Skip to main content

Musharraf 'not poodle of the US'

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has denied he is fighting terrorism on behalf of the US and Britain.

In an interview with the UK's Guardian newspaper, Gen Musharraf said he was "nobody's poodle".

Gen Musharraf condemned a US air strike targeting militants in Pakistan in January in which 18 people died as an "infringement of our sovereignty".

The president has faced increasing domestic criticism over his relationship with Washington.

There were widespread anti-US protests during a visit to Pakistan last month by US President George W Bush, while opposition leaders have accused Gen Musharraf of being too closely allied to the United States.

'Democratic belief'

Gen Musharraf, who is fighting militants in Baluchistan and along the Afghan border, said stamping out terrorism was in Pakistan's interests.

"When you are talking about fighting terrorism of extremism, I'm not doing that for the US or Britain. I'm doing it for Pakistan," he told the Guardian.

"It's not a question of being a poodle. I'm nobody's poodle. I have enough strength of my own to lead."

Gen Musharraf said he had a "lot of teeth" to stand up for himself, but said "sometimes the teeth do not have to be shown. Pragmatism is required in international relations".

The president, who seized power in a military coup in 1999 and has promised to hold free and fair elections next year, conceded it was "ironic that I'm sitting in uniform talking about democracy.

He said, "My popularity has gone down... but at this moment my country needs me.

"I've put a strong constitutional democratic system in place. That will throw up a successor. I'm a strong believer in democracy."


Popular posts from this blog

Iran: A Rummy Guide

To borrow a phrase used for Iraq, there are 'things we now know we don't know.'Back in June 2002, as the Bush administration started pushing hard for war with Iraq by focusing on fears of the unknown—terrorists and weapons of mass destruction—Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld explained that when it came to gathering intelligence on such threats, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Elaborating, Rumsfeld told a news conference: "There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know."Now there's a crisis brewing with Iran. And the same basic problem applies: what is known, what is suspected, what can be only guessed or imagined? Is danger clear and present or vague and distant? Washington is abuzz now, as it was four years ago, with "sources" talking of sanctions…