Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pakistani in US support coup

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Pakistani in US support coup

    Most Pakistanis In US Back Army Action
    "It does not matter what Clinton or others say about what has happened in
    Pakistan," says Azeem Siddiqui, an editor of Pakistan, the weekly Urdu
    language newspaper published here. "Most of Pakistanis here are happy
    with the action of the army. I am sure it is the same situation in Pakistan."

    He says the number of telephone calls his office has received is an
    indication of the support for the army action. He did not have the numbers.
    "Within a few hours dozens of people have called," he says.

    "Many people look at it as something that was unavoidable," he continues.
    "Nawaz Sharief asked for it. What the army has done is a reaction to his
    action, his efforts to destroy democracy, and his betrayal of people's
    sacrifice in Kargil.

    "Come to the mosques on Friday," he adds. "You will see and hear how
    much support there is for the army."

    He knows several high profile Congressmen want to make sure that arms
    embargo against Pakistan is not lifted. He says Pakistanis are least worried
    whether their country gets arms from America. "We have survived all kinds
    of embargoes," he says with a sigh.

    Across New York's Jackson Heights, the home for hundreds of Pakistani
    businesses, and in pockets of New Jersey, many people welcomed the
    army action in the name of Allah and Kargil; there are an estimated 70,000
    Pakistanis in and around New York city.

    Siddique says he is somewhat heartened to read that America has not
    called the army action a coup.

    News agencies in Washington quoted a state department official saying the
    United States called for a restoration of Pakistan's democracy, but refused
    to term the military ouster of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharief as a "coup".

    "We want to see the earliest possible restoration of democracy in
    Pakistan," a senior state department official said, adding however that the
    country's constitution was open to interpretation and leaving open the
    possibility that Washington might support the next government.

    "We are not in a position to support extra-constitutional action," the official
    said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "Having said that, the
    circumstances of the current confrontation are not yet clear...."

    Those who were gingerly expressing their dislike for the army action,
    blamed Bill Clinton for forcing Sharief to order "the freedom fighters" off
    from Kargil.

    "If Clinton had not intervened, there would not have been so much of bad
    blood between the army and Sharief," says a student who asked for
    anonymity. "Clinton asked too much from Sharief, but gave him nothing in
    return. Had America offered big financial aid, Sharief could have saved
    face. Bill Clinton brought army rule in Pakistan," he says.

    He says many Pakistanis will feel sad that once again their country has
    come under military rule. "Many Americans think we cannot be ruled by
    civilian government, we cannot have democracy," he continues. "But it is
    better for a few months to have a clean government led by the army than a
    so-called democratically-elected government which is corrupt and
    arrogant."

    He pauses for a moment. "But like many other Pakistanis, I too hope that
    democracy returns soon, and new leaders emerge."

    Some Pakistani businessmen in Chicago and New York said America had
    no moral strength to demand democracy in Pakistan.

    "We too want democracy in Pakistan," asserts one businessman who says
    he has been long been disenchanted with Sharief and Bhutto -- and with
    American attitude towards Pakistan. "First there should be democracy in
    India-occupied Kashmir," he says. "America forced Sharif to call off
    freedom fighters from Kargil but what has America done to help Muslims
    in India-occupied Kashmir?

    They were clearly upset that several prominent Congressmen including
    Benjamin Gilman, chairman of the House International Relations
    Committee, and Sherrod Brown, member, HIRC and co-founder,
    Congressional Caucus on India, had come out strongly against the military
    coup in Pakistan.

    "These congressmen always do what the Indian government wants them to
    do," said cabbie Mohammad Khan.

    In a press release issued yesterday, Gilman had said: "Today's news
    regarding Pakistan only reinforces my view that the Congress should not
    provide authority to the President that allows for the resumption of military
    assistance to Pakistan. The Fiscal Year 2000 Defense Appropriations
    conference report should be modified to delete this language before the
    House considers the measure".

    Brown also asked for the current embargo on US arms sales to Pakistan
    be retained. Benazir Bhutto's supporters said while they did not want to
    justify the coup, they felt Sharief had been usurping power.

    "If the army decides to hold elections, and makes sure that there is no
    corruption or force during the voting, it will be good for Pakistan," said
    grocery store owner Akbar Khan.

    Many of Sharief's supporters refused to speak.

    "We all have friends and relatives in Pakistan," said one. "We are going to
    wait and see what will happen in the next few days."

    A few who spoke did so on the condition their names or occupations
    would not be revealed.

    "Benazir is happy, some in India must be happy to see Pakistan in a
    difficult position," said one Sharief supporter. "But let them not forget that if
    things become too difficult in Pakistan, there could be thousands more
    Kargils."
Working...
X