The following is a translation from Arabic:
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Answers to Political Questions
First: As per the preliminary results of vote count in the Pakistan Elections announced yesterday after counting of 222 out of 272 National Assembly seats, it appears that the Pakistani Peoples Party, the PPP which was led by Benazir Bhutto secured 73 seats and the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz group), the PML (N) won 63 seats, while the Muslim League (Quaed) or the PML (Q), led by Musharraf won merely 29 seats. This picture reflects the final outcome… and is sufficient evidence of the growing unpopularity of Musharraf. Does this indicate that America’s influence is waning in Pakistan while the British influence is on the rise there through the Bhutto’s party?
To answer the query, it is necessary to mention the following points:
1. When Musharraf threw himself into America’s lap and supported its war in Afghanistan, it was abundantly clear that his popularity among Muslims has declined. Musharraf prepared the ground for the US to launch their attacks on Afghanistan, then he carried his barbarous slaughter in the tribal regions bordering Afghanistan and finally his intensively violent attack on the Red Mosque and the resulting blood shed in the Swat region etc..
2. The United States therefore realised that Musharraf needs to be supported by certain secular maneuvering and thus approached Britain and arranged dialogue between Musharraf and Benazir. She was in exile in Britain for several years and had become loyal to them and as a result of this; the British had gained strong influence in her party. As per terms of their agreement, it was necessary to withdraw the corruption charges leveled against her in order to facilitate her return to Pakistan as a clean person. In return her party was expected to back Musharraf get reelected as President of the Republic by the existing National Assembly itself i.e. before the recent parliamentary elections. This would have meant that Bhutto would be the Prime Minister and thus share power with Musharraf. Whereas the US was hard-pressed to keep Musharraf as the President in order to protect its own interests, and had to accept a compromise of giving away some authority to Britain i.e. to Bhutto. It was apprehensively that by losing Musharraf because of his unpopularity among Muslims, it will have to part with some if not all powers.
The events occurred just as per the agreement and Bhutto returned to Pakistan while Musharraf was re-elected as President as the PPP abandoned its opposition to Musharraf’s election and Bhutto began her well planned election campaign.
3. But Bhutto realized the extent of hate that the people had for Musharraf, and hence much like the British, she went on to exploit this sentiment. She rode on this anti-Musharraf wave and campaigned extensively against him, not mindful of the terms of the agreement, but aimed at dislodging him from power. She was so successful in her attacks that America & Musharraf were alarmed… and she was assassinated… Her party did not suffer, on the contrary, the popularity of the PPP surged as a result of this. Her party seemed to be surging ahead, and it was not just her supporters alone who gained but everyone opposed to Musharraf stood to gain from this scenario. This did not reflect any affection or good-will for the PPP, but it was a reflection of hate against Musharraf.
4. This alarmed America and they feared that she may merely not gain in the elections but may actually secure a majority, may an overwhelming majority of two-thirds. This did not bode well for Musharraf and consequently for the US interests and signaled the revival of the British influence. This was not merely a possibility but it was easily plausible. This is when it was decided to pardon Nawaz Shareef and facilitate his return to Pakistan enabling his PML (N) to participate in the elections. Clearly, Musharraf saw Nawaz Shareef as the enemy of his own enemy and used his return to polarise his opposition so that all those opposed to Musharraf do not vote for Bhutto’s party alone.
5. Nawaz Shareef has been an old US loyalist, but the Americans were angry with him for his failure to prevent the Pakistani Army’s support for the Kashmiri Mujahedeen occupying the Kargil heights in the 1990’s when Shareef was the Prime Minister. This Mujahedeen adventure had dealt a severe blow to the ruling BJP government led by Vajpayee who was pro-US.
America had gained Vajpayee’s loyalty by its extensive efforts, because the pro-British Congress party had ruled India for long years. When the pro US Vajpayee came to power, America provided economic, security and military assistance to him hoping that it will facilitate them in securing & sustaining influence in India or at least share influence with the British.
The occupation of the Kargil heights by the Mujahedeen with the support of the Pakistani army had put the BJP government in a fix; rather it was a major catastrophe for Vajpayee’s government… this was why the US was angered at Nawaz Shareef. Then followed the revolutionary act of Musharraf, and the Pakistani army & Mujahedeen withdrew for the Kargil heights.
Nawaz Shareef was exiled from Pakistan for about 8 years and the US was against his return in order to chastise him, but had to give in because on the one hand Bhutto’s popularity was greatly surging and on the other hand, she was violating the agreement that facilitated her return. America was apprehensive that she may get two-thirds or at least a simple majority whereby she could form government on her own and set her own rules… this is the scenario in which the US agreed to allow Shareef’s return to Pakistan and foisted him as Musharraf’s foe by way of Shareef’s rhetorical statements with Bhutto. The Americans projected him as a greater enemy of Musharraf than even Bhutto by not allowing him to run for his own MNA seat! But they supported his party contesting the elections.
6. It was in this atmosphere that the elections were held, with Bhutto and Shareef’s parties sharing the anti Musharraf votes and the preliminary results showed that Bhutto’s party did neither secured a two-thirds nor a simple majority, but was forced to opt for a coalition government!
7. From these facts, it becomes clear that the scales remain balanced in favour of the United States.
A. Musharraf remains the President, and he has included amendments to the constitution giving certain powers to the president at the cost of prime minister’s powers.
B. Nawaz Shareef’s PML (N) has substantial number of seats (nearly as effective as the PPP) and he can not be simply wished away, whether the Bhutto’s PPP opts for a coalition government with him or with Musharraf’s PML (Q) or even with support of independents & other minorities. Which ever option the PPP chooses, it will find itself entrenched by America’s effective strength.
C. Bhutto’s PPP is a party conglomerate and not well-knit structure with clear-cut and well-defined ideology, therefore a loyalty shift may easily come about. For instance, the PPP has had a shift in loyalty in the past, before her exile in Britain, she was pro-US; but after having spent her exile years in the UK, the British bought her loyalty…. The PPP is therefore susceptible to another turn around.
8 It is thus clear that America’s influence is still intact in Pakistan, it is just that the British have gained some influence to poke its nose there. This has resulted in some sort of political clash between the US and the UK which is however under wraps: America working to gain influence in Bhutto’s PPP and the British trying to extend their influence so as to able to poke their noses in the affairs of Pakistan.
9 In conclusion, it can not be said that America’s influence in Pakistan is on wane because of the results of the elections, though it is true that is now somewhat timid.
Secondly: Kosovo has declared its independence and the US has quickly moved to recognise it as such. It is known that the US has been behind this independence. Does this mean that the Bush administration wants to help the Kosovo Muslims to improve its image among the Middle East Muslims after having committed crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq and continues its assault there?
1. The United States does not support independence of Kosovo either for Islam or Muslims; these are of no concern to America from any aspect.
This issue is actually related to Serbia which is a constant sore in the American plans to consolidate its influence in the Balkans. America’s presence in the Balkans will provide it the influence and control to effectively regulate the region. The Balkans are the gateway to Russia and the Central Asia as well as to what the US calls the ‘New Europe’ in the Balkans and Eastern Europe, this control will serve America’s political, economic, security and even military interests.
Serbia has been a barrier or at least a hindrance for the American agenda and therefore the US has been keen to weaken it. It first engineered the separation of Montenegro from Serbia. The US also was behind the NATO attack on Serbian armed forces in Kosovo as well as in Serbia itself. It is also behind separation of Kosovo…
2. The independence of Kosovo is not like the independence of other countries we know of, under the international resolution, Kosovo remains under international mandate overseen by the United Nations which is effectively as US mandate wherein the President of Kosovo, the Prime Minister and the government rules.
3. What makes this issue appear as if it were in favour of Muslims is the barbaric and inhuman actions committed by Serbian government against Muslims of Kosovo. It slaughtered the Muslims in Kosovo, so they looked to NATO and the US as their savior. This was in evidence during the celebrations; in fact the celebrations in the US media were as high-pitched as in Kosovo if not more.
In conclusion, the United States exerted all its efforts on the Kosovo issue in order to weaken Serbia with the aim of taking a shot at Russia. The target was to fortify the entire Balkan region as America’s dominion without any hindrance. This was neither trying to assist the Muslims of Kosovo or to correct its image among the Muslims of the Middle East where America criminal acts are consistently on the rise.
Support of the Muslims and saving them from the crimes of the Kuffar, whether American, British, the Jews, Russians, Serbians or Hindus, in either Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Chechnya, Kosovo, Bosnia & Herzegovina or Kashmir will not come from the Kuffar, they are all one group against Islam & Muslims, this can only be achieved by the leadership of their Khaleefah in a Khilafah State.
It hurts to see the barbaric crimes being committed in the Muslim countries and yet the Muslims do not have a truthful ruler to come to their rescue. The situation is so bad that it has Muslims to look up to Kuffar for saving them!
Third: Bush is set to visit five African countries: Benin, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Ghana. Does this indicate that the US is launching an intensive political campaign against Europe in Africa by way of such visits?
Answer: The matter is not as such, the five countries that Bush visited are from among its own bloc in Africa with no European rival there. Bush has not included such countries that belong to the French or the British bloc in his visit schedule. Not only this, Bush has also avoided visiting countries where there is US rivalry with Europe, like Chad and Kenya…Since he has restricted his visit to countries of the US bloc only, it would not be correct to project this visit as launching a political campaign against Europe in Africa, either directly or by proxy.
This is on one hand, on the other hand, the US president is in the election year when his wings are clipped in matters of foreign policy, in fact he is referred to as the lame duck president. This is the case even with a successful president and Bush’s case is worse, he is not merely a lame duck, he is a crippled & paralysed duck!
It is more likely that Bush’s visit is designed to help the electoral fortunes of his Republican party in the elections. The electoral campaign of the rival Democrats has focused on the failure of Republican Party’s failures on the foreign policy areas. Therefore Bush aims to visit countries where the US is ‘respected’ or is not seen in its true ‘evil’ face. Thus he is visiting these five countries where there is total support for America, just as he visited the occupied Palestine, the Palestinian authority of Mahmoud Abbas and the Gulf countries for electoral purposes.
Such visits by nature are not usually for signing of projects or solution to problems, but are for reception protocols, red carpet rolled out for him etc..
14th Safar, 1429 A.H
20th February, 2008 C.E