Posted on 07/28/2007 6:51:58 PM PDT by gandalftb
ISLAMABAD: Returning from UAE and Saudi Arabia, Musharraf will arrive holding a 'done deal' with Benazir Bhutto who, finally, has agreed to play ball with him.
The deal has been sealed between the two and the meeting in Abu Dhabi was actually a 'kind of signing ceremony'.
All details had already been thrashed out and agreed upon by the facilitators and this meeting was just a ritual. The report that there was a 'deadlock' is "rubbish," the sources claimed.
According to the deal, Musharraf will leave the post of Chief of Army Staff by the year-end to give the countrymen a "New Year gift", a close Musharraf aide, who is privy to the deal process, said.
The uniform is not an issue for Benazir Bhutto, whose party will support Musharraf's re-election as president whilst he is still the COAS. After his re-election he will take off his uniform. According to the understanding, Musharraf will be re-elected by the sitting assemblies.
"The quid pro quo is allowing her to be a third-time prime minister by striking down the current legislation that prohibits a third term," said a top-level source.
At least two more four star generals will bid adieu to the Army making way for a new chief of Army staff to take over the reins.
In addition to that, Benazir will also have a mutually agreed caretaker prime minister and so-called free and fair elections by a neutral election commissioner.
The first step that Musharraf took to meet Benazir's demand was the closure of the NAB wing dealing with Benazir's cases. At that time, Benazir had agreed even to accept Musharraf in uniform.
Musharraf, whose writ has been much weakened, had no other way but to nod. Hence, the U-turn to Abu Dhabi to meet a person whom he never wanted to return to Pakistan.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenews.jang.com.pk ...
hmmm.. very bizare.
from my own observations from afar Pakistan is a very different country than it was 10 years ago... will they accept her as PM again?
How will this play out? I’m afraid I don’t know enough to understand the possible ramifications.
RR, I think you DO understand the ramifications.
Not a pretty thought.
You know what this might be potential good news or bad news don’t know WHICH YET
Hmm, I didn’t know much about this before now, but here’s a quote from Wikipedia:
Arthur Herman, a U.S. historian, in a controversial letter published in The Wall Street Journal on 14 June 2007, in response to a recent article by Ms. Bhutto highly critical of the president and his policies[32], has described her as “One of the most incompetent leaders in the history of South Asia”, and asserted that she and other elites in Pakistan hate Musharraf because he is a muhajir, the son of one of millions of Indian Muslims who fled to Pakistan during partition in 1947[33]. Herman claimed, “Although it was muhajirs who agitated for the creation of Pakistan in the first place, many native Pakistanis view them with contempt and treat them as third-class citizens.”
However, as of mid-2007, The US is discreetly pushing for a deal in which Musharraf would remain as president but step down as military head, and either Bhutto or one of her nominees would become prime minister.[34]
So, the US (does this mean the Bush administration?) thinks that this deal is in our best interest? This is...interesting indeed.
>>hmmm.. very bizare.
from my own observations from afar Pakistan is a very different country than it was 10 years ago... will they accept her as PM again?<<
Maybe Musharuff is looking to divert some of the fire.
Yep, you’re probably right. And my thoughts are most definitely not pretty.
I wish we lived in less “interesting times”. But, IMHO, every day is a beautiful gift from God......and we should savor each one.
BIG DITTO RR.
Hmmm.... I’m frankly surprised Benazir Bhutto is still a major player in Pakastani politics. Interesting times to be sure.
Hmmm.... I’m frankly surprised Benazir Bhutto is still a major player in Pakastani politics. Interesting times to be sure.
I believe that the Bush administration has been pushing for this deal.
I believe that the Bush administration has been pushing for this deal.
That doesn't exactly clear anything up, FreeReign.
Weekly Pulse in its report quoting sources says that Mr Boucher`s meeting with Bhutto, which is not the first one, was very successful, and that he appeared to be confident of her commitment towards politically contributing to the goal of securing an alliance of moderate and progressive forces in the country.
While the underlying objective behind recent visit by US Deputy Secretary of State Jon Negroponte and Under Secretary of State Richard Boucher was the same, its principal focus appears to be ensuing domestic political stability and continuity of policy in an election year in the country, the report said.
An unstable Pakistan is the last thing Washington would wish to happen amid mounting regional challenges vis-à-vis the war on terrorism. As the country prepares for parliamentary and presidential elections in 2007, the United States would wish to have a regime where all of the moderate political figures and forces could coalesce as a counterpoise to religious extremist elements and their terrorist manifestations at home and abroad.
That doesn't exactly clear anything up, FreeReign.
See post #15.
Hmmm, try doing a google search on "Arthur Herman". The first entry I found was titled, "Why Arthur Herman is Wrong!"
LOL!
This coalition greatly strengthens the central government and will likely prevent civil war.
The Taliban and AQ are definately going to be very unhappy about this.
The NW tribal areas have never been governed by Pakistan but this coalition could collect enough political will to either invade or make them autonomous and independent, either way is good for us.
That doesn't exactly clear anything up, FreeReign.
See post #15.
While that may explain the how and why of this policy shift, it offers no assurance as to whether it is wise.
This is the same Bush Administration and US State Department that believes accomodating and rewarding Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah, etc. and forcing Israel to accept a Palestinian state will bring about "stability" and "peace".
It is also the same Bush Administration and US State Department that believes they can negotiate the Iranian regime into giving up their nuclear weapons. Their track record in these sorts of matters does not inspire confidence.
OHHH but Pakstien is totally different than 10 years ago I hope this might be good news for that war torn country
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.