Musharraf Resigns – Moon of Alabama

August 18, 2008

Musharraf Resigns

The President of Pakistan former general Musharraf resigned:

“Whether I win or lose the impeachment, the nation will lose,” he said, adding that he was not prepared to put the office of the presidency through the impeachment process.

It is very likely that Musharraf would have lost the impeachment procedure.

Until now Musharraf had promised to fight for his job, But behind the scene there were negotiation about giving him immunity if he steps down. The PML-N party of Nawaz Sharif was against granting immunity while the PPP party of Bhutto husband Asif Ali Zardari preferred this. Zardari, also named Mr. Ten-Percent for the bribes he took during the rule of his now deceased wife Benazir Bhutto, relies himself on a shaky immunity granted for his former deeds.

The current deal was furthered by the Saudi intelligence chief Muqrin bin Abdul Aziz who arrived in Islamabad two days ago. Nawaz Sharif is a Saudi client who spend his time as an exile in Saudi Arabia. He hates Musharraf who as a army chief overthrew the government when Nawaz was Prime Minister. To push him towards granting immunity now, the Saudis threatend to take away the $5 billion per year oil subsidies for Pakistan. That would have worsened the already very bad economic situation in Pakistan.

It is not clear who will follow Musharraf as president. It is rumored that the former chief justice Iftikhar Mohammad Choudhry who was kicked out by Musharraf and for who’s reinstatement Nawaz Sharif was fighting will be offered the job. That would keep him away from a position where he could lift the immunity of Musharraf and Zardari.

While the immediate situation will be again unruly the longer term prospects for Pakistan are certainly better without Musharraf.

Posted by b on August 18, 2008 at 10:11 UTC | Permalink

Comments

I agree with Anatol Lieven’s analysis: Musharraf’s exit will not end Pakistan’s woe

The tragedy of Mr Musharraf is thus that his administration has been destroyed by factors largely beyond his control – notably the relationship with the US – although some of his decisions may have made them worse. The tragedy of Pakistan is that these factors now apply to all Pakistani governments.
…
His hasty decision last year to dismiss most of the Supreme Court precipitated the events leading to his fall from power.
Sooner or later, the administration would have fallen anyway, for the same reasons that destroy all Pakistani governments. They cannot satisfy the demands of the masses for higher living standards, if only because these are always devoured by population growth. And they cannot satisfy the demand of the political elites for patronage because there is not enough to go round. The state and the military cannot govern without the elites because there is no basis in ideology or society for the creation of a new mass political movement. In the end, elite and mass discontent unite in unstoppable protest.
…
Increasing insurgency by Pakistani Taliban in Pakistan itself means there is a chance of a tougher response from the military and some political parties. Strong public (and military) sympathy for the Afghan “resistance”, however, makes action against the Afghan Taliban a different matter. Moreover, the existence of not only civilian rule but a coalition government means the political parties and the military all have both temptations and opportunities to play pass the parcel with this strategy.
The question therefore is how tight the vice will get in years to come. Pakistan is much stronger than it looks, and is still very far from collapse. But if the US ever increases the pressure radically through a ground invasion of Pakistan’s tribal areas, parts of the Pakistani state and army may shatter into sharp and dangerous fragments.

Posted by: b | Aug 18 2008 12:33 utc | 1

From the threatened link in b’s post:

…
No country exerts greater influence than Saudi Arabia on Pakistan, which is frequently seen as a vassal state of the House of Saud, and the appearance on the scene of Prince Muqrin, acting as a satrap, is seen as a potentially decisive development in the crisis.

Wow. What I learn at MoA. Very informative link – thanks. Here’s more:

…
Ironically, it was Prince Muqrin who, in 2000, was sent to collect Mr Musharraf’s political enemy, Nawaz Sharif, and cart him off to seven years of enforced exile in Saudi Arabia after he was deposed in the 1999 military coup. Saudi Arabia is now being suggested as a possible home in exile for the former military dictator.
…
With Prince Muqrin having held talks with the main players wielding the oil subsidy threat, there was renewed optimism Mr Sharif could be persuaded to back down and allow a deal to be done that allowed Mr Musharraf the “exit with dignity” the 600,000-strong Pakistan army – as well as the Saudis – are demanding for him.

Dignity, oh yes, by all means. W can well take note of Mush’s demands:

… Musharraf … apparently holding out for an act of parliament that would not only grant him full immunity from prosecution but also validate all acts committed by him since he overthrew Mr Sharif and seized power in the 1999 coup d’etat. … he is demanding a personal indemnity from former chief justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, whom he sacked last year.
…
Musharraf wants to stay in Pakistan and live in his farmhouse … playing golf and tennis with his mates … enjoy[ing] parties and the company of friends in Islamabad’s social circuit …

Should Mush end up in SA in plush digs next to a golf course, what is the possibility that the masses back in Pakistan will be concerned with protecting his “dignity”. Will they be aware of the threat of loss of oil subsidies or push for accountability for Mush’s crimes?

Posted by: Hamburger | Aug 18 2008 12:36 utc | 2

@Hamburger – what is little talked about and you may not know of the Saudi-Pakistan relation is that the Saudis financed the development of the Pakistani nukes (after Saddam couldn’t get it done.) The ‘Islamic bomb’ is owned by Saudi Arabia and I bet some of those warheads made in Pakistan are actually stored in Saudi Arabia.
The Saudis also have medium range ballistic missiles CSS-2 bought from China in the 80s with 4,000 pound possible payload and a range of 2,500 km (1,500 miles). They also have nuke capable planes, but rockets make more sense to use.
The Saudis could nuke Tel Aviv without much hassle any day.
Iran of course can not do this. It has neither the nuclear warheads, nor a missile with sufficient range. That’s why the whole ‘Iran nukes’ screaming of the Israelis is so totally lunatic.
The lunatic Islamists are the Pakistani Dehobandi and their Wahabbi brothers in Saudi Arabia. The Shia folks in Iran are very sane folks by any comparison.

Posted by: b | Aug 18 2008 14:36 utc | 3

inner city press

Musharraf’s UN press conference appeared stacked with ringers, who asked questions along the line of, “Why are you so unfairly criticized in the Western media, and what can you do about it?” In gleeful response, Musharraf said that tribal elders are people of their word, who recently captured 10 Taliban. No one asked about nuclear proliferation, much less about military dictatorship. There were softball questions about whom Musharraf would like as next Secretary-General, and whether he thought the Pope’s comments on Islam were outrageous (he did). He blamed the situation in Afghanistan on Hamid Karzai, stating that Mullah Omar, head of the Taliban, still lives in Kandahar. He said again and again, we have not made peace with the Taliban. That seemed to be the point of the press conference.

Posted by: b real | Aug 18 2008 14:42 utc | 4

as i’ve sd often enough – everything the empire touches turns into shit
(as an aside to you b – the living buddha – the dalai lama is visiting my city today – the quiet summer city awkes a little)

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Aug 18 2008 16:05 utc | 5

Q: Sen. McCain, there is strong evidence that our ally, Saudi Arabia, has the nuclear capability to bomb Israel. What is your view? Should the US take military action against SA?
McC: …. uh ….

Posted by: Hamburger | Aug 18 2008 16:17 utc | 6

Buchanan: McCain ‘Will Make Cheney Look Like Gandhi’
[are we ot?]

Posted by: beq | Aug 18 2008 17:01 utc | 7

I never liked Musharraf much–but he’s increasingly looking like Yugoslav Prince Paul in 1941. Like Yugoslavia under Paul, Pakistan under Musharraft made difficult bargains to keep itself intact (when every thread in its body politic was pulling it apart)–but these bargains were horribly unpopular with audiences both domestic and foreign…and ultimately brought him down. Of course, a breakdown of Pakistan poses far greater danger than that of old (pre-Tito) Yugoslavia, but is there any way to stop the process?

Posted by: kao_hsien_chih | Aug 19 2008 0:15 utc | 8

Yeah well Mush’s departure which was about 90% until the weekend when Prince Muqrin showed up when it became 99%, although it doesn’t necessarily bode well for the future of Pakistan. He had to go but the manner he left is troubling.
Even though his ouster was 99% likelihood by Sunday night the speed of the exit surprised both an ignorant Pakistan watcher such as myself and even the well connected Tariq Ali whose Musharraf will not go gentle into that golf course article I had been trying to work into a piece for a MoA distracted by the Caucasus. (note to self old age is slowing ya down faster man faster ).
So what did speed it all up? Musharraf left quickly with none of the usual stubborn as a mule attitude that has been pissing off Pakistanis for so long. Last night on TV after the fact commentators alluded to amerika’s decision to look elsewhere several months ago.
One BBC talking point was that amerika’s foreign policy analysts had convinced the whitehouse/legislature/intelligence nexus that Musharraf was ‘non-viable’ and they had better start shopping around for a viable alternative. That is crediting a band of career miscalculators with getting one correct for a change. It may be true although any browse through the britpress (who with a long established connection to Pakistan and a stable full of ex-pat Pakistani commentators are meant to be the most accurate on this country) fails to show anyone insinuating that Musharraf’s resignation was expedited by amerika finding a new agent of influence.
That probably means nothing but I can’t help but feel that Musharraf’s amerikan owners wouldn’t have put him out to pasture unless they had a replacement.
Who could that be? Well one would have to say Bhutto widower Asif Ali Zardari is the most likely candidate. trouble with that selection is that as Tariq points out Zardari is also considered about as welcome as a fart in an elevator by the Pakistani people.
Even within the PPP where he was tolerated during Bhutto’s lifetime as he was Benazir’s official consort, and where he still has immense power, the grass roots support has no liking for him. After all it was his excesses, his greed that got the beloved Benazir into the shit in the first place.
Ordinary Pakistani punters are also aware that amerika has Zardari by the balls. The corruption cases are still hanging over his head should he ever be forced to depart Pakistan and staying in Pakistan is extremely problematic unless former Chief Justice Chaudry can be persuaded/bribed to take the now-knackered (as in neutered) President gig. The theory is that as Chief Justice he may find Zardari’s pardon doesn’t cover it all.
Is Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry that political equivalent of rocking horse shit, an honest man or is he merely the willing avatar of Nawaz Sharif?
Zardari is nearly as determined to prevent Chaudry’s reappointment as Chief Justice as Musharraf was. The latter always claimed that his opposition was because Chaudry refused to follow Musharraf’s unilateral constitutional amendments which had permitted Musharraf to run for prez while still head of the army then continue as president for more terms. Zardari has cast aspersions on Chaudry’s objectivity, alleging he is the puppet of Pakistan Muslim League boss and former president Nawaz Sharif without being too specific.
After a quick hunt around I didn’t find too much linking Chaudry to Nawaz Sharif. Maybe that was who appointed him as a judge but ironically it was Musharraf who made him Chief Justice in 1999.
If he is an honest man Zardari’s reluctance is understandable. Zardari’s prosecution might resurface if it transpired that the ‘pardon’ was granted by a president who had to constitutional entitlement to be prez.
I suppose in a way impeachment assumes that the person being impeached is legitimately appointed president. That brings us to the next oft ignored issue.
What exactly was Musharraf being impeached for?
According to this BBC article of 9th August ” One official said that the list of violations of the constitution and examples of the president’s misconduct would extend to more than 100 pages.” However there is no mention of what those 100 pages would contain.
By the 17th August Fox News was telling readers:

On Sunday, a committee of coalition officials agreed on a list of impeachment charges against the president, Information Minister Sherry Rehman said.
Rehman provided no details of the charges, which will now go to coalition leaders for a final decision on launching impeachment proceedings in Parliament.

But Fox chose not to dig any deeper to see what was on the list of charges. Strange really since the neo-con mouthpiece is usually unrelenting in it’s detail of Pakistan’s alleged sins.
Oh well if the USuk media won’t tell us maybe the Indian english language media will.
The Hindustan Times of 9th August told us “The Pakistani government has summoned the National Assembly, the lower house of parliament, to meet Monday evening to initiate the impeachment process against President Pervez Musharraf, charging him with abrogating the constitution and damaging the country’s democratic processes.”
But it didn’t list the impeachment offenses either but it did provide a link to Musharraf “misappropriated” US aid worth $700 mn.

Our grand old Musharraf has not been passing on all the $1 billion a year that the Americans have been giving for the armed forces. The army has been getting $250 million to 300 million, reimbursement for what they do, but where’s the rest?
“They claim it’s been going in budget support but that’s not the answer. We’re talking about $700 million a year missing. The rest has been taken by ‘Mush’ for some scheme or other and we’ve got to find it,” 54-year-old Zardari told the The Sunday Times.

True the allegation was made by Zardari and apparently (according to Tariq Ali) Zardari accusing Musharraf of corruption did cause the Pakistan legislature to explode in laughter. Pot calling the kettle black etc.
There must be substance to the charge that Musharraf was ‘skimming’ (though $700 million is more like slurping than skimming) US AID funds.
This is probably the best indication of why amerikan pols have decided not to stand up for Musharraf too loudly.
I’m no expert on the arcane rules that amerika uses for securing puppet services but I do seem to remember that if a foreign puppet gets caught it can have considerable legal consequences for all amerikans involved in the puppet’s purchase.
$700 million going up the sleeve of a nuclear powered Muslim, even if that Muslim is allegedly tame, must be bound to make a big mob of washington pols and the assiduous officials who enabled the payments, look awfully bad.
Legal proceedings about such things, especially conducted in a forum free from a heap of amerikan political meddling, also have the tendency to unravel in spectacularly unexpected ways.
Zardari’s comments may have caused mirth in Pakistan but would have had the opposite effect in washington. The amerikans probably felt that the situation was manageable until that point. After all Nawaz Sharif doesn’t have sufficient numbers to get an impeachment on his own and the amerikans probably felt that Zardari would want circumspection when it came to accusing anyone of corruption. Lol they got that wrong!
That statement was by Zardari was made on the 10th of august and it was after that the USuk media started regarding Musharraf’s presidency as a lost cause.
I have no hope that Musharraf will be brought to account in a Pakistani Court for his corruption much less his treason, but it would be nice. I’m sure the deals have been done.
Still since BushCo always claimed that Musharraf may have been a dictator but at least he was an honest dictator, getting the bespectacled quisling for corruption would be embarrassing for the shit licking, incorrigible, corrupt and murdering neo-con assholes.
There has also been a suggestion that Musharraf be tried for his willingness to allow amerika and it’s british and israeli allies to murder Pakistanis. That would be great to see also but as I said the odds of that happening must be slim.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Aug 19 2008 0:50 utc | 9

Thanks Debs –
Funny – the NYT reporting from Islamabad does not have even one word about Saudi manipulation on the issue.
It also blames the current coalition of not fighting the Taliban when indeed over 500 have died in those fights in the tribal areas and especially the Swat valley over the last month (i.e. under the coalition rule). Also no mention of the economic problems and that the stock market in Islamabad had a record rally after Musharraf stepped down. Why do they even have a reporter in Islamabad?

Posted by: b | Aug 19 2008 5:09 utc | 10

as usual another bush official on the take

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Aug 19 2008 19:18 utc | 11

Back to Main