By IANS
Islamabad : The manner in which former prime minister Nawaz Sharif was bundled off to a second exile in Saudi Arabia earlier this month proved that Pakistan was the satellite of a US satellite state, a widely respected analyst contends.
“The regime (of President Pervez Musharraf) decided to honour an agreement between Sharif and the Saudis more than the decision of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. This does not reflect the behaviour of a sovereign country but one that depends on personal linkages with powerful external forces,” Ayesha Siddiqa wrote in Daily Times Monday.
“We now see that the Saudis wield significant influence in Pakistan. Gone are the days when people used to joke about Pakistan being the 52nd state of the US. Now it seems that we are a satellite state of an American satellite state,” she added.
Siddiqa’s latest book “Military Inc., Inside Pakistan’s Military Economy” has created a storm here with its expose of the manner in which the armed forces have spread their tentacles into every corner of the economy.
Sharif had gone into exile in Saudi Arabia in 2000, a year after Musharraf overthrew him in a bloodless coup. He dramatically returned here Sep 10 this year after the Supreme Court ruled he could do so but was sent packing after a four-hour drama at the Islamabad airport.
“Authorities in Pakistan consider the country’s political future secure after (Sharif’s) deportation, as his bid to enter the country was considered a rude disturbance that would have distracted people from the (power sharing) agreement being negotiated between (former prime minister) Benazir Bhutto and General Pervez Musharraf,” Siddiqa maintained.
According to the analyst, there were two explanations for Saudi Arabia’s involvement in Pakistan’s political affairs.
First, the Saudis were asked by the US, especially former president Bill Clinton, to “help” Sharif.
“It would have been unpleasant had Pakistan’s military assassinated another prime minister and Clinton was concerned about the security of a Pakistani leader who had been quite cooperative,” Siddiqa contended.
The reference was to the hanging of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, soon after General Zia-ul Haq deposed him in a military coup in 1977. It is widely believed that Haq bent the law in the process.
Second, the Saudis “were keen to come to the help of Sharif in return for the understanding he had developed with the Saudi ruling family during his tenure as the prime minister,” Siddiqa wrote, pointing out that a visiting Saudi royal was escorted around the Kahuta Research Laboratories soon after the nuclear tests in 1998, “a gesture which denoted the relative significance of the Saudi royal family”.
This influence is not something new, the analyst stated, adding: “The kingdom has traditionally played an influential role in Pakistan’s domestic policymaking starting from the days of (former military dictator) Ayub Khan.
“On Riyadh’s request, Ayub recalled Ahmadi officers serving in Saudi Arabia. Later, the influence increased and was critical in funding Pakistan’s military acquisitions during the Zia-ul Haq period.
“The Saudi connection was also prominent in funding the Jihad in Afghanistan, and later in staving off Iranian influence in Pakistan,” the analyst noted.
It was via these links that the Saudis have played a “significant role” in Pakistani politics and society for so long, the analyst maintained.
Thus, bringing Sharif to Saudi Arabia was a “kind gesture” to both Sharif and Musharraf, “who was relieved to get rid of a political problem”.
“Notwithstanding the aforementioned concerns of Clinton, the fact is that Islamabad could not really have afforded to kill another prime minister. But having Sharif around was adding to Musharraf’s problems.
“This is, in fact, the most interesting commentary on the political behaviour of Pakistan’s establishment. It chose not to confront the former prime minister legally (after the Supreme Court judgement) but to get rid of him,” the analyst noted.