and children in the name of Jihad just like us Americans who commit identical crimes and call it collateral damage in the name of Capitalism.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JA01Df01.html
Syed Saleem Shahzad is a rare breed of investigative journalists who actually walks into the mouth of the beast (Talib, Qaeda) and has been writing about them for years.