Is Musharaff engineering the Bhutto assassination ?

Musharaff is in an unenviable situation right now. Even if he is stating the truth about Bhutto's death, his credibility is so low, I wonder if he himself believes what he is saying. The short lived truce between him and Benazir as well as the US inspired poll arrangement for power sharing had come unstuck. Benazir had begun to openly challenge the military establishment and embarass Musharaff. Her elimination from the poll scene suited him; though he could not have accurately guaged the cost he would be required to pay for her assasination.

On the other hand, Benazir had made the fatal mistake of promising to stamp out militancy and also give the IAEA access to AQ Khan for interrogation of his proliferation misdeeds. This must have riled the military establishment as well the terror hardliners. She could not have lived longer if this attempt had failed.

TURMOIL IN PAKISTAN AND ITS IMPLICATIONS

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7162445.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7162445.stm


The Background
In the past few years, the militants have carved out sanctuaries in the tribal belt along Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan. There has also been a low-intensity, armed nationalist insurgency in Pakistan's largest province, Balochistan. In political terms, the nation is divided as never before, with an array of disparate power centres including the military, the political parties and the militant groups. Bhutto’s assassination is a further setback for the US "war on terror", which has as part of its strategy in the region the restoration of democracy in Pakistan to offer an alternative path, away from militancy and extremism.
The strategy is very much at risk. The hope was that politics would be resumed and that the confrontation between the army and Islamic militants would gradually be wound down. An end to such conflict is vital not only for the future stability of Pakistan but for the future of Afghanistan. It is from Pakistan that the Taleban are able to conduct their war against the Afghan government and its NATO supporters.
The only recent political advances have been made by the Pakistani Taleban, who have seized large chunks of territory.

Impact
Pakistan People's Party (PPP) riot against the government is likely to fuel the anti-Musharaff movement of the country's lawyers and civil campaigners who insist his removal from power as a pre-condition for the restoration of democracy. Ms Bhutto, with her huge grassroots political support, played a vital role in keeping this line of thinking in check. Fingers are already being pointed at the administration for failing to prevent the assassination in the high-security garrison town of Rawalpindi. The president's credibility is at risk because the largest opposition party has been thrown into disarray so close to the elections, creating a void in the system.
The re-imposition of a state of emergency, which was lifted under pressure from the opposition and the Western powers, may be an option. But by so doing, President Musharaff would risk increasing opposition to his rule. Besides, it is not certain that the army would be willing to back such a move at this stage.
There is a widespread perception that elements within Musharaff’s administration have helped militants secure safe havens in Pakistan with a view to destabilising Afghanistan. Politically, his closest allies have, without exception, been elements sympathetic to the militants and their mission. His crackdown last month on Pakistan's fledgling civil society was unacceptable to large segment of the population who saw lawyers, journalists and women being hauled off to jail. No Islamist fundamentalists were rounded up when he declared a state of emergency on 3 November 2007. No significant politician or party looks prepared to face up to the threat posed by Islamist extremism and the Pakistani Taleban who today are the main threat to the state.
Stocks worldwide plummeted, while oil prices rose to their highest in a month after the assassination concerned about a less stable geopolitical environment. Mounting geopolitical risks would further boost oil prices. But as Pakistan is not a country with developed financial markets and the country's connection with global credit markets is minimal. It would have a limited and short-term impact on markets.
There are concerns that the economy of Pakistan could be unsettled by the assassination, and that the problems may spread to other nations.
President Musharaff may not survive the fallout of Ms Bhutto's death.

Options / Likely Outcome
The killing of Benazir Bhutto will probably lead to the cancellation of national and provincial elections on 8 January 2008. PPP stalwarts have accused the military of perpetrating the latest murder of a Bhutto - although that is extremely unlikely. The classic use of a sniper and a suicide bomb attack to cut her down bore all the hallmarks of an al-Qaeda trained Pakistani suicide squad. Although the suspicion is not totally out of place. When Ms Bhutto had returned to Pakistan on 18 Oct 07, the attempt on her life raised questions of complicity of the ISI and thereby, the government of Pakistan. The electronic jammers having failed to prevent detonation of the improvised explosive device, the penetration of hostile elements through the four security rings around Ms Bhutto’s motorcade and the use of C4 explosives in the blast were clear pointers to the hand behind the assassination attempt.
Earlier this year she and President Pervez Musharaff had negotiated a plan to work together with the army to curb the threat of extremism that Pakistan now faces. However, her commitment to afford the IAEA access to AQ Khan for interrogation may have finally sealed her fate. The army has never been impartial and appeared all set to try to rig the elections against her Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP). She had confronted the Taleban extremists head on.

. Ms Bhutto had the political base to conduct a war against extremists. The PPP is the closest the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has ever got to espousing a secular, democratic political culture.

Pakistan is clearly turning into one of the failed states in Asia. The risks of Pakistan imploding have once again increased

Pakistan: Nuclear Assets Control

On 13 Dec 07, just two days before emergency was lifted in Pakistan, President Pervez Musharaff promulgated the NCA Ordinance 2007 in order to perpetuate Army control over nuclear and strategic affairs. The Ordinance will legally ensure that the entire nuclear and missile sector will be outside the control of an elected Prime Minister. The NCA chairman is the President with the PM as the vice-President. The Director General of Strategic Plans Division (SPD) will oversee NCA’s functioning. He will be appointed by the Chairman. Lt Gen Khalid Kidwai is the new civilian Director General of SPD.

In addition to the President and the PM, the NCA will have three ministers (Finance, Defence and Interior), the three service chiefs and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff committee as members. The four elected civilian members will be outnumbered by the President, four service officers in uniform and the director General of SPD. The PM and other civilian ministers are to be excluded from effective control and decision making on nuclear and missile issues. The Ordinance also lays down that the Ministry of Finance shall ensure provision of funds in local and foreign currencies to the NCA through SPD. All employees in strategic organizations are to be considered employees of the NCA.

In 2003, the CIA and British secret service agents intercepted BBC China, the German ship carrying AQ Khan’s consignment of centrifuge equipment and brought into open the sixteen years relationship of proliferation with Iran. The present Ordinance is an effective legal tool of preventing Benazir Bhutto, if she were to become the Prime Minister in Jan 2008, from allowing IAEA access to AQ Khan. Khan’s disclosures are bound to reveal that all Pakistani army chiefs from General Zia Ul Haq to General Pervez Musharaff were party to his proliferation activities.

Pakistan is the only country in the world where the nuclear arsenal is wholly under the control of the military. It is this exclusive control over nuclear assets which emboldened Musharaff to try out his ‘Salami Slicing’ tactics in Kargil in 1999. His hopes of India not taking any counter measures to prevent escalation of the conflict were shattered.

In 1988, the US had mediated a power sharing arrangement in Pakistan that led to the formation of a troika consisting of the President 9Ghulam Ishaq Khan), the Army Chief (Gen Aslam Beg) and the Prime Minister (Bhutto). The Ordinance is Musharaff’s attempt to revive the troika. The US is obviously comfortable with this limited democracy in Pakistan. Two questions, however, remain unanswered. For how long will the army chief and corps commanders put up with the unpopular Musharaff as President and how will the election results turn out if there is no attempt at rigging them? One thing is clear though; Musharaff has altered the Constitution of Pakistan beyond recognition.

INDO-US DEAL ON AGRICULTURE

KNOWLEDGE INITIATIVE ON AGRICULTURE (KIA)

In the din of the Indo-US Nuclear Agreement, a more important one meriting even more media focus and public attention has been relegated to lower priority. Although the Left had opposed this one too, it was more out of habit than any sense of national responsibility.

The KIA was announced during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to the USA in Jul 2005 and finalized along with the Indo – US Nuclear Deal during President George Bush’s visit to India in Mar 2006. It hopes to boost agricultural cooperation between India and the US, promote agricultural interaction in sectors like food processing and marketing, biotechnology, water management, and capacity building at universities.



Merits of the Agreement

1. KIA will usher in emerging trends in agriculture arising out of global warming, new pests, and natural resources depletion.

2. Enhance the role of private sector in agriculture.

3. Help reduce food wastage by improved marketing infrastructure and resource conservation technologies.



Drawbacks

1. The KIA paves the way for more agriculture patents, making farmers dependent on private firms for technology. According to Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA) the KIA may be ideal for the “American Model” of agriculture, heavily dependent on patents and enhanced use of biotechnology, will threaten the livelihood of the Indian farmers.

2. The KIA is not farmer friendly in India. The KIA is driven by corporate interests to establish intellectual property rights-based controls on resources and technologies in India. This model of agriculture is propped up by subsidies and sustains about two percent of the US population. In India, where over 60% of the population depends on agriculture, the model is ecologically, socially and economically unadaptable.

3. The KIA is a corporate friendly exercise. India would do well to remember the BT cotton seeds example where the seed firms have established a near-monopoly and reduced the state to a party fighting a losing battle to lower the cost of BT seeds or even make the seeds available. The consequences of similar outcome for every other crop can only be imagined.

4. Transfer protocol of bio-resources for research unclear; so danger of bio-piracy. KIA remains vague on the terms of transfer of Indian genetic resources to the US for research. This leaves open the possibility of Indian bio-resources transported to US and elsewhere.

5. Thrust is on new research rather than better efficiency of existing technologies. KIA is also out of step with Planning Commission’s approach paper to the 11th Plan and the “Draft Kisan Policy” laid down by the National Commission on Farmers. Both these documents stress on bridging the gap between what is possible with existing technology in the labs and what farmers achieve on ground. The KIA pushes scientists further back into the labs.

6. Major agri-business corporations well represented on the KIA Board. The KIA Board counts members like Ted Huffman (Director of Wal-mart’s Supply Chain in India), Rashmi Nair (Director Strategic Integration, Monsanto) and S Sivakumar (CEO of ITC Ltd’s Agri-business Division) as representing business interests. The only NGO representation is that of Marshall Bouton, Executive Director, Chicago Council on Foreign Relations.



Conclusion

No matter what the merits / demerits of the Agreement, India cannot afford to ignore the impact it would have on the hapless community of Indian farmers already reeling under strain of the BT cotton controversy and the large numbers of farmer suicides.