FLOODING MILLIONS TO SAVE AIRBASE

There has been a story in the news for the last two months that

requires prompt clarification.  In the original version (Dawn newspaper of August

21), the Tori embankment was ordered breached causing the raging Indus and its

canals to flood Balochistan's green belt and destroy the homes and farms of a

half million and more, all because the Sindhi ministers wanted to protect their

own areas, which also happen to include the Shahzad air base.  The base has

been leased by us and apparently houses drones and other equipment

considered by us to be so militarily sensitive that Pakistanis are generally not

allowed in it.  In this particular version of the story, contractors allied with the

minister were also afraid a flood would expose their shoddy construction work at

the base.



There is another far more insidious version now doing the rounds.  In an

interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now, Feryal Ali-Gauhar, an actress,

author, a former UN Goodwill Abassador and a human rights activist, charges the

embankment was breached at the U.S.'s behest to save the base.  If she is

correct, and she claims to have investigated the story, then we are guilty of moral

turpitude of the kind witnessed in dictatorial regimes like the former Yugoslavia.  

Imagine flooding millions of people (according to Ali-Gauhar) destroying their

homes, farms, no doubt followed by some subsequent loss of life, for the sake of

military equipment and personnel that were possible to evacuate in the worst

circumstance.  The story has enraged the Pakistani public according to an article

in Common Dreams yesterday about losing the battle there to win hearts and

minds.  It surely deserves an investigation to ascertain the truth and respond

appropriately, or people will become convinced of the latter version and accuse

us of acting with impunity and criminal disregard of Pakistani life and property.



In other news this week, we are giving $2 billion in military aid to Pakistan over

five years.  Actually, if truth be known, we are not giving much as most of the

package is in the form of loans.  So, we lend money to an impoverished country

to buy equipment to fight their own people ... who have never directly attacked or

threatened us.  The logic escapes this observer.  Of course, as with any package

to a country larded with corrupt politicians (and I don't mean us -- for that one can

refer to another article) there will be plenty of skimming by them leaving the

taxpayers to face the debt in the future.  A country devastated with the worst

flooding in living memory, twenty million homeless, vast tracts of farm land

destroyed, and the government is busy making military purchases.  Of course the

politicians are delighted.



In the same week Saudi Arabia, a puny country in a population comparison with

Pakistan, bought $60 billion worth of advanced military equipment.  The deal

amplifies the paltry nature of the $400 million per year arrangement with Pakistan,

which, despite that fact, still upsets India.



The much touted civilian aid/loan package of $7.5 billion to Pakistan amounts to

about $40 per capita.  It wouldn't buy a meal at a Washington D.C. hotel and it's

spread over five years.  What was it we gave to the banks?  $2 trillion in Fed toxic

asset purchases with more to come, and $700 billion in direct loans -- costs a lot

to feed a banker!