Pakistan is the Epicenter of Threat to World Survival

The monstrous state that was created out of the British engineered partition of India — Pakistan — has long since become an American tool for mischief in the world, including nuclear proliferation, creation of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and an ongoing home for Osama bin Ladin. It is blowback time. The American-financed regime cannot exist without the support of Muslim fundamentalists, and yet the Americans now insist that the regime move against its own political base. There are nuclear bombs in this equation, developed with a wink and a nod from the Americans. If these chickens come home to roost, it will be with incinerating force.

The nexus of world disorder is not Sudan, or Lebanon, or Somalia. It is Pakistan, and has been so from the beginning of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, in 1947. Formed as a theologically-based state, in opposition to the secular state of newly independent India, Pakistan was the British and American answer to ascendant Indian socialism. Pakistan immediately became the great U.S. hammer to threaten the Indians, and to keep the region on a permanent war footing, that would nullify the possibility of development in the subcontinent. The U.S. poured billions of dollars into the Pakistani military, to keep up the pressure against much larger India, which had fraternal relations with the Soviet Union. The Americans thought they were playing a Third World, Cold War trump card, but in fact, they were creating a monster.

Inevitably, the U.S. patronage of the Pakistani military led to a series of military dictatorships, that were at the same time dependent on fundamentalist Muslims for public support. Not understanding the internal dynamics of Pakistani society — not even caring, really — the Americans continued to cultivate Pakistan’s military class. They were extremely useful in providing bases of support in the CIA and Saudi Arabian jihad against the Soviets, after the Russian intervention in Afghanistan, in 1980. The mujahadin were born, under the joint sponsorship of the Saudis, the Americans, and Pakistan. These forces would later incubate Al Qaida. But first, Pakistan would impose its own regime in Afghanistan: the Taliban. The Taliban were a wholly Pakistani project, financed by the U.S.-supported military regime, but manned by the fundamentalist preachers in thousands of maddrassas — religious schools that graduated students to military training. The Taliban marched from Pakistan to the Afghan capital, Kabul, in 1996. Osama bin Ladin, a Saudi, secured his base of operations.

Blowback is a bitch. Pakistan, a real rogue state in the world, along with Israel, developed nuclear weaponry, explicitly as a Muslim bomb. President Bill Clinton’s administration pretended to protest but kept funding the military regime. Then Pakistan’s nuclear entrepreneur, Dr. A.Q. Khan, began to market the nuclear technology everywhere money could be made: North Korea, Libya, and who knows where else. Dr. Khan’s activities could not have occurred in the Pakistani police state, without the state’s approval. After a pitiful protest by President Bush, Khan was put under very comfortable house arrest, which has now been eased. And the “Islamic Bomb” exists, in Pakistan.

The regime is inherently unstable, and made more so by the incoherent American pressures. Osama bin Ladin lives in Waziristan, in the Pakistani tribal region next to Afghanistan, and everybody knows it. Periodically, the Pakistani regime pretends to assert control, but they are inherently and historically tied to the same fundamentalist forces that the Americans demand they annihilate. The regime moved against Islamabad’s so-called “Red Mosque” last week, leaving scores of people dead, and threatening a general conflagration in Pakistan. The military government, under huge pressure from the Americans, is attacking its base of supporters.

The Bomb is there. The missiles are there. The blowback will ultimately occur here.

Glen Ford is Executive Editor of Black Agenda Report, where this article first appeared. He can be contacted at: Read other articles by Glen, or visit Glen's website.

12 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. GreenViews said on July 18th, 2007 at 7:37am #

    The article has several historical errors in it. This is the most ridiculous article that I have seen in a decade. It is amazing that one can find such insanity. Pakistan and India were created as a result of the “Indian Independence Act of 1947”. Actually “Pakistan” existed 2500 years ago as the “Indus Valley Civilization” which was inhabited on the banks of the Indus. In 1947, ancient “Pakistan (then called Melhula and Mekan) was resurrected.

    The allegations against Pakistan are false. They are based on anti-Pakistan bigotry and the filed policies perpetuated in the past few years. President Bush, and Prime Minister Tony Blair have repeatedly praised Pakistan for her fight against terrorism. Pakistan is a founding member of SETO, and CENTO and was a frontline state against the USSR. She is a Non-Nato Ally (NNA) and a cold war ally. This week Pakistan suffered many blasts first initiated by the USSR and Afghanistan against Pakistan during the first Afghan war. Neither Pakistan, nor Pakistanis nor President Musharraf signed up to indentured servitude to anyone. Friendship is a two way street, and the anti-Pakistan government in Kabul is an impediment to a NATO victory and peace in Pakistan.

    The monstrous state “Bharat” (also called “India” in English) which burns women after the death of their husbands (see “Fire), and incarcerates 50 million White widows (see “Water”) just because their husband dies. The monstrous state is Bharat which occupies Kashmire and does not give independence to the Naxalistes, the Mizus, and the Asaamese. The monstrous state is Bharat that keeps the Dalits (untouchables) and the 150 million Muslims in servitude as second and third class citizens. The monstrous state is Bharat that flaunts UN resolutions, and keeps the charade of “dynastic democracy” alive in the minds of the teeming millions who live on sidewalks or eek out a living in slums or starve in the villages of India.

    Kashmir is considered disputed territory by the UN, by Pakistan and by the world ( The fate of the princely states was decided in 1948. Each state had the option of joining either India or Pakistan. Hari Sigh the hedonistic bi-sexual “raja” of Kashmir was forced to sign an article of accession to India under gun point. There were several discrepancies about the Article of Accession on dates of signature and when it was produced. This is illustrated by Alister Lamb. The article of accession was never presented to the UN and India has now claimed that it was stolen. This brings into question that it ever existed. Jawahar Lal Nehru in multiple speeches to the UN and the world gave his firm commitment to the world that a plebiscite would be held in Kashmir to ascertain the wishes of the Kashmiri people. “Leave the decision regarding the future of this State to the people of the State is not merely a promise to your Government but also to the people of Kashmir and to the world.” The resolutions on Kashmir clearly state that India has to hold the plebiscite. Many of you have grown up with propaganda. The Kashmir resolutions are unambiguous about the Plebiscite that India promised to hold.
    “The Government of India should undertake that there will be established in Jammu and Kashmir a Plebiscite Administra-tion to hold a plebiscite as soon as possible on the question of the accession of the State to India or Pakistan”. Here are actual quotes from Nehru “We have always right from the beginning accepted the idea of the Kashmir people deciding their fate by referendum or plebiscite………..””

    When an anti-Pakistan government was installed in Kabul, surely Pakistanis were not happy. The geo-strategic interests of Pakistan have to be taken into account. Neither the government, nor the people of Pakistan have signed up for indentured servitude to carry on the follies of a broken foreign policy that supports an incompetent and corrupt non-representative government in Kabul. The NATO troops are teething on annihilation by the anti-occupation insurgent (wrongly labeled as “Talibaan”). All this has created immense problems for Pakistan, and Pakistanis are not too happy fighting Pakistanis……neither Musharraf nor anyone else supports Pakistanis fighting Pakistanis. The Tribal areas are “tribal”. They joined Pakistan under treaty obligations that allowed them total autonomy…that was the deal for joining the Federation. They have helped Pakistan for the past 60 years. The articles of the confederation of the constitution of Pakistan cannot be changed because of failed US policies in Afghanistan. NATO and America needs to build peace by wining the hearts and minds of Afghans not by cluster bombs and missiles.

    Pakistanis are not indentured servants of anyone. Pakistan is a proud nation of 160 million people on the way to progress and prosperity. It is the 4th largest country on earth, and deserves respect. Pakistan has nuclear bombs and missiles to deliver them to all corners of the globe.

  2. Govt of Pakistan said on July 18th, 2007 at 8:35am #

    The comment is totally wrong. Kashmir belongs to Kashmiris and they are proud to be part of the biggest democracy in the world.

  3. Faisal said on July 18th, 2007 at 9:06am #

    Wait a minute, I’m a Pakistani, and I’m evil?!?

    Pakistan is a country of 160+ proud citizens from which many are suffering due to the failed policies of the US, and USSR. Most Pakistanis are fairly open minded people. The author of this article needs to stop watching western media, and visit and see for oneself. How bad is this country exactly?
    This article sounds almost as if the country is on the verge of losing it’s place on the world map. 😛

  4. David A. Smith said on July 18th, 2007 at 9:40am #

    To Mr. Ford – thanks for the thought inducing article. I’m not sure I understand the purpose of your labeling of the “islamic bomb” – doesn’t really fit with the rest of the article and does create room for the anti-pakistani charge leveled by Mr. GreenViews.

    To Mr. GreenViews – To try to draw a line (other than geographic) between the classic era Indus River civilizations and the modern Pakistan demonstrates that the “historical errors” are on your part. Clearly you have declared an affinity for one side over the other in the India-Pakistan conflict, but since that’s not what the article is about, its hard to see what your point is. It becomes doubly difficult to understand what your point is when your efforts to defend against “anti-Pakistan bigotry” is itself filled with apparently intentional misrepresentations of India (e.g. as reprehensible as the practice of Sati is, to suggest that is a carried out by the state is simply wrong).

  5. sk said on July 18th, 2007 at 1:58pm #

    Glen Ford’s notion of Pakistan seems based on ideas that had some currency in the ’50s and ’60s during the peak of the Civil Rights struggle. Everyone from Martin Luther King to Bayard Rustin visited India and received profuse official support. An Indian analyst, Jawed Naqvi recalled that era recently in a Pakistani newspaper:

    There was a time when this country’s word counted among the Third World nations. India was a major leader when it advocated non-alignment, not as a namby-pamby idea for passive aloofness but for an active opposition to big power exploits everywhere in the world. Sixteen years ago India abandoned all that and took a sharp turn to the right.

    The world is more complicated than the ‘India=secular/good, Pakistan=Islamic/bad’ hysterical outburst of Glen Ford. In fact, just last week dissidentvoice ran an article by a first time American visitor to Pakistan who wrote the following:

    My trip to Pakistan had been set months in advance; my presence there during this crisis was coincidence. Throughout my stay, as I listened to the discussion about the conflict, I realized how much less I could have understood the events if I had been in the United States, even though I would have been reading the international press on the web. The complexity of such stories so rarely makes it into print, and the humanity of the people demonized drops out all too easily.

    For anyone who wants to explore the history of partition in an readable, yet reasonably objective format, this book is as good a place as any to start.

  6. Kaiser said on July 18th, 2007 at 6:16pm #

    Mr. Ford your article implys many things to be very wrong, such as the fact that Pakistan is at the epicenter of many conflicts of the world when the truth matter of fact is that Pakistan may have suffered way more than any other country throughout the 80’s and know this century. It also implies that Israel by far is at the epicenter of most major conflicts today where sentiments for hatred grows by muslims which in some ways is natural amongst humans. Pakistan throughout this period has been the World scapegoat for most terrorist attacks. Yes we have a maddrassah system setup which in some ways has breeded terrorist but, thus far who is to blame? What can you expect from the result of the 80’s Jihad masterminded by the CIA and ISI, where at the end the US sanctioned pakistan and left it to deal with a burden of Jihadi outlaws and millions of afghan refugee’s. Know look at israel dont you think palestinian and muslim dislike for the west would disapear if it ever existed? Was there any problems muslims had for the West before its creation? The truth may be hard to accept since most americans live in a country were people lack knowledge of international events, and were the Media is one sided.

  7. Da Punjabi said on July 18th, 2007 at 8:07pm #

    Let’s just all agree, that Pakistan’s biggest supporter throughout its short History has been United State… In fact, it is more like 45 years than 60 years of its existence… In the decade of 50s, USA still had some affinity with India… However, due to India’s non-Alignment leadership, India was not committed member of one of the two superpower camps.. it just wanted to develop, and not get into any mess… However, international establishment was such that choosing between one of the two was a condition, not a choice, and if not followed, there were consequences… During JFK era, USA helped India bringing in Green revolution through agricultural technology. In 1962, When China fought a short border war, USA was there to help India in which ever way India deemed appropriate… Though, I do not know what kind of help there was available, but it has been a history as such… In 1965, When Pakistan, and India fought first full fledged war, Pakistan experienced intruption in supply of weapons from USA, as USA still had some scope of friendship with India… But in all this, it didn’t mean USA didn’t help Pakistan…. Pakistan was still needed for USA in capatlist camp… But After 1965, India/usa relationship suffered… USA had gotten into the mindset of my way is the right way.. Cold war warriors had matured and were ready for global wars … Then came 1971 bangladesh war… Pakistan was carrying out genocide of Bengalis in its east wing of country, which later became bangladesh… East bangla, which was entired made up of Bengali people had the majority of seats in the Parliament election, and was to become Prime Minister of Pakistan… This created conflict, as no other tribal pakistani would want to be ruled by a Bengali, culturally quiet differently… So USA decided to play the games w/ India, and gave Pakistan free hand… Indira Gandhi had requested President Nixon to stop the genocide using their influence on Pakistan… But President Nixon, along w/ that bastard Henry kissinger (May he burn in hell forever), Challenged Gandhi that she would nothing… They probably had poker bets on her… But she proved wrong, and entered into East Pakistan, and freed the wing, and created an independent country pakistan.. During this time, India signed the defense treaty w/ USSR and ditched USA… India, and USSR were completely at odd in institutional establishment. Even their geopolitical had little commonality between them.. Anyhow, long story, short space… So After 1971, pakistan became a USA ally… And when Soviet Union attacked Afghanistan, Pakistan became a front line ally.. .Thus started al queda and mujhadeen chapter.. Before 1980, Pakistan had provided bases for U-2 Spy mission over soviet sphere… Anyway, what USA has done, it has done for its own interest, without caring about future consequences…. After wraping up Afghanistan Operation, USA left Mujhadeen under pakistan, which Pakistan effectively used in Kashmir…. Being an Important USA partner, it had learned some cool games for itself as well for ambitious future… As a result, talibans came to be from the madrassas of Pakistan… They rode from Kandhar to Kabul in bullet speed.. Afterall, they had the support of ISI, and Pakistan military….. By 1998, Al queda had established its base in Afghanistan… Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia were the only two countries which recognized Taliban ragime… In 1999, where Kargil war happened between India, and Pakistani disguised soldiers as Mujhadeens, Pakistan got no support from either USA, nor CHINA… Pakistan significance had diminished.. After Kargil war defeat whose architecture was General Mushraff miserably failed, Mushraff initiated a coup in Islamabad, and sent its civilian leadership in exile… At the same time, When Bill clinton requested General Mushraff to use his influence over afghanistan, and convince taliban to hand over Osama bin laden, The request was usually ignoed… Then Bush came into Office. Soon after new administration, Energy taskforces was initiated… Mr. Chaney infact had provide Taliban 50 Million assistence for UNICOL oil pipeline… So there was no conflict between Pakistan, taliban, and USA… ALL were a happy family… Then 9/11 happened.. rest is really a history well known..

  8. Hue Longer said on July 19th, 2007 at 5:05am #

    Thanks Da, I liked the Kissinger bit best

  9. Fazal Habib Curmally said on July 19th, 2007 at 5:31am #

    irst off pakistan is not at war in afghanistan. We are on your side in Pakistan only. If you say we are encouraging the Taliban and Al_Qaeda then leave us and go to some one you can trust. but don’t blame us for you screw ups.
    Forget India and Pakistan. Gary Powers was not a Pakistani and neither was the U-2 aircraft. Fighting the Russians in Afghanistan was initially a Pakistani-Saudi and somepart Chinese affair. The USA came in after the guerillas were successful and some 2 years later.
    Now the Americans are in Afghanistan. They are based out of Pakistan for logistics. First off Afghanistan is not Pakistan’s fight. Pakistan’s policy has been to recognise the Government in Kabul. If the Taliban were there we’d recognise them and then help them. By doing this, we’d have a chance to change them. Unhappily the USA didn’t use this approach and in the true “Here comes the cavalry” manner put in a minority government in power after haviung financed them in a clandestine manner for a few years.
    Why don’t you realise, that there is a civil war in Afghanistan and you are backing the wrong side. Back the right side and the Afghans will chase Bin Laden out and then you’ll get him and his gang. You must be clear about one thing and that is. Are you fighting the Taliban or are you fighting the Al-Qaeda? Taliban want you out of their country and the Al-Qaeda wants to destroy you. Remember they are not the same. and they are fighting a common enemyin Afghanistan.
    We in Pakistan have seen it in action and chased Al-Qaeda out. If the Afghans want to side with the Taliban then that is their right and not yours to dispute. You don’t own the world nor do you run it. Try and understand 50 million US dollars is not going to get you Bin laden. A few right actions will. You are dealing with a very proud people and this should be best remembered. They aren’t a bunch of backward terrorists. Incidentally I am not an Afghan but have lived in the NWFP for some time.

  10. AJ Nasreddin said on July 26th, 2007 at 8:00am #

    Doesn’t this article just try to take the focus off the REAL trouble-maker: The United States of America?

  11. Ouseph Yohanan said on July 26th, 2007 at 11:23pm #

    This is in reference to what GreenView Posted.

    Greenviews desperate attempt to connect Indus Valley Civilization with modern day Pakistan is simply an act of desperation and idiocy at its best. A nation that is slipping fast into a system where Burqa and AK 47 is seen as honorable is in now way remotely connected with Indus Valley Civilization. A nation which is hell bound on being more Arabic and Persian in nature. And add that to the fact, in Pakistan history starts from islamic advent.

    Also, greenviews comments about India are truly ignorant. His comments about Sati System shows how Pakistanis are indoctrinated in schools(if you can call that school). Sati System is dead. A couple of years ago, it became a sensation when a women jumped into funeral pyre. As such India, sati system is a dead system.

    Also, Greenview should call India just “India”. The word “Bharatam” is to be used by us. And the adjective “monstrous” signals mob mentality that Pakistanis hugely suffer from

    And last, Greenview can do better than providing pakistani links when neutral sources are so much abundant on net.

    Thank You

    Ouseph Yohanan

  12. Ajinkya said on December 6th, 2008 at 8:32pm #

    Some one above said we (pakistan) are open minded…
    This is truely contracdictory…

    Couple of days before there was one news published, 5 womens were buried alive because they said they want to choose their life partners.