The New Nation - Internet Edition

Dr. Abdul Ruff

May be it could only be a coincidence that the return of former Prime Minister and Chairperson of Pakistan People's Party (PPP) Benazir Bhutto to Pakistan took place as the preparations in the country to send the first ever Muslim woman to space were under way, but the her home-coming event has proved extremely costly for Pakistan in terms of human deaths. One does not know if her PPP party or even herself would like to over-simplify the "Karachi carnage" by saying that 136 odd deaths is not so alarming as the Muslims have been dying in the country for quite some time any way, thanks to the US-led terror war on Muslim nations and Muslims, the so-called terrorists, "suspected" and "potential" ones.

After 8-years of self-imposed exile, Benazir Bhutto, presumably backed by USA and Israel, is back in Pakistan after being the recipient of "grand reception" on October 18 amidst her party's claims that her reception "this time" was more significant than the one accorded to her in her first return from exile on April 16, 1986. She was obviously quite keen to have a replica of the mammoth welcome accorded to her last time. Knowing fully well that her return this time would not be tension-free as a tussle was going on between the ruling party and the PPP, she seems to have deliberately embarked upon the voyage soon after Nawaz Sherif's unsuccessful return-journey.

Neither she nor her party members believe that Ms.Bhutto is coming to Pakistan to save the country or serve it better than how she did before as PM twice. By all available indications, Bhutto wanted to make maximum capital out of the carnage it that happened, which did happen. As former PM she had all information about the impending disaster during her visit and she expected it. Reports suggest she just before the "terrorists" struck, moved down to safer cabin in the special vehicle. Neither the suggestion that Benazir is a pro-US person nor the charges of corruption and misrule that have been repeated over the last nineteen years seemed to carry much weight with those enthused about Bhutto's return. That is in fact the strength of the former PM.

The main objective of her return is to obtain a possible power-sharing with President Pervez Musharraf. Benazir seemed to have decided to use the opportunity as a political weapon to uplift her sagging reputation after negotiating a deal with General Musharraf. Former Prime Minister has warned that Taliban and al-Qaeda militants have gained ground in Pakistan, making her first public appearance since narrowly escaping a suicide assassination attempt that killed 136 people.

As per the reports, daughter of the East, Benazir seconds before the "terrorists" struck, retired to a lower cabin of the truck. Soon after these blasts, she was immediately evacuated from the bullet proof vehicle and safely delivered to Bilawal House. Clearly she knew in advance that her rally was to be targeted in Karachi. The question that arises at this stage is as to why she insisted on this grand rally if she knew that hundreds of people were to be killed and wounded in such a rally. The answer is simple to understand. Her first and foremost consideration is neither Pakistan nor the people of Pakistan but her own urge and passion for power. And that is natural in the so-called "democracies".

Media support for Benazir is linked to their opposition of Musharraf per se. Democracy talk is a convenient weapon in their arsenal, available to disgrace General Musharraf. Media saw that creating a situation of harassment to stop a leader of a major political party from returning to her homeland was an undemocratic step. They condemned the deporting of Nawaz Sheriff, saying that the government had committed a mistake. They warned of worse consequences if Benazir was not permitted to enter her "homeland". Benazir told the BBC there could be more attacks to come, but said she and her party were determined to contest the parliamentary elections in mid-January and were ready to take the risks to defend democracy.

The PML-Q party that is behind Musharraf seems to have accelerated its efforts to sabotage the 'deal' with the PPP. It means that the Musharraf-Benazir 'deal' to bring about 'national reconciliation' to fight extremist terrorism has developed cracks. Consequently, Benazir Bhutto's homecoming is turning into an ugly bout between the government and the PPP. This apparent 'second thoughts' over the 'deal' with the PPP stems from the fact that Musharraf obtained a second term from the present parliament without the PPP voting for him on October 06. President General Pervez Musharraf is seemingly a more confident person and may not now be as keen to have the PPP on his bandwagon. But that is not the cause of the tragedy and he has been cleared even by Bhutto. Benazir has recently slammed "Islamic Jihad" in Pakistan and she has laid the opposition to her return at the door of the PML-Q and those retired army men who are sponsoring Islamic jihad in Pakistan.

Intelligence elements are also considered to be moving away from Musharraf for orchestrating a deal with Benazir. And not too many in the ruing dispensation are happy about the "deal". An estimated 1, 50,000 supporters had gathered in Karachi to receive her, but not every one was lucky to return home safe. Almost 20.00 troops and police were deployed amid treats of a possible attack. Bhutto was not very specific about who she thought had attacked her, but did say she had received a warning about Pakistani and Afghan members of al-Qaeda, the Taliban and local Pakistani groups. Several Islamist militant groups had threatened to attack Bhutto after she promised to confront those operating in the northern tribal areas bordering Afghanistan. "But I do believe that the sympathizers of the militants had managed to infiltrate some of our agencies and some of our administrative apparatus in a new guise and that they abused their positions to give covert support to the militants, which is why controlling militancy has really not succeeded within the country."

It is quite likely that the act of "terrorism" was enacted to frighten Ms. Bhutto., who also wanted to prove that she is in fact a brave and courageous woman who cannot and will not be deterred easily, either by the threats of terrorists or the machinations of those who have consistently conspired against her.

Ms. Bhutto conceded she was at constant risk of another attack in the future, particularly during an election campaign. Bhutto said extremists were a small minority in Pakistan and that she wanted to appeal to those who wanted to build a moderate society. The carnage has raised questions about the safety of campaigning for the poll.

Earlier, she said ex-army officials had been behind the attacks, but stressed she was not blaming the government. She said armed militants had targeted her and that she had been saved by the bravery of her bodyguards

Supreme Court has resumed hearing challenges to Musharraf candidacy on 17Oct and on 15 Nov, parliamentary term ends and general election must be held by mid-January the PPP is keen to win the polls on the theme of terrorism. As if the number of Muslims killed all over the world is not quite enough, "daughter of East, Benazir Bhutto has also significantly contributed some human deaths to the over-all tally of genocide of Muslims in Pakistan. Over 100 people were killed and hundreds were injured when a massive car bomb exploded near Benazir Bhutto's truck during her homecoming parade. Her home coming would be an enhanced resolve on the part of Benazir Bhutto to return to Pakistan on October 18 can be discerned from her recent interviews as well as the statements of her party leaders.

Educated at Oxford, Benazir is daughter of former prime-minister Z.A.Bhutto. She has twice been elected to the office in 1988 and 1993 was deposed both times amid charges of corruption and nepotism. True, after setting foot on Pakistani soil for the first time since 1999 she was visibly over-whelmed by tears. But as a responsible former prime-minister of Pakistan she should have had some concern for her subjects in Pakistan. She had all necessary confirmed reports about the impending disaster on her arrival in the country and yet she made the trip, Rather, she was inclined to come only to add to the turmoil and genocide in Pakistan. She proved again that she is only a politician and not a worthwhile statesman as her interviews pretend and she was adamant to get her own supporters killed in the process. She claims victory too. That is indeed funny, not just about her, but more so about gamut of dancing democracy.

US seem not to care about the damage caused to the fabric of the Pakistani society. Musharraf's unwavering support for US war on terror has made him enemies among tribes. All said and done one fact remains intact: Musharraf's "return" strategy for Sheriff was correct as the Benazir "carnage" has proved disastrous and that action was in the interest of nation and to save the lives of innocent people who invariably become the victims of such "receptions" accorded to political leaders.

Now Benazir has vowed to ignore that and further her "democratic" cause. But her loud speak about facing "terrorism" looks strange, for, not even the USA fighting "terror" in Islamic world could "contain" that phenomenon as yet. One has no idea about the fate of Osama Bin laden, a noted video tape specialist of our times.

Democracy would really wonderful if the leaders understand the concept and how to achieve that goal. What the US-led West and East talk about is only a half-backed democracy understood more in vagueness than in essence of the principles of democracy. Not even US President Bush would object to any one saying that democracy is just farce, because in reality that is the case every where, in democracies and autocracies. Reemergence of Bhutto as an alternative power centre would only strengthen the anti-Pakistani and anti-Islamic forces near and far, both in countries like USA and India that contuse to harp on enmity toward Pakistan and Islam. If corruption is what she means by democracy, which is a different issue all together. Benazir has not even said that the wealth she and her relatives have amazed during her misrule would be returned to Pakistan.

One still fails to understand the logic behind the creation of Pakistan by Jonah if it were to benefit only handful of wealthy individuals in the country and the limited resources to be managed not for the cause of the majority of Muslims in the country!

Independence could have been used by the leaders of Pakistan to foster general uplift of great number of Muslims who were under constant threat from Hindus while in India. Better now, than never, they realize the fact that Muslims living a miserable life in India, fully controlled by the operations of the intelligence wings, media and other networkings, should not be made (by the ferocious, anti-Muslim media here) to get the false impression that they are much better, which is not the case, than their Pakistani counterparts. Indian leaders and media shamelessly sing the Indian "glory songs" all the time here.

Syed Sikander Mehdi

THERE is no nuclear bomb on Iranian soil. Even the worst foes of the Islamic Republic agree that Iran does not have a bomb. According to a rather optimistic projection of the American intelligence agency, CIA, the country is about 10 years away from making the weapons. However, the bomb which is nowhere in sight in Iran is causing tremors in the corridors of power in Europe and North America. The US and EU-3 (Great Britain, France and Germany), in particular, seem to be determined to contain Tehran's atomic ambition and save the world from the non-existent Iranian weapons of mass destruction. But what about the nuclear weapons which are there on the territories of the European countries?

These are the American, British and French bombs which have already been manufactured, which are ready for use and which pose grave threats to Europe and the rest of the world. It is, indeed, interesting to note that the US, the sole superpower which is in the forefront of the campaign against Iran's atomic programme, deployed its own nuclear weapons in Europe way back in September 1954, when it delivered gravity bombs to its bases in Britain. "During the next decade," observe Robert Norris and Hans Kriestensen in their report published in the November/December 2004 issue of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, "weapons went to Germany, Italy, France, Turkey, Netherlands, Greece and Belgium." In 1971, the number of US nuclear warheads based in Europe peaked at approximately 7,300. One may argue that the placement of the bombs on European territories was a Cold War imperative and the US has already withdrawn most of its weapons from there. However, even more than a decade after the dissolution of the Soviet union and end of the Cold War, the United States still has 480 nuclear bombs deployed in Europe. Worse still, the US is opposed to any suggestion for the withdrawal of its nuclear weapons from Europe. Such is the state of affairs even when the demand for the removal of these weapons is growing in Belgium, Germany, Norway and elsewhere in Europe. On March 22, 2005, for instance, the Belgian senate foreign affairs committee adopted a resolution calling for the removal of US nuclear weapons from Belgium and Europe. A month later, on April 21, a resolution was approved unanimously by the full senate. Around the same time, on May 2, 2005, the German magazine Der Spiegel published a public opinion poll that showed overwhelming support (76 per cent) for removing the weapons. Likewise, a number of European political parties and leaders have also called for the removal of the American nuclear weapons from Europe. But the weapons remain there and the US continues to resist all demands for their withdrawal.

These 480 nuclear warheads are not the only nuclear weapons on the territories of the European states. In addition, there are the British and French atomic bombs - bombs which should be more deadly than the one which Iran has not manufactured as yet, although the latter is technologically incapable of doing so in the near future. The French nuclear arsenal with 482 strategic nuclear weapons is the third largest in the world. Of course, the country has undertaken sweeping reduction of its weapons, it is reportedly also engaged in modernizing its sea-bed nuclear force, with the first of a new SSBN class, the Le Triomphant, along with a new SLBM, the M-45. Great Britain, like France, has also considerably reduced its nuclear arsenal. However, its nuclear stockpile, according to 2002 estimate of the Natural Resources Defence Council, is about 200 of one type - much less than what it had in mid-1970s when the stockpile had peaked at some 350 warheads. All these nuclear weapons - American, British and French - are deadly, are on European Union territories and need to be destroyed as other nuclear weapons manufactured by other countries.

But it is clear that the US and EU-3 are after the Iranian bomb. It seems as if they have certain other compelling reasons for targeting Iran. This impression is further strengthened when noted that Iran has put forward a fairly strong case in its defence. It has, in fact, reiterated again and again that its programme is for peaceful purposes only; it is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT); it is a member of the International Atomic energy Agency (IAEA); its nuclear activities are constantly monitored by the agency; and when IAEA expressed its reservations regarding its nuclear research programme, Iran voluntarily allowed the agency to put seals on its nuclear research facilities. By and large, Iran has enjoyed good relations with the IAEA and as pointed out by its supreme national security secretary, Ali Larijani, "the country has allowed 1400 man-hours of inspection of its nuclear sites." According to a report, the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad categorically refuted the charge that Iran was making the bomb. He said: "We are a civilized and ancient nation, and a nation that has culture and logic does not need nuclear weapons." Maintaining that such weapons are sought by people who intend to solve everything through brute force and bullying, he added: "Unfortunately, today people face rulers who think they have more rights than other nations because their arsenals are stocked with nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons." However, the nuclear stand-off between Iran and the West continues.

Indeed, ever since a group of Iranian exiles, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), revealed in August 2002 that Iran was hiding a uranium enrichment plant at Natanz and other nuclear sites, Iran has come under increasingly pressure from the US and the EU-3. Claiming that it is an independent, sovereign state, that it is opposed to nuclear colonialism and has a right to atomic research, Iran has resisted all such pressures and accused the West of double standards. This has resulted in worsened ties with the US and certain European states. The situation deteriorated further when the IAEA board of governors adopted a resolution on Iran's atomic programme in its meeting held in September 2005. Drafted by Britain, France and Germany, the resolution called on Iran to halt its enrichment programme and warned that the matter could be referred to the UN Security Council if Iran failed to heed the call. However, the issue was not immediately referred to the Security Council and it was hoped that diplomacy would somehow resolve the issue.

But this was not to be and the hurling of accusations and counter-accusations have further marred the prospects for an understanding over the nuclear issue. There is a strong possibility that the matter may be taken up by an extraordinary meeting of the IAEA board of governors and that eventually the UN Security Council would be approached for the imposition of sanctions on Iran. Tehran resents such moves and threatens the withdrawal of its cooperation with IAEA if the Security Council is approached. Given the state of affairs, Iran-bashing will not deliver the goods. The nuclear standoff may, in fact, further whip up nuclear nationalism in revolutionary Iran and any intervention from outside may ultimately cause grave regional and global insecurities. It is, therefore, important that the European Union concentrate on the substantive issue and strive for the banishment of all nuclear weapons in every continent. It could earn credibility if it launches a vigorous campaign for the withdrawal of American nuclear weapons from Europe and for the total destruction of British and French nuclear warheads. The EU would then be on a very high political, military and moral grounds and in a position to ask other states to give up their nuclear ambitions.

(Source: The Dawn)