From: tsreddy@skitime.Eng.Sun.COM (T.S.Reddy)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: Washington Ready to Brand Pakistan a Terrorist State
Date: 18 Dec 1992 22:45:53 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: skitime

In article <1992Dec18.171447.9687@oakhill.sps.mot.com> fmbutt@engage.sps.mot.com (Farooq M. Butt) writes:
>In article <BzG4pM.J2o@ecf.toronto.edu> rairan@ecf.toronto.edu (RAI Ranjan) writes:
>>>In article <Dec.16.20.20.14.1992.15621@paul.rutgers.edu> varma@paul.rutgers.edu (not yet) writes:
>>>>
>>>>          Washington Ready to Brand Pakistan a Terrorist State
>.... deleted...
>>
>>I find this whole business rather ironic.  Pakistan has been kissing Uncle 
>>Sam's red, white, and blue ass for over forty years and this is the way
>>the US pays them back.  On the other hand, India has stubbornly insisted
>>on it's non-aligned stutus since 1947, and now the US is doing it's best to
>>be friendly towards India.  Maybe Pakistan should start behaving more like 
>>India.  Any thoughts?
>>
>
>I don't find the US' behavior ironic in the least. As usual, when the 
>cost/benefit ratio began to tilt in India's favor, the US dropped 
>Pakistan like a hot potato. It was Pakistan who dreamily thought that 
>the US really, emotionally gave a hoot about Pakistan. The only countries
>that the USA can be said to "care" about are the ones that have a huge local
>constituency (Israel, many European countries etc.). As for Pakistan, 
>the USA was a pal as long as conditionsi suited them and have now begun a 
>massive tilt towards India.  Watch for more and more pressure put on vocal 
>Islamic countries by the USA. This pressure does not always come directly 
>from the the USA, but sometimes even from the stooge regimes in the 
>Persian Gulf: this week circa. 50,000 Pakistanis were silently deported 
>from Dubai for demonstrating against the Babri Masjid issue. 
>
I don't think the Pakistani political framework and, more importantly, the
Pakistani army had any doubts about the reliability of Uncle Sam as a partner.
If they didn't learn their lesson after the 1971 war (where the U.S. made a
lot of noises in Pakistan's favor but little else (even though Nixon was
virulently anti-Indira Gandhi)), I'd be extremely surprised. Even staunchly
anti-India China didn't do didly for Pakistan.

Rather it is the political (and again, more importantly, the military) 
establishment that has let Pakistan down badly again. It doesn't take very
complicated analysis of Pakistan's political scene to figure out who the
real beneficiaries of U.S. largesse in the past decade and a half were.
Certainly not the people of Pakistan. And, time and again, it has been
proven that where the military is dominant, the country suffers. 

I think the Pakistani planners failed to take into account the rapidity
with which the cold war world order would collapse. They were not alone;
in fact I would say the whole world war taken unawares. So, just as 
everyone is scrambling to re-establish some sort of equilibrium, 
Pakistan will have to do so too. 

The very same thing is happening in India too. In fact, some Indian military 
still hope that Russia will supply them with weaponry at throw away
prices. Adding to this the fact that there have
been minority  and coalition governments ruling in the last 5 years
or so does not bode well. The deals that will be made to secure political
power are going to play havoc with the body politic (the Babri-Masjid issue
being a case in point). 

Add to this scenario the nuclear capabilities of both countries and we 
probably have the most volatile situation in the whole world.
Regarding the Dubai incidents, if it were true, and if they prevented blood from
being spilt, I think rational people should thank them because we, from the
sub-continent, have shown that when it comes to settling squabbles we're worse
than children.

>So what should Pakistan do: IMHO, we should immediately begin attracting 
>non-Western capital (i.e. Japanese, Malaysia, Chinese etc.) by 
>*whatever means we have to* and create Far-Eastern interests in Pakistan.
>That way we stand a chance of being listened to as a productive, 
>exporting country. Remember: as long as we remain beggared loudmouths
>shouting Islamic slogans nobody in power will listen.  The powerful 
>only respect the powerful: be that economically powerful or militarily 
>powerful or geopolitcally powerful.  We have no real huge military and 
>have no chance of getting one real soon, no geopolitical importance 
>anymore so we have concentrate of gaining economic mass ASAP. 
>

This can only happen if the political situation is stable. Unfortunately, it is
not going to (again, the Babri-Masjid riots are a case in point). Which country 
is going to pump money into an area which is inherently unstable? Until and
unless the sub-continent weans itself from the milk on which it was raised
(religious/caste warfare) there is very little hope. 

I don't want to sound chaste, but reality is reality. Until and unless the
sub-continent comes to peace with itself, there is very little hope for 
the future. Even more vitriolic enemies in the middle east have bitten the
bullet and are engaging in meaningful peace talks (Israel's latest actions 
not-withstanding). It is high time we in the sub-continent did the same too.

>
>
>fmb
>
>-- 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan