Israeli Trace in the Death of Muhammad Zia ul-Haq
Another clue to the mystery of General Zia's death
An article by Barbara Crossett, the New York Times' South Asia bureau chief from 1988 to 1991, published in the latest issue of World Policy Journal, claims that former U.S. Ambassador to India John Gunther Dean suspects that General Zia ul-Haq (Pakistan's president from 1978 to 1988) was assassinated by the Israelis. This is quite interesting, but might not have gone beyond the many conspiracy theories that have emerged since Zia's death in a C-130 crash if the U.S. State Department had not ignored Dean's words and later fired him for mental illness.
"Hercules"
According to Crosett's article, "Reflections on Who Killed Zia?", Dean suspects that General Zia, his top commanders, US Ambassador to Pakistan Arnold Rafael and an American brigadier general were killed by the Israeli secret service Mossad because Tel Aviv was concerned about Pakistan's nuclear ambitions following General Zia's 1987 statement that Pakistan was "one step away from a bomb."
But when Dean expressed his views to the State Department and insisted on a thorough investigation of the Israeli-Indian axis, the department accused him of mental illness and removed him from his post, despite the fact that Dean was a distinguished diplomat who held more ambassadorial posts than most diplomats. Crosett says Dean, now 80 (2005 – P.G.), wants to shed the stigma of mental illness, is compiling his papers, and is willing to share his thoughts. Because of his views, he lost [free] health care and his security clearance and was forced to resign in 1988.
Why was the State Department so reluctant to take Dean's words seriously, given that the assessment came from its top diplomat, stationed at one of the most sensitive listening posts? Why did the State Department, perhaps fearing that Dean would not change his mind, decide to remove him from his post on psychiatric grounds? Is there irrefutable evidence? Why didn't the US government launch a thorough investigation into the incident, despite the fact that the crash killed an ambassador and a general? Why wasn't the FBI authorized to conduct a thorough investigation into the crash?
From Crosett's account, we know that when Dean was ambassador to India, various pro-Israel congressmen and other American politicians constantly asked him why he wasn't cooperating with Israel in combating Pakistan's nuclear program and demonizing Pakistan. Dean was also pressured to persuade Indians to take a more pro-Israel stance. Dean also publicly stated that the Israelis tried to assassinate him in 1980, when he was US ambassador to Lebanon, because he disagreed with Israeli policies.
As reports since General Zia's death indicate, conspiracy theories abound. General Zia was a man many wanted dead. Was he assassinated by Al-Zulfiqar, an underground terrorist organization created by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's son, Mir Murtaza Bhutto, to avenge his father's execution? (He was executed in 1978 as a result of a military coup in 1977. - P.G.) Or was he killed by someone within the Pakistani army? There is an allegation regarding this from General Zia's son, Ijaz-ul-Haq, who claimed that his father was assassinated by General Aslam Beg. (In fact, the government set up a commission named after Justice Shafi-ur-Rehman to investigate the matter. The commission's report was inconclusive, stating that the army did not cooperate with it and prevented many witnesses from testifying.)
Another theory centers on the Iranian-Shiite factor, due to General Zia's policy toward Deobandis and his close ties to Saudi Arabia. Yet another theory points to American involvement in the incident, as Zia betrayed the Americans by accelerating Pakistan's nuclear program and taking control of the mujahideen, whom the US helped deploy to Afghanistan to fight Soviet forces. Yet another theory accuses the Ahmadiyya community of orchestrating General Zia's death. At the time, and to this day, no mention was made of the Israelis.
Now we have Dean's story. We know that the Israelis have never hesitated to take illegal and preventative action on foreign soil whenever Tel Aviv deemed it vital to Israel's security. Israel, for example, attacked and destroyed Iraq's Osirak reactor on June 7, 1981. It is known to kidnap foreigners and bring them into the country; the Mossad is also notorious for its assassinations. Theoretically, the Israelis could have done this; at least they wouldn't have had any qualms if it meant strengthening Israel's security.
Regarding the State Department's cover-up, we have the incident involving the USS Liberty, which was attacked by Israeli boats in 1967. The attack, witnessed by an American reconnaissance aircraft, killed 34 American service members. However, the US has waged a massive cover-up. According to one source, a former naval lawyer (ret. Captain Ward Boston), who helped lead the military investigation into the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in 1967, testified in a sworn deposition that former President Lyndon Johnson and his Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ordered the investigation to conclude that the incident was an accident.
Now we have a lead: it will be interesting to see where it leads.
Daily Times. [Lahore].
4th of December 2005
4th of December 2005
Information