Question One:
It has been announced that "Zardari" will take the oath of office as President of Pakistan today. Does this mean he has surpassed Prime Minister Raza Gilani in providing services to achieve American interests? If not, what led America to support his path to the presidency of Pakistan?
The Answer:
- Both men, "Zardari" and "Gilani," are firmly within the American grip. Both have declared their responsiveness to America and their cooperation on the most prominent issue surrounding American plans for regional hegemony, namely the so-called "War on Terror." The statements and positions of both men in this regard are publicly declared, both politically and on the ground. This is in addition to the fact that America holds the leadership of the army; it was behind the appointment of Kayani as army chief to succeed Musharraf.
- "Raza Gilani" is the stronger personality and more capable of implementing American plans. As for "Zardari," he is known for his overt corruption and weak personality; he was not even known in politics except as the husband of "Benazir Bhutto," rather than by his own name. This is by his own admission—that he did not appear in political work or enter the political sphere except because he was Bhutto's husband!
- As for why America supported him and brought him to the presidency, there are two reasons behind it:
First: To appease Britain and calm the factions loyal to it within the People's Party, given that Zardari is the husband of "Bhutto," who spent years "exiled" in Britain. During those years, Britain was able to gain her loyalty and, consequently, influence a number of figures within the People's Party. Since "Zardari" is her husband, this puts Britain at ease and gives them hope for facilitating their work in Pakistan, despite Zardari's declaration of cooperation with America and following its lead.
Second: There have been indications that Pakistan is moving toward concentrating power in the hands of the Prime Minister, thereby reducing the powers of the President. Consequently, the position of Prime Minister will be the most powerful, as will its holder.
Question Two:
What is behind this Four-Way Summit in Damascus? And how can Qatar attend when it differs from Syria in terms of political allegiance—since Qatar is for the British, and not for America like Syria and Turkey?
The Answer:
This summit is intended to create an atmosphere of de-escalation in the region through continued give-and-take in negotiations until the new American administration arrives. This is to ensure that no "hotspots" emerge that would disturb America while it is preoccupied with the elections.
Thus, America has deputized Sarkozy to fill the vacuum arising in the region due to America's preoccupation with the elections. Sarkozy, who has drawn very close to the Americans and played the hypocrite with them, is being rewarded by America by carrying out political tasks on its behalf.
Accordingly, the meeting that took place in Damascus between Assad, Sarkozy, Erdogan, and the Emir of Qatar aimed primarily at signaling to the Jewish state the necessity of continuing negotiations after Olmert's resignation. In this regard, the Syrian President said: "We have defined six points and placed them as a deposit with the Turkish side, waiting for Israel to hand over its points. Our response to the points raised by Israel will be positive, and we will move to direct negotiations; this transition will happen after the arrival of a new American administration."
Assad and Erdogan are agents of America, and the American administration uses them under French sponsorship to continue negotiations with the Jewish entity until the new administration takes over and makes the decision it deems necessary to achieve its hegemony and influence.
As for Qatar, it represents the British in the summit, and it accommodates American and Jewish demands in a way that makes it a desirable party in any negotiations, agreements, or reconciliations in the region.