Are Bush & Mush nuclear allies?

The recent political unrest in Pakistan has again revived the old debate. How secure are the nuclear weapons of Pakistan? One thing is clear. Protecting Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, either through coercion or through inducement, have occupied the centre-stage of the Bush Administration’s South Asia policy in the post-9/11 order.

Fuelling the debate, a well-referred intelligence journal recently claimed that the US took control of the Pakistan nuclear assets soon after September 11. In what could open a Pandora’s Box in US- Pak strategic affairs, the journal stated that Pakistan was given an ultimatum by the US to either allow the Americans to take control of the nuclear weapons or to be prepared to face the consequences. If Pakistan protested, “the US would be left with no choice but to destroy those facilities, possibly with India’s help,” stated the journal. “This was a fait accompli that Musharraf, for credibility reasons, had every reason to cover-up & pretend it never happened, & Washington was fully willing to keep things quiet,” it added. Earlier the US press had reported that the Bush Administration had already spent about $100 million to help Pakistan secure the nuclear safeguards. A New York Times report claimed that the US was building a training centre for nuclear security inside Pakistan. Does the US really have a grip on Pakistan’s nuclear arsenals? Is it the major reason for uninterrupted Bush’s support to Musharraf?

It is a fact that Musharraf has used the threat of a possible jihadi takeover of arsenals to ensure American support even for his dictatorial moves. The central goal of the general’s strategy is to convince Washington & the European capitals that the nuclear country would be plunged into deep crisis if he was removed from the helm. This ‘deluge-after-me’ strategy appears to have gone down well at least with the US. The military regime lets the Americans enjoy control over the warheads, in return the US continues its assistance to Islamabad. This was evident when State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said, “... ultimately, the major responsibility for that (securing arsenals) falls with the Pakistani Government. They have made public comments to the effect that the arsenal is secure, that they have taken a number of different steps to ensure that. We ourselves see no indication to indicate to the contrary.” The question, however, is that how long the ‘super power’ & Cold War ally continue this cat & mouse game? How long the US continue its support for a general who is almost disowned by his own people? The classic crisis the US faces is, it can’t disown Pakistan overnight. But the longer it extends support to Musharraf, the deeper Pakistan’s falls. The more, not the merrier, at least in this case.

(Published in Business and Economy, 13/12/2007)

The Bush meltdown begins

Which is this the man whom the Western media calls the crusader of the 21st century? Is he still capable of leading the American empire? The president is still busy defending his policies & justifying his adventures in Afghanistan & Iraq. His arguments, however, might not go down well with all in the US, as his policies fail one by one.

The latest in a series of events that exposed the inability of his administration to cope with the challenges of the new world order was the resignation of State Department’s Public Diplomacy chief Karen P. Hughes. Hughes is known to be one of the last members of Bush’s inner circles. Bush brought her to the State Department in an apparent effort to do an image makeover of the US in the muslim world. Was this counterbalancing game successful? If so, she would not have stepped down. Dr. Chinthamani Mahapatra, professor of International Relations at JNU told B&E, “Growing number of American population & Republican leaders are angry with the foreign policy of the Bush administration. Though the resignation of Hughes might have many dimensions, it shows that the administration is in a crisis of sorts. It’s a fact that America’s image is getting worse in the muslim world.”

Hughes is not the first presidential aide to leave. Bush’s troubles started with Rumsfeld’s resignation on 8th November last year. In the following month, Bush failed to get the appointment of John Bolton ratified in the Congress. Last August, his closest ally and the man who was called as the ‘Bush Brain’, Carl Rove, had to quit his team in wake of some fresh scandals. Sixteen frontline people have deserted the president. Does President Bush take any lessons from these setbacks? Most unlikely. He appears to be busy lobbying to get more war funds approved in the Congress & expand the global war zones.

(Published in Business and Economy, 29/11/2007)

Lebanon LIngers

The Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri recently announced a further delay in presidential elections which was scheduled to be held on October 23. The Lebanese president is elected by Parliament, not by popular vote. So far, the ruling coalition & the opposition led by Shiite party Hezbollah have been unable to reach a consensus on a candidate. According to many observers, if the 128-member Parliament fails to elect a successor to President Emile Lahoud before his term ends on November 24, the consequences would be unpredictable. Though the speaker has announced that a new parliamentary session has been scheduled from November 12, not many are hopeful that the election would be carried out smoothly.

The differences between the pro-Western government of Prime Minister Fuad Saniora & the powerful opposition Hezbollah have paralysed the government for past 11 months. Given the ground situation, it is illogical to assume that Hezbollah would support the Saniora Government to elect a president of its choice. Similarly, the government too will not settle for a pro-Syrian candidate supported by Hezbollah. The West, which is looking for an opportunity to further isolate Syria in the region, has jumped onto the scene accusing Syria of deliberately attempting to block the Lebanese elections. “Lebanon is sitting on a powder keg; undue interference of Syria has made the situation volatile. There is a planned conspiracy to pull down a democratically elected government. There is a need for dismantling the Syrian apparatus first; elections can wait....” Ziad K. Abdelnour, editor of Middle East Intelligence Bulletin told B&E.

It is now the Lebanese population which can stop the country from becoming a theatre of war between Western style liberal democracy & the political Islamist world view.

(Published in Business & Economy, 15/11/07)