Monday, November 5, 2007

US and Pakistan: partners in crime

Washington's siding with a big dictator such as Musharraf whilst campaigning against tyranny is purely hypocritic

By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 05 November 2007

Amidst claims of human rights abuses and accusations of dictatorship directed at Pakistani leader Pervez Musharraf, the New York Times reported on Monday, 05 Novemver 2007: “The Bush administration signaled Sunday that it would probably keep billions of dollars flowing to Pakistan’s military, despite the detention of human rights advocates and leaders of the political opposition by Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the country’s president.” (1)

The US government continues to support Musharraf’s government despite the fact that the dictator has suspended the constitution and fired most of the Supreme Court judges, including Chief Justice Iftikar Chaudhry. “Private television news channels, foreign and Pakistani, have been hauled off-air,” according to The Economist magazine. (2)

The manner in which the US deals with the Pakistani situation exposes the hypocrisy of the world’s biggest imperialist regime, headed by President George Bush. Washington preaches democracy in countries such as Zimbabwe and then ignores such ideals when dealing with what is clearly an undemocratic state, Pakistan.

Washington’s bias towards Pakistan must not be misunderstood: the US hopes that by taking sides in favour of Musharraf, the miliraty dictator will help them defeat Ismalic militants in countries such as Afghanistan and, more specifically, Iran.

The US foreign policy (if they still have one) towards countries in and around the Middle East suggest that the world superpower is preparing for another war – this time against Iran. And that will signal the end of the US hegemony, thanks to Bush and his country’s hegemony-at-all-cost stance.

1. US is likely to continue aid, New York Times, 05 November 2007.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/05/world/asia/06diplo.html

2. Coup number two, The Economist, 05 November 2007.
http://economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10088419&top_story=1

No comments: