All the signs of trouble eerily resembled the ‘color revolutions’ encouraged by western governments in several countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, where media was used to exert pressure while a network of activists on the ground, run under a chain of command extending all the way into the communities of lawyers, students, and union activists was mobilized to create turmoil in order to bring down the government.
This recipe worked in Ukraine, Kazakhstan and elsewhere. In Pakistan, the plan appeared to be centered on creating enough chaos to bring down the Musharraf administration and easing someone like Mrs. Benazir Bhutto into power, who, many American officials feel, would do a better job at serving U.S. strategic interests in the region. [Read the details in The Plan To Topple Pakistan Military]
The Pakistani government acted in time to foil this plan. Emergency rule was declared on Nov. 3, giving Islamabad more powers to stabilize pockets of unrest in different parts of the country, including along our border with Afghanistan, a neighbor that has become a staging ground for tactical and psychological operations meant to destabilize Pakistan.
Part of the new game plan is to assert Pakistan’s authority and dispel the misperception that Pakistan is some kind of a ‘soft state’.
The worrying thing is that Washington was trying to give Ambassador Patterson in Pakistan the same role that David Satterfield, a former envoy, played in Lebanon between 1998 and 2001, or the one played by ambassador Edward Gnehm in Kuwait following the 1991 Desert Storm. In both cases, both U.S. ambassadors aggressively interfered to engineer domestic change. And I am not passing judgment here. When ambassador Gnehm was chosen to be the U.S. envoy to Saudi Arabia by mid 1990s, the Saudis balked at the American choice and Riyadh flatly refused to accept him. The Saudis were not going to tolerate the kind of interference Mr. Gnehm exercised with impunity in Kuwait. Riyadh stayed without a U.S. ambassador for several months until Washington found a replacement for Genhm.
Considering all this, Islamabad has decided to get tough. We want good relations with the Americans but will not become a guinea pig for anyone. Two U.S. rights activists were deported from Lahore last week because they were encouraging ordinary Pakistanis to create unrest. On Dec. 3, U.S. diplomats were stunned when Pakistani authorities refused to give Ambassador Patterson permission to meet the detained lawyer Aitzaz Ahsan.
Around this time, the U.S. media turned the heat on Pakistan, placing the country, its military, its intelligence community and its strategic and nuclear programs under a ‘media siege’. American reporters and commentators were churning out reports and editorials about how Washington gave Islamabad $10 billion dollars and yet the Pakistanis were not ready to allow Mrs. Benazir Bhutto, the American choice, a chance in government.
I told the viewers on my television show that the Americans were not doing us any favor by giving us $10 billion in aid since 9/11. Some $6 billion dollars of that amount was in exchange for logistical services that Pakistan provided the United States in the war on terror, things like using air bases and other facilities. And in the larger picture, it is Pakistan’s help that enabled Washington to secure a considerable political and military footprint in energy rich Central Asia after 9/11.
Besides, I have seen the result of American meddling in Lebanon and Kuwait. The former is still a mess, where Ambassador David Satterfield’s interference has left behind a country where a militia – Hezbollah – is stronger than the State. And the latter, Kuwait, happens to be at the bottom of the list of emerging economies in the Gulf, thanks to Ambassador Edward Gnehm who insisted back in 1992 that Kuwait needs to concentrate on democracy first. This resulted in Qatar, Bahrain, Abu Dhabi, Dubai and Oman using their stability for economic development, leaving behind Kuwait to deal with successive unstable elected governments since 1992.
So while the people in Dubai and Qatar are enjoying the fruits of stability and development, the Kuwaitis are grappling with another fresh government that is already on the verge of collapse.
We don’t want to see Pakistan going through the same experience. And Pakistanis don’t want unwarranted American advice or interference.
Makes sense. But my opinions drew a sharp reaction from a U.S. diplomat here in Islamabad. In a telephone conversation, the American diplomat accused me of
- ‘Orchestrating’ an anti-American campaign.
- Spreading anti-Americanism in Pakistan when the U.S. government is not spreading ‘anti-Pakistanism’ in America.
- Not understanding that U.S. diplomats are simply repeating their government’s position.
- And, in the end, the diplomat asked, “Does President Musharraf know about what you’re doing? Will he approve of this?”
My answers were simple:
This recipe worked in Ukraine, Kazakhstan and elsewhere. In Pakistan, the plan appeared to be centered on creating enough chaos to bring down the Musharraf administration and easing someone like Mrs. Benazir Bhutto into power, who, many American officials feel, would do a better job at serving U.S. strategic interests in the region. [Read the details in The Plan To Topple Pakistan Military]
The Pakistani government acted in time to foil this plan. Emergency rule was declared on Nov. 3, giving Islamabad more powers to stabilize pockets of unrest in different parts of the country, including along our border with Afghanistan, a neighbor that has become a staging ground for tactical and psychological operations meant to destabilize Pakistan.
Part of the new game plan is to assert Pakistan’s authority and dispel the misperception that Pakistan is some kind of a ‘soft state’.
Considering all this, Islamabad has decided to get tough. We want good relations with the Americans but will not become a guinea pig for anyone. Two U.S. rights activists were deported from Lahore last week because they were encouraging ordinary Pakistanis to create unrest. On Dec. 3, U.S. diplomats were stunned when Pakistani authorities refused to give Ambassador Patterson permission to meet the detained lawyer Aitzaz Ahsan.
Around this time, the U.S. media turned the heat on Pakistan, placing the country, its military, its intelligence community and its strategic and nuclear programs under a ‘media siege’. American reporters and commentators were churning out reports and editorials about how Washington gave Islamabad $10 billion dollars and yet the Pakistanis were not ready to allow Mrs. Benazir Bhutto, the American choice, a chance in government.
I told the viewers on my television show that the Americans were not doing us any favor by giving us $10 billion in aid since 9/11. Some $6 billion dollars of that amount was in exchange for logistical services that Pakistan provided the United States in the war on terror, things like using air bases and other facilities. And in the larger picture, it is Pakistan’s help that enabled Washington to secure a considerable political and military footprint in energy rich Central Asia after 9/11.
Besides, I have seen the result of American meddling in Lebanon and Kuwait. The former is still a mess, where Ambassador David Satterfield’s interference has left behind a country where a militia – Hezbollah – is stronger than the State. And the latter, Kuwait, happens to be at the bottom of the list of emerging economies in the Gulf, thanks to Ambassador Edward Gnehm who insisted back in 1992 that Kuwait needs to concentrate on democracy first. This resulted in Qatar, Bahrain, Abu Dhabi, Dubai and Oman using their stability for economic development, leaving behind Kuwait to deal with successive unstable elected governments since 1992.
So while the people in Dubai and Qatar are enjoying the fruits of stability and development, the Kuwaitis are grappling with another fresh government that is already on the verge of collapse.
We don’t want to see Pakistan going through the same experience. And Pakistanis don’t want unwarranted American advice or interference.
Makes sense. But my opinions drew a sharp reaction from a U.S. diplomat here in Islamabad. In a telephone conversation, the American diplomat accused me of
- ‘Orchestrating’ an anti-American campaign.
- Spreading anti-Americanism in Pakistan when the U.S. government is not spreading ‘anti-Pakistanism’ in America.
- Not understanding that U.S. diplomats are simply repeating their government’s position.
- And, in the end, the diplomat asked, “Does President Musharraf know about what you’re doing? Will he approve of this?”
My answers were simple:
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
