Another "victory" for the U.S. Another shill.
New York Times
November 28, 2007
Musharraf Quits Pakistani Army Post
By CARLOTTA GALL
LAHORE, Pakistan, Nov. 28 — President Pervez Musharraf resigned his military post as chief of army staff today, handing over the baton of command to his successor in a ceremony at Pakistan’s army headquarters and ending his eight years of military rule. He remains president and will be sworn in to a new five-year term in the capital on Thursday, but as a civilian president his grip on power is expected to loosen in coming months.
Gen. Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, 55, the vice chief of army staff, becomes the chief of army staff, replacing Mr. Musharraf. General Kayani is a former head of Inter-Services Intelligence, Pakistan’s main intelligence agency, and a graduate of the Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas. He has played a prominent role in cooperating with the United States in the fight against terrorism in Pakistan and is expected to continue that policy.
Mr. Musharraf had come under growing pressure internationally and from his own disenchanted public to relinquish his military post, and his grip on political power will be significantly loosened without the uniform. While the military remains loyal to him, General Kayani is understood to want to remove the army from the forefront of politics and concentrate on military concerns.
Mr. Musharraf, who imposed emergency rule on the country on Nov. 3, imprisoning political opponents, lawyers and judges and closing down television stations, will continue to chair the national security council as a civilian president and has given himself added powers under recent amendments.
After 46 years in the army, Mr. Musharraf admitted it was wrenching to give up his military role. “I am sad to leave the army which has been like a family to me,” he said in an emotional speech before Pakistani government and military officials and their wives gathered on a parade ground in the garrison city of Rawalpindi, south of the capital, Islamabad. “Although I am taking off the uniform the army will always be in heart.”
He praised the army for coming forward for the nation in years of hardship and national calamities and commended General Kayani as an excellent commander who he had known for 20 years.
Pakistan’s top officials said on Monday that after giving up his uniform Mr. Musharraf would be sworn in as a civilian president in Islamabad on Thursday. That would be a belated, though significant, concession to both his political opposition here and supporters in the Bush administration who have demanded it as an important step toward restoring civilian rule.
Mr. Musharraf conducted what the Pakistani military said was a round of farewell calls to the country’s armed forces on Tuesday.
He visited the Joint Chief of Staff headquarters, where he was received by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, Gen. Tariq Majeed, the military said in a statement. Later, he visited the naval headquarters and the air headquarters.
However, Mr. Musharraf’s opponents have made clear that giving up his military role may not be enough to appease his critics.
Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, who has returned to Pakistan after an eight-year absence to make a challenge in parliamentary elections scheduled for January, condemned Mr. Musharraf for imposing emergency rule.
Mr. Sharif said he would not serve as prime minister under a Musharraf presidency, demanded an end to the state of emergency and called for the reinstatement of fired Supreme Court justices.
Mr. Sharif was tossed out of power by Mr. Musharraf in a 1999 coup. Such a forceful stand contrasts in many respects to Mr. Sharif’s own time as prime minister. He is best remembered here and in Washington as the leader who brought the world a nuclear Pakistan, flirted with war with India and forged strong ties with religious conservatives. His tenure was marred by charges of rampant corruption and by confrontations with the courts and the media as well.
Mr. Sharif’s return to Pakistan now is likely to stir deep unease in the Bush administration, which has stood with Mr. Musharraf as its best bet in the fight against terrorism, said Daniel Markey, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who until recently dealt with Pakistan issues at the State Department.
Nonetheless, Washington appears to have taken a back seat, or at least a stance of resignation at the inevitable, as the Saudis, perhaps Pakistan’s most revered ally, engineered the return of Mr. Sharif, Mr. Markey said.
Not least, Mr. Sharif’s return complicates the Bush administration’s support for Benazir Bhutto, another former prime minister and opposition leader, whom Washington has favored as a more secular politician, and a more certain partner against Islamic extremists.
Officials in Washington and London promoted her return from exile in October as a way to put a friendlier face on General Musharraf’s increasingly unpopular military regime.
While Ms. Bhutto and Mr. Sharif are known to detest the general, they detest each other as well. Whether they can form a cohesive opposition against Mr. Musharraf before parliamentary elections set for Jan. 8 is far from clear.
While Mr. Sharif said he would not take part in the elections unless the emergency rule was lifted, he went ahead to meet the Monday deadline for filing nominating papers for the election.
Carlotta Gall reported from Lahore. Jane Perlez contributed reporting from Islamabad. Graham Bowley contributed reporting from New York.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/world/asia/28cnd-pakistan.html?hp
"State of Emergency" in Pakistan - Musharraf declares martial law
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Reza wrote:Sonic Youth wrote:Reza wrote:Let's just hope things come back to ''normal'' although (and I don't want to sound like somebody who wishes to place the blame on just anybody) there is no doubt that this mess is all controlled by the U.S. of A. I am ashamed to say that we are puppets and have been for a long time controlled by your Government.
And what benefit would it be to the U.S. to create nation-wide repression leading to an Islamic revolution? Didn't help us with Iran all that much, did it? This mess is all controlled by a dictator trying to keep power.
Otherwise, glad to see you're safe. Stay out of trouble.
The initial mess is always created by your Government - the introduction and encoragement of Talibans in Afghanistan and Pakistan (fighting against USSR in the early days) and Musharraf given carte blanche because he suits the needs of the USA in the fight against ''terrorism''.
Well things never go according to plan do they? The countries and their innocent citizens (the common man who never benefit in any case) are left to clean up and deal with all the crap that was put into place by ''great political minds'' in your country.
Each event that takes place has to be viewed keeping in mind the last 20 years or so of each country's history. It is a chain reaction always. Please look at the starting point to see what has resulted in the mess today.
As I drove to work today my children got to see fences and barricades of barbed wire everywhere with the army and police in full fighting regalia - armed to their teeth - standing in every corner of Islamabad. Nice sight on their way to school!
I don't disagree with anything you've said, Reza. You're 100% right. But having your power enhanced by American arms, money and technology sharing isn't necessarily the same as being someone's puppet, which suggests that he's directly taking orders from the U.S. government. That's how I read your initial comment, anyway.
Hang in there.
Edited By Sonic Youth on 1195394192
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
U.S. secretly helps Pakistan guard nuclear arms
By David E. Sanger and William J. Broad
New York Times
Saturday, November 17, 2007
WASHINGTON: Over the past six years, the Bush administration has spent almost $100 million so far on a highly classified program to help General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's president, secure his country's nuclear weapons, according to current and former senior administration officials.
But with the future of that country's leadership in doubt, debate is intensifying about whether Washington has done enough to help protect the warheads and laboratories, and whether Pakistan's reluctance to reveal critical details about its arsenal has undercut the effectiveness of the continuing security effort.
The aid, buried in secret portions of the U.S. budget, paid for the training of Pakistani personnel in the United States and the construction of a nuclear security training center in Pakistan, a facility that American officials say is nowhere near completion, even though it was supposed to be in operation this year.
A raft of equipment — from helicopters to night-vision goggles to nuclear detection equipment — was given to Pakistan to help secure its nuclear material, its warheads, and the laboratories that were the site of the worst known case of nuclear proliferation in the atomic age.
While American officials say that they believe the arsenal is safe at the moment, and that they take at face value Pakistani assurances that security is vastly improved, in many cases the Pakistani government has been reluctant to show American officials how or where the gear is actually used.
That is because the Pakistanis do not want to reveal the locations of their weapons or the amount or type of new bomb-grade fuel the country is now producing.
The American program was created after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when the Bush administration debated whether to share with Pakistan one of the crown jewels of American nuclear protection technology, known as "permissive action links," or PALS, a system used to keep a weapon from detonating without proper codes and authorizations.
In the end, despite past U.S. aid to France and Russia on delicate points of nuclear security, the administration decided that it could not share the system with the Pakistanis because of legal restrictions.
In addition, the Pakistanis were suspicious that any American-made technology in their warheads could include a secret "kill switch," enabling the Americans to turn off their weapons.
While many nuclear experts in the U.S. government favored offering the PALS system because they considered Pakistan's arsenal among the world's most vulnerable to terrorist groups, some administration officials feared that sharing the technology would teach Pakistan too much about American weaponry. The same concern kept the Clinton administration from sharing the technology with China in the early 1990s.
The New York Times has known details of the secret program for more than three years, based on interviews with a range of American officials and nuclear experts, some of whom were concerned that Pakistan's arsenal remained vulnerable. The newspaper agreed to delay publication of the article after considering a request from the Bush administration, which argued that premature disclosure could hurt the effort to secure the weapons.
Since then, some elements of the program have been discussed in the Pakistani news media and in a presentation late last year by the leader of Pakistan's nuclear safety effort, Lieutenant General Khalid Kidwai, who acknowledged receiving "international" help as he sought to assure Washington that all of the holes in Pakistan's nuclear security infrastructure had been sealed.
The Times told the administration last week that it was reopening its examination of the program in light of those disclosures and the current instability in Pakistan. Early this week, the White House withdrew its request that publication be withheld, though it was unwilling to discuss details of the program.
The secret program was designed by the Energy Department and the State Department, and it drew heavily from the effort over the past decade to secure nuclear weapons, stockpiles and materials in Russia and other former Soviet states. Much of the money for Pakistan was spent on physical security, like fencing and surveillance systems, and equipment for tracking nuclear material if it left secure areas.
But while Pakistan is formally considered a "major non-NATO ally," the program has been hindered by a deep suspicion among Pakistan's military that the secret goal of the United States was to gather intelligence about how to locate and, if necessary, disable Pakistan's arsenal, which is the pride of the country.
"Everything has taken far longer than it should," a former official involved in the program said in a recent interview, "and you are never sure what you really accomplished."
In recent days, American officials have expressed confidence that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is well secured. "I don't see any indication right now that security of those weapons is in jeopardy, but clearly we are very watchful, as we should be," Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Pentagon news conference on Thursday.
Mullen's carefully chosen words, a senior administration official said, were based on two separate intelligence assessments issued this month that had been summarized in briefings to Bush. Both concluded that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal was safe under current conditions, and one also looked at laboratories and came to the same conclusion.
Still, the Pakistani government's reluctance to release information has limited efforts to assess the situation. In particular, some American experts say they have less ability to look into the nuclear laboratories where highly enriched uranium is produced — including the laboratory named for Abdul Qadeer Khan, the man who sold Pakistan's nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya.
So far, the amount the United States has spent on the classified nuclear security program, less than $100 million, amounts to slightly less than one percent of the roughly $10 billion in known American aid to Pakistan since the Sept. 11 attacks. Most of that money has gone for assistance in counterterrorism activities against the Taliban and Al Qaeda....
....Now that concern about Musharraf's ability to remain in power has been rekindled, so has the debate inside and outside the Bush administration about how much the program accomplished, and what it left unaccomplished. A second phase of the program, which would provide more equipment, helicopters and safety devices, is already being discussed in the administration, but its dimensions have not been determined.
Harold Agnew, a former director of the Los Alamos weapons laboratory, which designed most of the United States' nuclear arms, argued that recent U.S. reluctance to share warhead security technology was making the world more dangerous.
"Lawyers say it's classified," Agnew said in an interview. "That's nonsense. We should share this technology. Anybody who joins the club should be helped to get this."
"Whether it's India or Pakistan or China or Iran," he added, "the most important thing is that you want to make sure there is no unauthorized use. You want to make sure that the guys who have their hands on the weapons can't use them without proper authorization."
In the past, officials say, the United States has shared ideas — but not technologies — about how to make the safeguards that lie at the heart of American weapons security. The system hinges on what is essentially a switch in the firing circuit that requires the would-be user to enter a numeric code that starts a timer for the weapon's arming and detonation.....
....A potential impediment to such sharing was the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which bars cooperation between nations on weapons technology.
To get around such legal prohibitions, Washington came up with a system of "negative guidance," sometimes called "20 questions," as detailed in a 1989 article in Foreign Policy. The system let United States scientists listen to French descriptions of warhead approaches and give guidance about whether the French were on the right track.
By David E. Sanger and William J. Broad
New York Times
Saturday, November 17, 2007
WASHINGTON: Over the past six years, the Bush administration has spent almost $100 million so far on a highly classified program to help General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's president, secure his country's nuclear weapons, according to current and former senior administration officials.
But with the future of that country's leadership in doubt, debate is intensifying about whether Washington has done enough to help protect the warheads and laboratories, and whether Pakistan's reluctance to reveal critical details about its arsenal has undercut the effectiveness of the continuing security effort.
The aid, buried in secret portions of the U.S. budget, paid for the training of Pakistani personnel in the United States and the construction of a nuclear security training center in Pakistan, a facility that American officials say is nowhere near completion, even though it was supposed to be in operation this year.
A raft of equipment — from helicopters to night-vision goggles to nuclear detection equipment — was given to Pakistan to help secure its nuclear material, its warheads, and the laboratories that were the site of the worst known case of nuclear proliferation in the atomic age.
While American officials say that they believe the arsenal is safe at the moment, and that they take at face value Pakistani assurances that security is vastly improved, in many cases the Pakistani government has been reluctant to show American officials how or where the gear is actually used.
That is because the Pakistanis do not want to reveal the locations of their weapons or the amount or type of new bomb-grade fuel the country is now producing.
The American program was created after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when the Bush administration debated whether to share with Pakistan one of the crown jewels of American nuclear protection technology, known as "permissive action links," or PALS, a system used to keep a weapon from detonating without proper codes and authorizations.
In the end, despite past U.S. aid to France and Russia on delicate points of nuclear security, the administration decided that it could not share the system with the Pakistanis because of legal restrictions.
In addition, the Pakistanis were suspicious that any American-made technology in their warheads could include a secret "kill switch," enabling the Americans to turn off their weapons.
While many nuclear experts in the U.S. government favored offering the PALS system because they considered Pakistan's arsenal among the world's most vulnerable to terrorist groups, some administration officials feared that sharing the technology would teach Pakistan too much about American weaponry. The same concern kept the Clinton administration from sharing the technology with China in the early 1990s.
The New York Times has known details of the secret program for more than three years, based on interviews with a range of American officials and nuclear experts, some of whom were concerned that Pakistan's arsenal remained vulnerable. The newspaper agreed to delay publication of the article after considering a request from the Bush administration, which argued that premature disclosure could hurt the effort to secure the weapons.
Since then, some elements of the program have been discussed in the Pakistani news media and in a presentation late last year by the leader of Pakistan's nuclear safety effort, Lieutenant General Khalid Kidwai, who acknowledged receiving "international" help as he sought to assure Washington that all of the holes in Pakistan's nuclear security infrastructure had been sealed.
The Times told the administration last week that it was reopening its examination of the program in light of those disclosures and the current instability in Pakistan. Early this week, the White House withdrew its request that publication be withheld, though it was unwilling to discuss details of the program.
The secret program was designed by the Energy Department and the State Department, and it drew heavily from the effort over the past decade to secure nuclear weapons, stockpiles and materials in Russia and other former Soviet states. Much of the money for Pakistan was spent on physical security, like fencing and surveillance systems, and equipment for tracking nuclear material if it left secure areas.
But while Pakistan is formally considered a "major non-NATO ally," the program has been hindered by a deep suspicion among Pakistan's military that the secret goal of the United States was to gather intelligence about how to locate and, if necessary, disable Pakistan's arsenal, which is the pride of the country.
"Everything has taken far longer than it should," a former official involved in the program said in a recent interview, "and you are never sure what you really accomplished."
In recent days, American officials have expressed confidence that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is well secured. "I don't see any indication right now that security of those weapons is in jeopardy, but clearly we are very watchful, as we should be," Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Pentagon news conference on Thursday.
Mullen's carefully chosen words, a senior administration official said, were based on two separate intelligence assessments issued this month that had been summarized in briefings to Bush. Both concluded that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal was safe under current conditions, and one also looked at laboratories and came to the same conclusion.
Still, the Pakistani government's reluctance to release information has limited efforts to assess the situation. In particular, some American experts say they have less ability to look into the nuclear laboratories where highly enriched uranium is produced — including the laboratory named for Abdul Qadeer Khan, the man who sold Pakistan's nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya.
So far, the amount the United States has spent on the classified nuclear security program, less than $100 million, amounts to slightly less than one percent of the roughly $10 billion in known American aid to Pakistan since the Sept. 11 attacks. Most of that money has gone for assistance in counterterrorism activities against the Taliban and Al Qaeda....
....Now that concern about Musharraf's ability to remain in power has been rekindled, so has the debate inside and outside the Bush administration about how much the program accomplished, and what it left unaccomplished. A second phase of the program, which would provide more equipment, helicopters and safety devices, is already being discussed in the administration, but its dimensions have not been determined.
Harold Agnew, a former director of the Los Alamos weapons laboratory, which designed most of the United States' nuclear arms, argued that recent U.S. reluctance to share warhead security technology was making the world more dangerous.
"Lawyers say it's classified," Agnew said in an interview. "That's nonsense. We should share this technology. Anybody who joins the club should be helped to get this."
"Whether it's India or Pakistan or China or Iran," he added, "the most important thing is that you want to make sure there is no unauthorized use. You want to make sure that the guys who have their hands on the weapons can't use them without proper authorization."
In the past, officials say, the United States has shared ideas — but not technologies — about how to make the safeguards that lie at the heart of American weapons security. The system hinges on what is essentially a switch in the firing circuit that requires the would-be user to enter a numeric code that starts a timer for the weapon's arming and detonation.....
....A potential impediment to such sharing was the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which bars cooperation between nations on weapons technology.
To get around such legal prohibitions, Washington came up with a system of "negative guidance," sometimes called "20 questions," as detailed in a 1989 article in Foreign Policy. The system let United States scientists listen to French descriptions of warhead approaches and give guidance about whether the French were on the right track.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
Counterpunch
November 15, 2007
A Test Case for the World Media
Liberating Pakistan
By LIAQUAT ALI KHAN
Pakistan offers a superb opportunity for the world media to test whether information can undermine a non-constitutional dictatorship. I am not proposing advocacy journalism that strives to alter viewpoints. Nor am I proposing that the world media incite the people of Pakistan to take arms against the military ruler. The world media must respect the pluralism of governments, political systems, and constitutions. The world media must also allow the people of a nation to solve their problems in their own ways at their own pace. What is at stake in Pakistan, however, is a usurper's willfulness to shut down the channels of information so that the lawlessness of the army rule will not be exposed either to the people of Pakistan or to the world. This design to commit crimes under the cover of information blackout is an unlawful objective that the world media must vow to defeat.
Subverting injustice is the duty of a free press. In this day and age, no ruler anywhere in the world should be allowed to succeed in undermining the rule of law, suspending the people's fundamental rights of life and liberty, disgracing en mass the judges of superior courts, and transporting the nation's eminent lawyers to remote prisons in solitary confinement. This sort of tyranny flourished in the dark days of history when the world media had fewer means to access the story and when no ethics informed the enterprise of journalism. If the world media were successful in laying bare the usurper's entrails in Pakistan, future egomaniacs will be discouraged to impose personal rule in nations with weak institutional protections. The ethics of journalism demand no less.
Arms of Ethics
Numerous journalists' codes of ethics throughout the world empower reporters and editors to expose the abuses of power and the trampling of the people's basic rights that safeguard the dignity of life. The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) Code of Ethics mandates that journalists be "honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting, and interpreting information." Emphasizing courage, the SPJ Code further demands that journalists "give voice to the voiceless." This ethical responsibility is most pertinent in Pakistan when a military usurper has abridged the freedom of speech and clamped down on the national media to suppress the voices of the people.
India's Code of Ethics captures a fundamental truth when it announces that "a free press can flourish only in a free society." The people of Pakistan are no longer free. They have been denied access to the world electronic media, including the BBC and CNN. Independent TV stations have been turned off. Despite coercive restrictions on the print media, Pakistani journalists are making bold efforts to expose the abuse of power. The World media, particularly the media in free societies, can help by reporting what the Pakistani media cannot. The stories of suffocation of a people must be told making it harder for the usurper to breathe.
The Al Jazeera Code of Ethics highlights the interconnectedness of the world media and the duty to help a nation's journalists under distress. It states: "Stand by colleagues in the profession and offer them support when required, particularly in light of the acts of aggression and harassment to which journalists are subjected at times." In proclaiming emergency, the Pakistani usurper has blamed the media in weakening what he calls the writ of government. Pakistani journalists may soon be tried in military courts for crossing the line the usurper has drawn to hold his unlawful grip on power. Even if no trials take place, the threat of military courts will chill journalists who cannot afford to lose jobs for they must work to support families. This stressful harassment of Pakistani journalists, if not exposed to the world, will embolden the usurper to further muzzle the media.
News Analysis
Such has become the power of technology that the usurper's ban on information is not fully working. The print media in Pakistan, after a few days of confusion and silence, have begun to expose the lawlessness of the emergency rule. The Global media have become even more vigorous in supplying critical information to the people of Pakistan and the rest of the world. An Al Jazeera reporter hid himself in the trunk of a car to meet with a political reader under house arrest. The BBC and the Voice of America radios are broadcasting Urdu programs, most beneficial for the people living in Pakistani cities and villages who cannot afford to buy satellite dishes or who have no internet facilities to watch global TV networks.
While the people of Pakistan must get the news, they also need the news analysis. More than the news, the news analysis is the hardest victim of the emergency rule. National intellectuals, media commentators, and political experts can no longer provide critical perspectives on events of the day. There are pressing questions facing the people of Pakistan. Would it be better in the long run for the nation to have the general elections in January 2008 despite the ban on the right to association? Does the right to vote have any meaning when political parties are unable to disseminate political platforms? Can a regime that has declared a war on the judiciary, the media, and political parties be trusted for holding fair and free elections? Are the elections more important than the freedom of judiciary? These and other questions must be discussed in a cool and reflective manner, not by rhetoricians but experts, so that the people of Pakistan can make informed judgments.
If the global media, particularly radio and television, can supply illuminating and honest analysis on the pressing questions mentioned above, the people of Pakistan who yearn for democracy and the rule of law will be most grateful.
Ali Khan is a professor of law at Washburn University School of Law in Topeka, Kansas. This story is written for his two sons, Harun and Kashif. He can be reached at: ali.khan@washburn.edu
http://www.counterpunch.org/alikhan11152007.html
November 15, 2007
A Test Case for the World Media
Liberating Pakistan
By LIAQUAT ALI KHAN
Pakistan offers a superb opportunity for the world media to test whether information can undermine a non-constitutional dictatorship. I am not proposing advocacy journalism that strives to alter viewpoints. Nor am I proposing that the world media incite the people of Pakistan to take arms against the military ruler. The world media must respect the pluralism of governments, political systems, and constitutions. The world media must also allow the people of a nation to solve their problems in their own ways at their own pace. What is at stake in Pakistan, however, is a usurper's willfulness to shut down the channels of information so that the lawlessness of the army rule will not be exposed either to the people of Pakistan or to the world. This design to commit crimes under the cover of information blackout is an unlawful objective that the world media must vow to defeat.
Subverting injustice is the duty of a free press. In this day and age, no ruler anywhere in the world should be allowed to succeed in undermining the rule of law, suspending the people's fundamental rights of life and liberty, disgracing en mass the judges of superior courts, and transporting the nation's eminent lawyers to remote prisons in solitary confinement. This sort of tyranny flourished in the dark days of history when the world media had fewer means to access the story and when no ethics informed the enterprise of journalism. If the world media were successful in laying bare the usurper's entrails in Pakistan, future egomaniacs will be discouraged to impose personal rule in nations with weak institutional protections. The ethics of journalism demand no less.
Arms of Ethics
Numerous journalists' codes of ethics throughout the world empower reporters and editors to expose the abuses of power and the trampling of the people's basic rights that safeguard the dignity of life. The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) Code of Ethics mandates that journalists be "honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting, and interpreting information." Emphasizing courage, the SPJ Code further demands that journalists "give voice to the voiceless." This ethical responsibility is most pertinent in Pakistan when a military usurper has abridged the freedom of speech and clamped down on the national media to suppress the voices of the people.
India's Code of Ethics captures a fundamental truth when it announces that "a free press can flourish only in a free society." The people of Pakistan are no longer free. They have been denied access to the world electronic media, including the BBC and CNN. Independent TV stations have been turned off. Despite coercive restrictions on the print media, Pakistani journalists are making bold efforts to expose the abuse of power. The World media, particularly the media in free societies, can help by reporting what the Pakistani media cannot. The stories of suffocation of a people must be told making it harder for the usurper to breathe.
The Al Jazeera Code of Ethics highlights the interconnectedness of the world media and the duty to help a nation's journalists under distress. It states: "Stand by colleagues in the profession and offer them support when required, particularly in light of the acts of aggression and harassment to which journalists are subjected at times." In proclaiming emergency, the Pakistani usurper has blamed the media in weakening what he calls the writ of government. Pakistani journalists may soon be tried in military courts for crossing the line the usurper has drawn to hold his unlawful grip on power. Even if no trials take place, the threat of military courts will chill journalists who cannot afford to lose jobs for they must work to support families. This stressful harassment of Pakistani journalists, if not exposed to the world, will embolden the usurper to further muzzle the media.
News Analysis
Such has become the power of technology that the usurper's ban on information is not fully working. The print media in Pakistan, after a few days of confusion and silence, have begun to expose the lawlessness of the emergency rule. The Global media have become even more vigorous in supplying critical information to the people of Pakistan and the rest of the world. An Al Jazeera reporter hid himself in the trunk of a car to meet with a political reader under house arrest. The BBC and the Voice of America radios are broadcasting Urdu programs, most beneficial for the people living in Pakistani cities and villages who cannot afford to buy satellite dishes or who have no internet facilities to watch global TV networks.
While the people of Pakistan must get the news, they also need the news analysis. More than the news, the news analysis is the hardest victim of the emergency rule. National intellectuals, media commentators, and political experts can no longer provide critical perspectives on events of the day. There are pressing questions facing the people of Pakistan. Would it be better in the long run for the nation to have the general elections in January 2008 despite the ban on the right to association? Does the right to vote have any meaning when political parties are unable to disseminate political platforms? Can a regime that has declared a war on the judiciary, the media, and political parties be trusted for holding fair and free elections? Are the elections more important than the freedom of judiciary? These and other questions must be discussed in a cool and reflective manner, not by rhetoricians but experts, so that the people of Pakistan can make informed judgments.
If the global media, particularly radio and television, can supply illuminating and honest analysis on the pressing questions mentioned above, the people of Pakistan who yearn for democracy and the rule of law will be most grateful.
Ali Khan is a professor of law at Washburn University School of Law in Topeka, Kansas. This story is written for his two sons, Harun and Kashif. He can be reached at: ali.khan@washburn.edu
http://www.counterpunch.org/alikhan11152007.html
BBC News
November 16th, 2007
US seeks end to Pakistan crisis
US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte - who is in Pakistan - has spoken on the telephone to opposition leader Benazir Bhutto.
He told her "moderate forces" should work together to get Pakistan back to democracy, the State Department said.
The conversation took place after Ms Bhutto was freed from house arrest.
The former PM renewed her calls for President Pervez Musharraf to end emergency rule, and condemned the interim government overseeing polls.
Ms Bhutto was placed under house arrest in Lahore on Tuesday to stop her from leading a march to Islamabad.
The move was part of a huge clampdown that has seen thousands of people arrested since emergency rule was introduced on 3 November.
'Dashed hopes'
Mr Negroponte is in Islamabad for talks with the government. It is not clear if he will meet opposition leaders.
Washington had been hoping for Ms Bhutto and Gen Musharraf to work together to give his government more support in its fight against pro-Taleban extremists.
But after her release, Ms Bhutto dismissed the interim government sworn in on Friday: "This caretaker government is an extension of the (governing PML-Q party) and is not acceptable."
And she again appeared to rule out resuming talks on a power-sharing deal with Gen Musharraf.
"I can't see how I can team up with somebody who raises hopes and dashes them... He talked to me about a roadmap to democracy and imposed martial law," she said.
Ms Bhutto says she will meet other opposition leaders soon to discuss a boycott of January's assembly elections.
'I take pride'
Gen Musharraf meanwhile praised the outgoing government after its term expired on Thursday.
"I take pride in the fact that, being a man in uniform, I have actually introduced the essence of democracy in Pakistan, whether anyone believes it or not," he said, after the interim government was sworn in.
The US administration has made repeated calls for the emergency to be lifted and for Gen Musharraf to become a civilian leader.
Gen Musharraf says he will resign as head of the army once the Supreme Court has ratified his next term as president.
He sacked a number of Supreme Court judges who had been due to rule on whether he could be president for a second term.
Correspondents say the replacement judges are expected to rule that his election last month was legal.
Apart from Ms Bhutto, some other leading figures were released from detention on Friday.
They include the country's most prominent rights activist, Asma Jahangir, head of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7099122.stm
November 16th, 2007
US seeks end to Pakistan crisis
US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte - who is in Pakistan - has spoken on the telephone to opposition leader Benazir Bhutto.
He told her "moderate forces" should work together to get Pakistan back to democracy, the State Department said.
The conversation took place after Ms Bhutto was freed from house arrest.
The former PM renewed her calls for President Pervez Musharraf to end emergency rule, and condemned the interim government overseeing polls.
Ms Bhutto was placed under house arrest in Lahore on Tuesday to stop her from leading a march to Islamabad.
The move was part of a huge clampdown that has seen thousands of people arrested since emergency rule was introduced on 3 November.
'Dashed hopes'
Mr Negroponte is in Islamabad for talks with the government. It is not clear if he will meet opposition leaders.
Washington had been hoping for Ms Bhutto and Gen Musharraf to work together to give his government more support in its fight against pro-Taleban extremists.
But after her release, Ms Bhutto dismissed the interim government sworn in on Friday: "This caretaker government is an extension of the (governing PML-Q party) and is not acceptable."
And she again appeared to rule out resuming talks on a power-sharing deal with Gen Musharraf.
"I can't see how I can team up with somebody who raises hopes and dashes them... He talked to me about a roadmap to democracy and imposed martial law," she said.
Ms Bhutto says she will meet other opposition leaders soon to discuss a boycott of January's assembly elections.
'I take pride'
Gen Musharraf meanwhile praised the outgoing government after its term expired on Thursday.
"I take pride in the fact that, being a man in uniform, I have actually introduced the essence of democracy in Pakistan, whether anyone believes it or not," he said, after the interim government was sworn in.
The US administration has made repeated calls for the emergency to be lifted and for Gen Musharraf to become a civilian leader.
Gen Musharraf says he will resign as head of the army once the Supreme Court has ratified his next term as president.
He sacked a number of Supreme Court judges who had been due to rule on whether he could be president for a second term.
Correspondents say the replacement judges are expected to rule that his election last month was legal.
Apart from Ms Bhutto, some other leading figures were released from detention on Friday.
They include the country's most prominent rights activist, Asma Jahangir, head of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7099122.stm
The Nation
truthdig | posted November 14, 2007
Bush Stands By His Dictator
Robert Scheer
"The war on terror" made me do it. That's the excuse that works for George W. Bush to rationalize his assaults on the rule of law, from arbitrary arrest to torture. So why not try some war-on-terror obfuscation to bail out his president-dictator buddy over in Pakistan?
That's the card Bush played at his Saturday press conference when he once again celebrated Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf as a strong ally in the war on terrorism: "If you're the chief operating officer of Al-Qaida, you haven't had a good experience. There has been four or five Number 3s that have been brought to justice one way or the other, and many of those folks thought they had found safe haven in Pakistan. And that would not have happened without President Musharraf honoring his word."
Of course Bush's statement was utter nonsense. Al-Qaida has been having a very good experience with its CEO Osama bin Laden--whom Bush had promised to get "dead or alive"--being still very much alive and apparently moving with his minions quite easily across the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. So too his Taliban sponsors, who seem to get stronger each month; Afghanistan is no closer to stability than Iraq, that other war-on-terrorism battleground where Bush once claimed triumph.
But now, even Pakistan is a war zone in which the terrorists seem to be thriving, and that is more troubling than the chaos in that other country we invaded to seize its imaginary nuclear bombs. Pakistan has real ones, upward of eighty, as well as the aircraft and missiles to deliver them if some of the religious extremists in the military ever get in charge. Some highly placed folks in the Pakistan military supplied the transport planes used by Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of the "Islamic bomb," to transfer key nuclear weapons technology out of Pakistan and into North Korea, Libya and Iran. If Musharraf is such a determined warrior against terrorism, why has he pardoned Khan, the man who did so much to help those rogue nations that Bush warned us against, while preventing US intelligence agents from interviewing him?
Not to let Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto off the hook, because Khan's network flowered under her tenure as prime minister, as well--not that Bush holds that against her either. Heck, US Presidents have tolerated Pakistan's nuclear madness ever since President Jimmy Carter, and then Ronald Reagan, enlisted Pakistan to back the US-recruited Islamic fanatics, such as bin Laden, in their revolt against the Soviet puppet leader in Afghanistan. Reagan didn't even care when the CIA warned him that Khan was kick-starting the Iranian nuclear weapons program that Bush now says may lead to World War III.
But Bush's coddling of Musharraf goes further; he dropped the sanctions imposed against Pakistan as punishment for its nuclear program and then rewarded the Pakistani President with $10 billion in military aid to fight terrorists. But what has fighting terrorists got to do with arresting your country's lawyers and judges? Nothing, but here, too, the Bush people have an excuse: Musharraf is not a bad man--he's just made a few mistakes.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, on a day last week when thousands of peaceful opponents of the dictatorship were being rounded up, called Musharraf a "reasonable man." Boy, can she pick 'em. As for the mass arrests: "We think this was a bad decision. Full stop. A bad decision." But bad decisions, like destroying the last vestiges of democracy in Pakistan, do not a bad dictator make, according to the Bush contingent. As Rice said: "I don't have any doubt that he is somebody who tries to have the best interests of his country at heart."
In response to calls from Rice and Bush, Musharraf did say something about holding elections as soon as he gets a new supreme court appointed that will back his claim to be President. Bush wrote the book on that one.
The opposition parties, whose members are being jailed by the thousands, said they wouldn't participate in elections under martial law, but Bush called Musharraf's vague promises of elections "positive steps" and said, "I take a person at his word until otherwise."
Bush is no dummy, and he knows that if you want to act like a dictator, you'd better not look like one, so "get rid of the uniform" is another bit of advice he offered the general-dictator-president of Pakistan. He could have added, "and smile more." The best way to sell repression is with a smile or, if you can't manage that, a smirk, as Bush well knows.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071126/truthdig
truthdig | posted November 14, 2007
Bush Stands By His Dictator
Robert Scheer
"The war on terror" made me do it. That's the excuse that works for George W. Bush to rationalize his assaults on the rule of law, from arbitrary arrest to torture. So why not try some war-on-terror obfuscation to bail out his president-dictator buddy over in Pakistan?
That's the card Bush played at his Saturday press conference when he once again celebrated Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf as a strong ally in the war on terrorism: "If you're the chief operating officer of Al-Qaida, you haven't had a good experience. There has been four or five Number 3s that have been brought to justice one way or the other, and many of those folks thought they had found safe haven in Pakistan. And that would not have happened without President Musharraf honoring his word."
Of course Bush's statement was utter nonsense. Al-Qaida has been having a very good experience with its CEO Osama bin Laden--whom Bush had promised to get "dead or alive"--being still very much alive and apparently moving with his minions quite easily across the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. So too his Taliban sponsors, who seem to get stronger each month; Afghanistan is no closer to stability than Iraq, that other war-on-terrorism battleground where Bush once claimed triumph.
But now, even Pakistan is a war zone in which the terrorists seem to be thriving, and that is more troubling than the chaos in that other country we invaded to seize its imaginary nuclear bombs. Pakistan has real ones, upward of eighty, as well as the aircraft and missiles to deliver them if some of the religious extremists in the military ever get in charge. Some highly placed folks in the Pakistan military supplied the transport planes used by Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of the "Islamic bomb," to transfer key nuclear weapons technology out of Pakistan and into North Korea, Libya and Iran. If Musharraf is such a determined warrior against terrorism, why has he pardoned Khan, the man who did so much to help those rogue nations that Bush warned us against, while preventing US intelligence agents from interviewing him?
Not to let Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto off the hook, because Khan's network flowered under her tenure as prime minister, as well--not that Bush holds that against her either. Heck, US Presidents have tolerated Pakistan's nuclear madness ever since President Jimmy Carter, and then Ronald Reagan, enlisted Pakistan to back the US-recruited Islamic fanatics, such as bin Laden, in their revolt against the Soviet puppet leader in Afghanistan. Reagan didn't even care when the CIA warned him that Khan was kick-starting the Iranian nuclear weapons program that Bush now says may lead to World War III.
But Bush's coddling of Musharraf goes further; he dropped the sanctions imposed against Pakistan as punishment for its nuclear program and then rewarded the Pakistani President with $10 billion in military aid to fight terrorists. But what has fighting terrorists got to do with arresting your country's lawyers and judges? Nothing, but here, too, the Bush people have an excuse: Musharraf is not a bad man--he's just made a few mistakes.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, on a day last week when thousands of peaceful opponents of the dictatorship were being rounded up, called Musharraf a "reasonable man." Boy, can she pick 'em. As for the mass arrests: "We think this was a bad decision. Full stop. A bad decision." But bad decisions, like destroying the last vestiges of democracy in Pakistan, do not a bad dictator make, according to the Bush contingent. As Rice said: "I don't have any doubt that he is somebody who tries to have the best interests of his country at heart."
In response to calls from Rice and Bush, Musharraf did say something about holding elections as soon as he gets a new supreme court appointed that will back his claim to be President. Bush wrote the book on that one.
The opposition parties, whose members are being jailed by the thousands, said they wouldn't participate in elections under martial law, but Bush called Musharraf's vague promises of elections "positive steps" and said, "I take a person at his word until otherwise."
Bush is no dummy, and he knows that if you want to act like a dictator, you'd better not look like one, so "get rid of the uniform" is another bit of advice he offered the general-dictator-president of Pakistan. He could have added, "and smile more." The best way to sell repression is with a smile or, if you can't manage that, a smirk, as Bush well knows.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071126/truthdig
Two great pieces from Counterpunch on Bhutto.
November 14, 2007
Aunt Benazir's False Promises
The Dismantling of Pakistani Democracy
By FATIMA BHUTTO
Karachi.
We Pakistanis live in uncertain times. Emergency rule has been imposed for the 13th time in our short 60-year history. Thousands of lawyers have been arrested, some charged with sedition and treason; the chief justice has been deposed; and a draconian media law -- shutting down all private news channels -- has been drafted.
Perhaps the most bizarre part of this circus has been the hijacking of the democratic cause by my aunt, the twice-disgraced former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto. While she was hashing out a deal to share power with Gen. Pervez Musharraf last month, she repeatedly insisted that without her, democracy in Pakistan would be a lost cause. Now that the situation has changed, she's saying that she wants Musharraf to step down and that she'd like to make a deal with his opponents -- but still, she says, she's the savior of democracy.
The reality, however, is that there is no one better placed to benefit from emergency rule than she is. Along with the leaders of prominent Islamic parties, she has been spared the violent retributions of emergency law. Yes, she now appears to be facing seven days of house arrest, but what does that really mean? While she was supposedly under house arrest at her Islamabad residence last week, 50 or so of her party members were comfortably allowed to join her. She addressed the media twice from her garden, protected by police given to her by the state, and was not reprimanded for holding a news conference. (By contrast, the very suggestion that they might hold a news conference has placed hundreds of other political activists under real arrest, in real jails.)
Ms. Bhutto's political posturing is sheer pantomime. Her negotiations with the military and her unseemly willingness until just a few days ago to take part in Musharraf's regime have signaled once and for all to the growing legions of fundamentalists across South Asia that democracy is just a guise for dictatorship.
It is widely believed that Ms. Bhutto lost both her governments on grounds of massive corruption. She and her husband, a man who came to be known in Pakistan as "Mr. 10%," have been accused of stealing more than $1 billion from Pakistan's treasury. She is appealing a money-laundering conviction by the Swiss courts involving about $11 million. Corruption cases in Britain and Spain are ongoing.
It was particularly unappealing of Ms. Bhutto to ask Musharraf to bypass the courts and drop the many corruption cases that still face her in Pakistan. He agreed, creating the odiously titled National Reconciliation Ordinance in order to do so. Her collaboration with him was so unsubtle that people on the streets are now calling her party, the Pakistan People's Party, the Pervez People's Party. Now she might like to distance herself, but it's too late.
Why did Ms. Bhutto and her party cronies demand that her corruption cases be dropped, but not demand that the cases of activists jailed during the brutal regime of dictator Zia ul-Haq (from 1977 to 1988) not be quashed? What about the sanctity of the law? When her brother Mir Murtaza Bhutto -- my father -- returned to Pakistan in 1993, he faced 99 cases against him that had been brought by Zia's military government. The cases all carried the death penalty. Yet even though his sister was serving as prime minister, he did not ask her to drop the cases. He returned, was arrested at the airport and spent the remaining years of his life clearing his name, legally and with confidence, in the courts of Pakistan.
Ms. Bhutto's repeated promises to end fundamentalism and terrorism in Pakistan strain credulity because, after all, the Taliban government that ran Afghanistan was recognized by Pakistan under her last government -- making Pakistan one of only three governments in the world to do so.
And I am suspicious of her talk of ensuring peace. My father was a member of Parliament and a vocal critic of his sister's politics. He was killed outside our home in 1996 in a carefully planned police assassination while she was prime minister. There were 70 to 100 policemen at the scene, all the streetlights had been shut off and the roads were cordoned off. Six men were killed with my father. They were shot at point-blank range, suffered multiple bullet wounds and were left to bleed on the streets.
My father was Benazir's younger brother. To this day, her role in his assassination has never been adequately answered, although the tribunal convened after his death under the leadership of three respected judges concluded that it could not have taken place without approval from a "much higher" political authority.
I have personal reasons to fear the danger that Ms. Bhutto's presence in Pakistan brings, but I am not alone. The Islamists are waiting at the gate. They have been waiting for confirmation that the reforms for which the Pakistani people have been struggling have been a farce, propped up by the White House. Since Musharraf seized power in 1999, there has been an earnest grass-roots movement for democratic reform. The last thing we need is to be tied to a neocon agenda through a puppet "democrat" like Ms. Bhutto.
By supporting Ms. Bhutto, who talks of democracy while asking to be brought to power by a military dictator, the only thing that will be accomplished is the death of the nascent secular democratic movement in my country. Democratization will forever be de-legitimized, and our progress in enacting true reforms will be quashed. We Pakistanis are certain of this.
Fatima Bhutto is a Pakistani poet and writer. She is the daughter of Mir Murtaza Bhutto, who was killed in 1996 in Karachi when his sister, Benazir, was prime minister.
http://www.counterpunch.org/bhutto11142007.html
November 13, 2007
Bush Hafiz!
Dear Mrs. Bhutto
By B. R. GOWANI
Hi! How are you?
Whether one likes you, your politics, or your closeness to the United States' ruling elites or not, one has to acknowledge, grudgingly though, that you (unlike George W. Bush, the facilitator who helped break your self-imposed exile and who visits Iraq or Afghanistan unannounced) courageously/foolishly took out a procession despite the deadly threats against your life. Threats became a reality: you are still alive-but over 130 people died premature deaths. The murderers will try again. Survival rate, nobody knows.
Whatever.
Seems like President Pervez Musharraf has cooled down a bit; election date announced is mid February 2008. The instant thought that strikes most people's minds is that not much is going to change even if you are back in power-that is, if the emergency is lifted and you get elected.
Your previous records of supporting the Talibans, not doing much about the draconian Hudood laws-which were especially cruel to women, and the un-reigned corruption during your rule in 1988 and in 1993 doesn't excite many people to see you coming back to power.
(Flagrantly corrupt Nawaz Sharif was a step ahead of you. He once said: "I want to implement complete Islamic laws where the Koran and the Sunnat are supreme." As if the Land of the Pure wasn't screwed up enough.)
Margaret Warner of PBS TV (November 5, 2007) asked you as to why your People's Party was not out on the streets to join others in demonstrations against the emergency imposed by Musharraf. You could have counter-questioned her: "When George W. Bush stole the election in 2000, did you or any other reporter asked Al Gore the question: 'Why is the Democratic Party not taking to the streets?'" But you know well that Master should never be questioned.
You were gauging the wind and when you found it favorable your party announced its intention to protest on Friday.
Millions of Muslim women fed up with the Muslim fundamentalists (militants, radicals, or whatever name one gives) and the corrupt politicians looked at you, and still look, with hope and inspiration when you first came to power in 1988. And the first greatest blunder you committed was to show up with your head covered. It is one thing to wear a scarf or a Palestinian head-gear, or anything else once in a while as a fashion statement; it is altogether different to make it a permanent fixture because of a fear of orthodox and fundamentalist elements.
This time around you want to bring "democracy" and fight the "terrorists."
Forget the democracy. The capitalist class in the US has not permitted the United States to become a true democracy-instead it has been turned into what I'll call "Commercialistan." So what chance Pakistan stands to be a genuine democracy. The US ruling class doesn't want to see democracy in Pakistan, or for that matter anywhere else.
However, if the elections are held and your party grabs enough parliamentary seats, the premiership would be yours. So then what you can do is to fight the Islamic militants. They are Bushites: either you follow our dictates or we get you. They are never satisfied unless all their demands are totally met. Remember, your Dad started giving in to the demands of the religious parties: banning of gambling and alcohol, discontinuing construction of a casino, replacing Sunday with Friday as a holiday, declaring Ahmadi Muslims (a minority) as non-Muslims, etc. His hanging or rather killing by the US supported military dictator General Zia-ul-Haq was celebrated loudly by the religious parties, among others.
Your death at the hands of religious loonies is almost inevitable-unless some drastic changes in the wake of the Emergency imposed by Musharraf succeed in curtailing their bloody power. But if the intelligence agencies in Pakistan are after you, as you claimed the attack on your convoy was carried out by some of its members then may Bush Protect You. So why not do a few things which could benefit millions of women before you say your final Bush Hafiz to this world.
The first thing you should do is to discard your head scarf permanently and wear shalwar/kurta which are well-fitted. Then resume wearing saris which you have worn in the past. It's because of the religious nuts, who think it's a "Hindu" dress that you must have stopped. (Remember, your mother do wear saris.)
The second thing is to stop all PDRP (public display of religious piety) and/or utterances of "A" word, that is, Allah, in public places. Allahic acts, like intimate acts, should be restricted to private places because in Pakistan there are many people who belong to other religions, or are atheists, agnostics, or are simply strictly secular Muslims. (This also applies to other South Asian countries.)
Then channel all your energy towards repealing the inhuman zina law whereby a female victim of rape is required to produce four witnesses; upon failure she is declared an adulteress. Now which bastard is going to violate a woman in presence of others; unless they are accomplices?
And fight the barbaric practices of murdering and beheading women in the name of "Islam," "honor," and what not. Also put a total halt of parading women naked when one or other village clan or tribe has a score to settle against its enemies. In short stop crimes against women.
If you accomplish only these things; it will not only be a great boost to millions of women in Muslim countries but it would also give them back some dignity as equal members of society.
To some people history provides a historic chance to bring about a major or a minor revolution and thereby changing peoples' lives forever.
If you become Pakistan's Prime Minister, you'll be at such a historic juncture. Either you can carry on with the same old shit or do something really great and give history a chance to sing your heroism.
Bush Hafiz or May Bush Protect You.
B. R. Gowani can be reached at brgowani@hotmail.com
http://www.counterpunch.org/gowani11132007.html
Edited By Akash on 1195091591
November 14, 2007
Aunt Benazir's False Promises
The Dismantling of Pakistani Democracy
By FATIMA BHUTTO
Karachi.
We Pakistanis live in uncertain times. Emergency rule has been imposed for the 13th time in our short 60-year history. Thousands of lawyers have been arrested, some charged with sedition and treason; the chief justice has been deposed; and a draconian media law -- shutting down all private news channels -- has been drafted.
Perhaps the most bizarre part of this circus has been the hijacking of the democratic cause by my aunt, the twice-disgraced former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto. While she was hashing out a deal to share power with Gen. Pervez Musharraf last month, she repeatedly insisted that without her, democracy in Pakistan would be a lost cause. Now that the situation has changed, she's saying that she wants Musharraf to step down and that she'd like to make a deal with his opponents -- but still, she says, she's the savior of democracy.
The reality, however, is that there is no one better placed to benefit from emergency rule than she is. Along with the leaders of prominent Islamic parties, she has been spared the violent retributions of emergency law. Yes, she now appears to be facing seven days of house arrest, but what does that really mean? While she was supposedly under house arrest at her Islamabad residence last week, 50 or so of her party members were comfortably allowed to join her. She addressed the media twice from her garden, protected by police given to her by the state, and was not reprimanded for holding a news conference. (By contrast, the very suggestion that they might hold a news conference has placed hundreds of other political activists under real arrest, in real jails.)
Ms. Bhutto's political posturing is sheer pantomime. Her negotiations with the military and her unseemly willingness until just a few days ago to take part in Musharraf's regime have signaled once and for all to the growing legions of fundamentalists across South Asia that democracy is just a guise for dictatorship.
It is widely believed that Ms. Bhutto lost both her governments on grounds of massive corruption. She and her husband, a man who came to be known in Pakistan as "Mr. 10%," have been accused of stealing more than $1 billion from Pakistan's treasury. She is appealing a money-laundering conviction by the Swiss courts involving about $11 million. Corruption cases in Britain and Spain are ongoing.
It was particularly unappealing of Ms. Bhutto to ask Musharraf to bypass the courts and drop the many corruption cases that still face her in Pakistan. He agreed, creating the odiously titled National Reconciliation Ordinance in order to do so. Her collaboration with him was so unsubtle that people on the streets are now calling her party, the Pakistan People's Party, the Pervez People's Party. Now she might like to distance herself, but it's too late.
Why did Ms. Bhutto and her party cronies demand that her corruption cases be dropped, but not demand that the cases of activists jailed during the brutal regime of dictator Zia ul-Haq (from 1977 to 1988) not be quashed? What about the sanctity of the law? When her brother Mir Murtaza Bhutto -- my father -- returned to Pakistan in 1993, he faced 99 cases against him that had been brought by Zia's military government. The cases all carried the death penalty. Yet even though his sister was serving as prime minister, he did not ask her to drop the cases. He returned, was arrested at the airport and spent the remaining years of his life clearing his name, legally and with confidence, in the courts of Pakistan.
Ms. Bhutto's repeated promises to end fundamentalism and terrorism in Pakistan strain credulity because, after all, the Taliban government that ran Afghanistan was recognized by Pakistan under her last government -- making Pakistan one of only three governments in the world to do so.
And I am suspicious of her talk of ensuring peace. My father was a member of Parliament and a vocal critic of his sister's politics. He was killed outside our home in 1996 in a carefully planned police assassination while she was prime minister. There were 70 to 100 policemen at the scene, all the streetlights had been shut off and the roads were cordoned off. Six men were killed with my father. They were shot at point-blank range, suffered multiple bullet wounds and were left to bleed on the streets.
My father was Benazir's younger brother. To this day, her role in his assassination has never been adequately answered, although the tribunal convened after his death under the leadership of three respected judges concluded that it could not have taken place without approval from a "much higher" political authority.
I have personal reasons to fear the danger that Ms. Bhutto's presence in Pakistan brings, but I am not alone. The Islamists are waiting at the gate. They have been waiting for confirmation that the reforms for which the Pakistani people have been struggling have been a farce, propped up by the White House. Since Musharraf seized power in 1999, there has been an earnest grass-roots movement for democratic reform. The last thing we need is to be tied to a neocon agenda through a puppet "democrat" like Ms. Bhutto.
By supporting Ms. Bhutto, who talks of democracy while asking to be brought to power by a military dictator, the only thing that will be accomplished is the death of the nascent secular democratic movement in my country. Democratization will forever be de-legitimized, and our progress in enacting true reforms will be quashed. We Pakistanis are certain of this.
Fatima Bhutto is a Pakistani poet and writer. She is the daughter of Mir Murtaza Bhutto, who was killed in 1996 in Karachi when his sister, Benazir, was prime minister.
http://www.counterpunch.org/bhutto11142007.html
November 13, 2007
Bush Hafiz!
Dear Mrs. Bhutto
By B. R. GOWANI
Hi! How are you?
Whether one likes you, your politics, or your closeness to the United States' ruling elites or not, one has to acknowledge, grudgingly though, that you (unlike George W. Bush, the facilitator who helped break your self-imposed exile and who visits Iraq or Afghanistan unannounced) courageously/foolishly took out a procession despite the deadly threats against your life. Threats became a reality: you are still alive-but over 130 people died premature deaths. The murderers will try again. Survival rate, nobody knows.
Whatever.
Seems like President Pervez Musharraf has cooled down a bit; election date announced is mid February 2008. The instant thought that strikes most people's minds is that not much is going to change even if you are back in power-that is, if the emergency is lifted and you get elected.
Your previous records of supporting the Talibans, not doing much about the draconian Hudood laws-which were especially cruel to women, and the un-reigned corruption during your rule in 1988 and in 1993 doesn't excite many people to see you coming back to power.
(Flagrantly corrupt Nawaz Sharif was a step ahead of you. He once said: "I want to implement complete Islamic laws where the Koran and the Sunnat are supreme." As if the Land of the Pure wasn't screwed up enough.)
Margaret Warner of PBS TV (November 5, 2007) asked you as to why your People's Party was not out on the streets to join others in demonstrations against the emergency imposed by Musharraf. You could have counter-questioned her: "When George W. Bush stole the election in 2000, did you or any other reporter asked Al Gore the question: 'Why is the Democratic Party not taking to the streets?'" But you know well that Master should never be questioned.
You were gauging the wind and when you found it favorable your party announced its intention to protest on Friday.
Millions of Muslim women fed up with the Muslim fundamentalists (militants, radicals, or whatever name one gives) and the corrupt politicians looked at you, and still look, with hope and inspiration when you first came to power in 1988. And the first greatest blunder you committed was to show up with your head covered. It is one thing to wear a scarf or a Palestinian head-gear, or anything else once in a while as a fashion statement; it is altogether different to make it a permanent fixture because of a fear of orthodox and fundamentalist elements.
This time around you want to bring "democracy" and fight the "terrorists."
Forget the democracy. The capitalist class in the US has not permitted the United States to become a true democracy-instead it has been turned into what I'll call "Commercialistan." So what chance Pakistan stands to be a genuine democracy. The US ruling class doesn't want to see democracy in Pakistan, or for that matter anywhere else.
However, if the elections are held and your party grabs enough parliamentary seats, the premiership would be yours. So then what you can do is to fight the Islamic militants. They are Bushites: either you follow our dictates or we get you. They are never satisfied unless all their demands are totally met. Remember, your Dad started giving in to the demands of the religious parties: banning of gambling and alcohol, discontinuing construction of a casino, replacing Sunday with Friday as a holiday, declaring Ahmadi Muslims (a minority) as non-Muslims, etc. His hanging or rather killing by the US supported military dictator General Zia-ul-Haq was celebrated loudly by the religious parties, among others.
Your death at the hands of religious loonies is almost inevitable-unless some drastic changes in the wake of the Emergency imposed by Musharraf succeed in curtailing their bloody power. But if the intelligence agencies in Pakistan are after you, as you claimed the attack on your convoy was carried out by some of its members then may Bush Protect You. So why not do a few things which could benefit millions of women before you say your final Bush Hafiz to this world.
The first thing you should do is to discard your head scarf permanently and wear shalwar/kurta which are well-fitted. Then resume wearing saris which you have worn in the past. It's because of the religious nuts, who think it's a "Hindu" dress that you must have stopped. (Remember, your mother do wear saris.)
The second thing is to stop all PDRP (public display of religious piety) and/or utterances of "A" word, that is, Allah, in public places. Allahic acts, like intimate acts, should be restricted to private places because in Pakistan there are many people who belong to other religions, or are atheists, agnostics, or are simply strictly secular Muslims. (This also applies to other South Asian countries.)
Then channel all your energy towards repealing the inhuman zina law whereby a female victim of rape is required to produce four witnesses; upon failure she is declared an adulteress. Now which bastard is going to violate a woman in presence of others; unless they are accomplices?
And fight the barbaric practices of murdering and beheading women in the name of "Islam," "honor," and what not. Also put a total halt of parading women naked when one or other village clan or tribe has a score to settle against its enemies. In short stop crimes against women.
If you accomplish only these things; it will not only be a great boost to millions of women in Muslim countries but it would also give them back some dignity as equal members of society.
To some people history provides a historic chance to bring about a major or a minor revolution and thereby changing peoples' lives forever.
If you become Pakistan's Prime Minister, you'll be at such a historic juncture. Either you can carry on with the same old shit or do something really great and give history a chance to sing your heroism.
Bush Hafiz or May Bush Protect You.
B. R. Gowani can be reached at brgowani@hotmail.com
http://www.counterpunch.org/gowani11132007.html
Edited By Akash on 1195091591
The initial mess is always created by your Government - the introduction and encoragement of Talibans in Afghanistan and Pakistan (fighting against USSR in the early days) and Musharraf given carte blanche because he suits the needs of the USA in the fight against ''terrorism''.Sonic Youth wrote:Reza wrote:Let's just hope things come back to ''normal'' although (and I don't want to sound like somebody who wishes to place the blame on just anybody) there is no doubt that this mess is all controlled by the U.S. of A. I am ashamed to say that we are puppets and have been for a long time controlled by your Government.
And what benefit would it be to the U.S. to create nation-wide repression leading to an Islamic revolution? Didn't help us with Iran all that much, did it? This mess is all controlled by a dictator trying to keep power.
Otherwise, glad to see you're safe. Stay out of trouble.
Well things never go according to plan do they? The countries and their innocent citizens (the common man who never benefit in any case) are left to clean up and deal with all the crap that was put into place by ''great political minds'' in your country.
Each event that takes place has to be viewed keeping in mind the last 20 years or so of each country's history. It is a chain reaction always. Please look at the starting point to see what has resulted in the mess today.
As I drove to work today my children got to see fences and barricades of barbed wire everywhere with the army and police in full fighting regalia - armed to their teeth - standing in every corner of Islamabad. Nice sight on their way to school!
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
This is Part 1 of a very fine piece by Frank Rich. You can read Part 2 in the New Developments thread.
The Coup at Home
By Frank Rich
The New York Times
Sunday 11 November 2007
As Gen. Pervez Musharraf arrested judges, lawyers and human-rights activists in Pakistan last week, our Senate was busy demonstrating its own civic mettle. Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein, liberal Democrats from America’s two most highly populated blue states, gave the thumbs up to Michael B. Mukasey, ensuring his confirmation as attorney general.
So what if America’s chief law enforcement official won’t say that waterboarding is illegal? A state of emergency is a state of emergency. You’re either willing to sacrifice principles to head off the next ticking bomb, or you’re with the terrorists. Constitutional corners were cut in Washington in impressive synchronicity with General Musharraf’s crackdown in Islamabad.
In the days since, the coup in Pakistan has been almost universally condemned as the climactic death knell for Bush foreign policy, the epitome of White House hypocrisy and incompetence. But that’s not exactly news. It’s been apparent for years that America was suicidal to go to war in Iraq, a country with no tie to 9/11 and no weapons of mass destruction, while showering billions of dollars on Pakistan, where terrorists and nuclear weapons proliferate under the protection of a con man who serves as a host to Osama bin Laden.
General Musharraf has always played our president for a fool and still does, with the vague promise of an election that he tossed the White House on Thursday. As if for sport, he has repeatedly mocked both Mr. Bush’s “freedom agenda” and his post-9/11 doctrine that any country harboring terrorists will be “regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”
A memorable highlight of our special relationship with this prized “ally” came in September 2006, when the general turned up in Washington to kick off his book tour. Asked about the book by a reporter at a White House press conference, he said he was contractually “honor bound” to remain mum until it hit the stores — thus demonstrating that Simon & Schuster had more clout with him than the president. This didn’t stop Mr. Bush from praising General Musharraf for his recently negotiated “truce” to prevent further Taliban inroads in northwestern Pakistan. When the Pakistani strongman “looks me in the eye” and says “there won’t be a Taliban and won’t be Al Qaeda,” the president said, “I believe him.”
Sooner than you could say “Putin,” The Daily Telegraph of London reported that Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader, had signed off on this “truce.” Since then, the Pakistan frontier has become a more thriving terrorist haven than ever.
Now The Los Angeles Times reports that much of America’s $10 billion-plus in aid to Pakistan has gone to buy conventional weaponry more suitable for striking India than capturing terrorists. To rub it in last week, General Musharraf released 25 pro-Taliban fighters in a prisoner exchange with a tribal commander the day after he suspended the constitution.....
The Coup at Home
By Frank Rich
The New York Times
Sunday 11 November 2007
As Gen. Pervez Musharraf arrested judges, lawyers and human-rights activists in Pakistan last week, our Senate was busy demonstrating its own civic mettle. Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein, liberal Democrats from America’s two most highly populated blue states, gave the thumbs up to Michael B. Mukasey, ensuring his confirmation as attorney general.
So what if America’s chief law enforcement official won’t say that waterboarding is illegal? A state of emergency is a state of emergency. You’re either willing to sacrifice principles to head off the next ticking bomb, or you’re with the terrorists. Constitutional corners were cut in Washington in impressive synchronicity with General Musharraf’s crackdown in Islamabad.
In the days since, the coup in Pakistan has been almost universally condemned as the climactic death knell for Bush foreign policy, the epitome of White House hypocrisy and incompetence. But that’s not exactly news. It’s been apparent for years that America was suicidal to go to war in Iraq, a country with no tie to 9/11 and no weapons of mass destruction, while showering billions of dollars on Pakistan, where terrorists and nuclear weapons proliferate under the protection of a con man who serves as a host to Osama bin Laden.
General Musharraf has always played our president for a fool and still does, with the vague promise of an election that he tossed the White House on Thursday. As if for sport, he has repeatedly mocked both Mr. Bush’s “freedom agenda” and his post-9/11 doctrine that any country harboring terrorists will be “regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”
A memorable highlight of our special relationship with this prized “ally” came in September 2006, when the general turned up in Washington to kick off his book tour. Asked about the book by a reporter at a White House press conference, he said he was contractually “honor bound” to remain mum until it hit the stores — thus demonstrating that Simon & Schuster had more clout with him than the president. This didn’t stop Mr. Bush from praising General Musharraf for his recently negotiated “truce” to prevent further Taliban inroads in northwestern Pakistan. When the Pakistani strongman “looks me in the eye” and says “there won’t be a Taliban and won’t be Al Qaeda,” the president said, “I believe him.”
Sooner than you could say “Putin,” The Daily Telegraph of London reported that Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader, had signed off on this “truce.” Since then, the Pakistan frontier has become a more thriving terrorist haven than ever.
Now The Los Angeles Times reports that much of America’s $10 billion-plus in aid to Pakistan has gone to buy conventional weaponry more suitable for striking India than capturing terrorists. To rub it in last week, General Musharraf released 25 pro-Taliban fighters in a prisoner exchange with a tribal commander the day after he suspended the constitution.....
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
New York Times
November 11, 2007
Allowed to Leave Home, Bhutto Faces Restrictions
By DAVID ROHDE
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Nov. 10 — The Pakistani police allowed the opposition leader Benazir Bhutto to leave her house on Saturday, but blocked her from visiting the home of the ousted chief justice, who has been detained.
Ms. Bhutto, a former prime minister, visited a group of journalists protesting a government shutdown of independent television stations and attended a reception for foreign diplomats given by her party at the Parliament building.
Pakistan’s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, met with military corps commanders, his most important source of power, on Saturday. If the Pakistani leader loses the support of the commanders, he would be severely weakened and could eventually be forced to resign as army chief. No clear signs of opposition by the commanders have emerged so far.
The developments came a day after the police blocked Ms. Bhutto from leaving her home in Islamabad to attend an opposition rally in the nearby city of Rawalpindi. More than 8,000 police officers blocked her supporters from gathering at the site of the planned protest.
Ms. Bhutto’s visits on Saturday were brief and unannounced, apparently in a bid to prevent the police from stopping her. Blocked from the home of the ousted chief justice, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, she spoke to a small group of supporters over a megaphone, demanding his reinstatement. “He is the chief justice,” Ms. Bhutto said, according to Reuters. “He is the real chief justice.”
Aides said Ms. Bhutto’s party, the Pakistan Peoples Party, would carry out a protest march planned for Tuesday from the eastern city of Lahore to Islamabad, the capital.
“Our cadres are in mobilization,” said Raza Rabbani, a close aide to Ms. Bhutto.
On Nov. 3, General Musharraf declared a nationwide state of emergency, suspended the Constitution and began a crackdown on his political opponents. At least 2,500 lawyers, human rights activists and opposition political party workers have been arrested.
Until Friday, lawyers led protests against emergency rule, and some opposition groups have criticized Ms. Bhutto for not challenging General Musharraf more aggressively. Her party is widely seen as the only force in the country that can bring large numbers of protesters into the streets.
Ms. Bhutto, who returned to Pakistan last month after eight years in self-imposed exile, had been engaged in negotiations with General Musharraf before the emergency declaration over a possible power-sharing arrangement.
American officials have supported the talks in the hopes that the two could form an alliance of Pakistani moderates that would challenge rising militancy in the northwest. Before the state of emergency, nationwide parliamentary elections were scheduled to be held before Jan. 15.
Over the past year, suicide attacks by militants based in remote tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan have soared. The government has lost control of growing amounts of territory as bands of insurgents seize control and declare Islamic law. In some cases, police officers and soldiers have surrendered to militants instead of fighting them.
General Musharraf cited terrorism as the reason for his emergency declaration, but it has been widely seen in Pakistan as an effort by the military ruler to bolster his fading power. He declared the state of emergency days before the Supreme Court was supposed to rule on the legality of his re-election as president, which opposition groups have said was improper.
Under intense pressure from the United States and other countries, General Musharraf and his aides have given contradictory statements about when the state of emergency will end. After President Bush called General Musharraf earlier in the week, the Pakistani leader announced that national elections would be held by Feb. 15, a month later than planned.
General Musharraf’s attorney general said Saturday that the state of emergency might be lifted within two months, according to The Associated Press, but a close aide to the general said no final decision had been made on timing. The aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said an announcement would be made in “a day or two.”
Over the past several days, Ms. Bhutto has tried to define herself as the leading opponent of General Musharraf while not scuttling her chances of reaching a deal with him. In an interview on Saturday, a close adviser to Ms. Bhutto confirmed that the back-channel talks continued.
In public, Ms. Bhutto remains defiant, and has carried out what appeared to be carefully choreographed, small-scale protests that pose little threat to the government.
After the police stopped her from visiting the home of the deposed chief justice, she briefly addressed several dozen supporters through a bullhorn, according to reporters at the scene. She called for the reinstatement of the Supreme Court and then quickly drove away.
Separately, three journalists from the British newspaper Daily Telegraph were given 72 hours to leave Pakistan for using “foul and abusive” language about the country’s leadership, Reuters reported.
“They were using foul and abusive language against Pakistan and Pakistan’s leadership,” Tariq Azim Khan, the deputy information minister, told state television on Saturday. The Daily Telegraph had no immediate comment about the expulsions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/world/asia/11pakistan.html?hp
November 11, 2007
Allowed to Leave Home, Bhutto Faces Restrictions
By DAVID ROHDE
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Nov. 10 — The Pakistani police allowed the opposition leader Benazir Bhutto to leave her house on Saturday, but blocked her from visiting the home of the ousted chief justice, who has been detained.
Ms. Bhutto, a former prime minister, visited a group of journalists protesting a government shutdown of independent television stations and attended a reception for foreign diplomats given by her party at the Parliament building.
Pakistan’s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, met with military corps commanders, his most important source of power, on Saturday. If the Pakistani leader loses the support of the commanders, he would be severely weakened and could eventually be forced to resign as army chief. No clear signs of opposition by the commanders have emerged so far.
The developments came a day after the police blocked Ms. Bhutto from leaving her home in Islamabad to attend an opposition rally in the nearby city of Rawalpindi. More than 8,000 police officers blocked her supporters from gathering at the site of the planned protest.
Ms. Bhutto’s visits on Saturday were brief and unannounced, apparently in a bid to prevent the police from stopping her. Blocked from the home of the ousted chief justice, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, she spoke to a small group of supporters over a megaphone, demanding his reinstatement. “He is the chief justice,” Ms. Bhutto said, according to Reuters. “He is the real chief justice.”
Aides said Ms. Bhutto’s party, the Pakistan Peoples Party, would carry out a protest march planned for Tuesday from the eastern city of Lahore to Islamabad, the capital.
“Our cadres are in mobilization,” said Raza Rabbani, a close aide to Ms. Bhutto.
On Nov. 3, General Musharraf declared a nationwide state of emergency, suspended the Constitution and began a crackdown on his political opponents. At least 2,500 lawyers, human rights activists and opposition political party workers have been arrested.
Until Friday, lawyers led protests against emergency rule, and some opposition groups have criticized Ms. Bhutto for not challenging General Musharraf more aggressively. Her party is widely seen as the only force in the country that can bring large numbers of protesters into the streets.
Ms. Bhutto, who returned to Pakistan last month after eight years in self-imposed exile, had been engaged in negotiations with General Musharraf before the emergency declaration over a possible power-sharing arrangement.
American officials have supported the talks in the hopes that the two could form an alliance of Pakistani moderates that would challenge rising militancy in the northwest. Before the state of emergency, nationwide parliamentary elections were scheduled to be held before Jan. 15.
Over the past year, suicide attacks by militants based in remote tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan have soared. The government has lost control of growing amounts of territory as bands of insurgents seize control and declare Islamic law. In some cases, police officers and soldiers have surrendered to militants instead of fighting them.
General Musharraf cited terrorism as the reason for his emergency declaration, but it has been widely seen in Pakistan as an effort by the military ruler to bolster his fading power. He declared the state of emergency days before the Supreme Court was supposed to rule on the legality of his re-election as president, which opposition groups have said was improper.
Under intense pressure from the United States and other countries, General Musharraf and his aides have given contradictory statements about when the state of emergency will end. After President Bush called General Musharraf earlier in the week, the Pakistani leader announced that national elections would be held by Feb. 15, a month later than planned.
General Musharraf’s attorney general said Saturday that the state of emergency might be lifted within two months, according to The Associated Press, but a close aide to the general said no final decision had been made on timing. The aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said an announcement would be made in “a day or two.”
Over the past several days, Ms. Bhutto has tried to define herself as the leading opponent of General Musharraf while not scuttling her chances of reaching a deal with him. In an interview on Saturday, a close adviser to Ms. Bhutto confirmed that the back-channel talks continued.
In public, Ms. Bhutto remains defiant, and has carried out what appeared to be carefully choreographed, small-scale protests that pose little threat to the government.
After the police stopped her from visiting the home of the deposed chief justice, she briefly addressed several dozen supporters through a bullhorn, according to reporters at the scene. She called for the reinstatement of the Supreme Court and then quickly drove away.
Separately, three journalists from the British newspaper Daily Telegraph were given 72 hours to leave Pakistan for using “foul and abusive” language about the country’s leadership, Reuters reported.
“They were using foul and abusive language against Pakistan and Pakistan’s leadership,” Tariq Azim Khan, the deputy information minister, told state television on Saturday. The Daily Telegraph had no immediate comment about the expulsions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/world/asia/11pakistan.html?hp
The Nation
November 8th, 2007
Musharraf's Emergency
By Graham Usher
Islamabad
President-General Pervez Musharraf gave two reasons for suspending Pakistan's Constitution for the second time in eight years. One was a rising tide of Islamic militancy. The other was an "interfering" judiciary that was making governance and the army's "war on terror" impossible. He was lying on both counts.
True, Pakistan is under threat from a retrograde Islam. A native "Pakistan" Taliban now rules the tribal regions of Waziristan, backed by foreign militants linked to Al Qaeda. And North West Frontier Province districts like Swat are being overrun by radical clerics. But these insurgencies have been simmering since July, when commandos prized Islamabad's Red Mosque from Islamic radicals and Musharraf broke a cease-fire with the Taliban in Waziristan. On neither occasion did he invoke special powers. He already had them. Similarly, Musharraf has been riled by "judicial activism" ever since he was forced by a mass, lawyer-led campaign to restore Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry as Chief Justice in July. The General had sacked him in March, wary that Chaudhry might rule unconstitutional a second presidential term. Since his reinstatement, the Justice has issued rulings against the government, but none could be construed as a cause for martial law. What drew Musharraf's sword was his fear that the Supreme Court would agree with petitions before it that his October re-election was invalid. "The Constitution is clear," says Aitzaz Ahsan, who represented the petitioners. "No person can contest political office while in military service."
Musharraf chose to impose martial law to ensure his survival, coating it in a sugar of "Islamic extremism" and a "politicized judiciary." Will Pakistanis swallow it? Many lawyers say they won't. Since the emergency, hundreds have taken to the streets, hoping their protest will snowball like the movement to reinstate Chaudhry. It's going to be a much tougher fight this time around. In the first few days of martial law some 2,000 were detained, mainly civil society activists. The independent and electronic media have been gagged, and the Supreme Court has been purged. In the days after the decree, the opposition parties were conspicuous by their reticence, as were the masses. "The lawyers need support," says analyst Tarik Fatemi. "This is not just a battle for the judiciary. It's a fight for Pakistan's soul."
Benazir Bhutto wears the soul of Pakistan like a sequined gown. In October she returned to a mass and bloody reception in Karachi, courtesy of a power-sharing deal with Musharraf. On November 7 she arrived in Islamabad, denouncing the dictatorship. She said that for there to be a peaceful resolution of the crisis, Musharraf would have to restore the Constitution, step down as army chief and hold elections, as planned, in January. Otherwise she would raise the immense street power of her Pakistan People's Party (PPP) against the emergency, first at a rally in Rawalpindi and then in a "long march" from Lahore.
These demands are echoed in Washington and London, where they were minted. For the Bush Administration especially, Musharraf's resort to martial law is a foreign policy failure on an almost Iraqi scale. Since 9/11, when Musharraf changed sides in the "war on terror," US strategy has been predicated on a simple premise: only a dictator, backed by the army, can pursue that fight in Pakistan. A democratic government might be swayed by public opinion, which is opposed to NATO in Afghanistan and the hunt for the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the tribal regions.
For a while the policy worked, more or less: Musharraf kept a lid on domestic dissent in the name of "enlightened moderation" and offered up a steady supply of Al Qaeda and Taliban scalps. Then came the Chief Justice imbroglio of last spring and the realization that the emperor had no populist clothes. And neither had the army. Washington reached for Bhutto. Again, the premise was simple: in return for amnesty on corruption charges--and a seat in government--she and the PPP would lend Musharraf the civilian legitimacy he lacked. "It's a loveless marriage, so the General can combat terrorists and the lady can play democracy," said journalist and historian Ahmed Rashid.
Musharraf's emergency threatens to rend that marriage apart. Washington could reverse it by using its huge financial clout--running at hundreds of millions in military aid a year--to bring the General to heel. Bhutto's three conditions are America's terms for reconciliation. But, make no mistake, they are not about ousting the dictator from Pakistan's politics. They are America's way of keeping him and the army in power. Even so, it's not clear if the General will play ball. Insiders say he prefers the certainty of army command to the vagaries of civilian presidency. In any case, he feels the judiciary is out to get him.
Martial law, or martial law-lite, is not a solution for most Pakistanis. When polled, they are clear: force has to be used against those who spread religion by violence, but development, education and democracy are necessary for those who don't. In all cases, it should be an elected civilian government that decides, not the army or Washington. One thing is certain: Islamic militancy is not born from an overactive judiciary, whatever Musharraf says. It grows from state failure. There is no greater admission of state failure than martial law--and few American foreign policy foul-ups greater than Pakistan.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071126/usher
November 8th, 2007
Musharraf's Emergency
By Graham Usher
Islamabad
President-General Pervez Musharraf gave two reasons for suspending Pakistan's Constitution for the second time in eight years. One was a rising tide of Islamic militancy. The other was an "interfering" judiciary that was making governance and the army's "war on terror" impossible. He was lying on both counts.
True, Pakistan is under threat from a retrograde Islam. A native "Pakistan" Taliban now rules the tribal regions of Waziristan, backed by foreign militants linked to Al Qaeda. And North West Frontier Province districts like Swat are being overrun by radical clerics. But these insurgencies have been simmering since July, when commandos prized Islamabad's Red Mosque from Islamic radicals and Musharraf broke a cease-fire with the Taliban in Waziristan. On neither occasion did he invoke special powers. He already had them. Similarly, Musharraf has been riled by "judicial activism" ever since he was forced by a mass, lawyer-led campaign to restore Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry as Chief Justice in July. The General had sacked him in March, wary that Chaudhry might rule unconstitutional a second presidential term. Since his reinstatement, the Justice has issued rulings against the government, but none could be construed as a cause for martial law. What drew Musharraf's sword was his fear that the Supreme Court would agree with petitions before it that his October re-election was invalid. "The Constitution is clear," says Aitzaz Ahsan, who represented the petitioners. "No person can contest political office while in military service."
Musharraf chose to impose martial law to ensure his survival, coating it in a sugar of "Islamic extremism" and a "politicized judiciary." Will Pakistanis swallow it? Many lawyers say they won't. Since the emergency, hundreds have taken to the streets, hoping their protest will snowball like the movement to reinstate Chaudhry. It's going to be a much tougher fight this time around. In the first few days of martial law some 2,000 were detained, mainly civil society activists. The independent and electronic media have been gagged, and the Supreme Court has been purged. In the days after the decree, the opposition parties were conspicuous by their reticence, as were the masses. "The lawyers need support," says analyst Tarik Fatemi. "This is not just a battle for the judiciary. It's a fight for Pakistan's soul."
Benazir Bhutto wears the soul of Pakistan like a sequined gown. In October she returned to a mass and bloody reception in Karachi, courtesy of a power-sharing deal with Musharraf. On November 7 she arrived in Islamabad, denouncing the dictatorship. She said that for there to be a peaceful resolution of the crisis, Musharraf would have to restore the Constitution, step down as army chief and hold elections, as planned, in January. Otherwise she would raise the immense street power of her Pakistan People's Party (PPP) against the emergency, first at a rally in Rawalpindi and then in a "long march" from Lahore.
These demands are echoed in Washington and London, where they were minted. For the Bush Administration especially, Musharraf's resort to martial law is a foreign policy failure on an almost Iraqi scale. Since 9/11, when Musharraf changed sides in the "war on terror," US strategy has been predicated on a simple premise: only a dictator, backed by the army, can pursue that fight in Pakistan. A democratic government might be swayed by public opinion, which is opposed to NATO in Afghanistan and the hunt for the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the tribal regions.
For a while the policy worked, more or less: Musharraf kept a lid on domestic dissent in the name of "enlightened moderation" and offered up a steady supply of Al Qaeda and Taliban scalps. Then came the Chief Justice imbroglio of last spring and the realization that the emperor had no populist clothes. And neither had the army. Washington reached for Bhutto. Again, the premise was simple: in return for amnesty on corruption charges--and a seat in government--she and the PPP would lend Musharraf the civilian legitimacy he lacked. "It's a loveless marriage, so the General can combat terrorists and the lady can play democracy," said journalist and historian Ahmed Rashid.
Musharraf's emergency threatens to rend that marriage apart. Washington could reverse it by using its huge financial clout--running at hundreds of millions in military aid a year--to bring the General to heel. Bhutto's three conditions are America's terms for reconciliation. But, make no mistake, they are not about ousting the dictator from Pakistan's politics. They are America's way of keeping him and the army in power. Even so, it's not clear if the General will play ball. Insiders say he prefers the certainty of army command to the vagaries of civilian presidency. In any case, he feels the judiciary is out to get him.
Martial law, or martial law-lite, is not a solution for most Pakistanis. When polled, they are clear: force has to be used against those who spread religion by violence, but development, education and democracy are necessary for those who don't. In all cases, it should be an elected civilian government that decides, not the army or Washington. One thing is certain: Islamic militancy is not born from an overactive judiciary, whatever Musharraf says. It grows from state failure. There is no greater admission of state failure than martial law--and few American foreign policy foul-ups greater than Pakistan.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071126/usher
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Reza wrote:Let's just hope things come back to ''normal'' although (and I don't want to sound like somebody who wishes to place the blame on just anybody) there is no doubt that this mess is all controlled by the U.S. of A. I am ashamed to say that we are puppets and have been for a long time controlled by your Government.
And what benefit would it be to the U.S. to create nation-wide repression leading to an Islamic revolution? Didn't help us with Iran all that much, did it? This mess is all controlled by a dictator trying to keep power.
Otherwise, glad to see you're safe. Stay out of trouble.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
Sorry guys I did not see this post. Have been quite erratic in my posts these last few months as have been facing assorted issues. Moving into a new house, a job change and having access to no computer for quite a while.
Anyway all is well with me despite the insane political situation in Pakistan. No I will not go into the streets to protest as it is pointless - too many things to consider unfortunately! I do have friends and relatives who have been involved in peaceful as well as violent protests (the violence has not been not on their part but on the part of the Government/Army/Police and they have broken bones etc to show for their efforts).
Let's just hope things come back to ''normal'' although (and I don't want to sound like somebody who wishes to place the blame on just anybody) there is no doubt that this mess is all controlled by the U.S. of A. I am ashamed to say that we are puppets and have been for a long time controlled by your Government.
Anyway all is well with me despite the insane political situation in Pakistan. No I will not go into the streets to protest as it is pointless - too many things to consider unfortunately! I do have friends and relatives who have been involved in peaceful as well as violent protests (the violence has not been not on their part but on the part of the Government/Army/Police and they have broken bones etc to show for their efforts).
Let's just hope things come back to ''normal'' although (and I don't want to sound like somebody who wishes to place the blame on just anybody) there is no doubt that this mess is all controlled by the U.S. of A. I am ashamed to say that we are puppets and have been for a long time controlled by your Government.
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Ex-PM Bhutto under house arrest
BBC News
Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto has been placed under house arrest and her home surrounded by security forces.
The move came as she tried to leave her Islamabad residence to join a planned rally in nearby Rawalpindi.
The United States has criticised the move saying that she must be "permitted freedom of movement."
Ms Bhutto has vowed to wage a campaign aimed at forcing President Pervez Musharraf to stand down as army chief.
Police in Rawalpindi clashed with members of Ms Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party (PPP) who were trying to defy a ban on rallies imposed under emergency rule.
A three-day detention order was served on the former prime minister after she tried to cross the heavy police cordon set up outside her home on Friday.
Earlier reports said the order would apply for 30 days.
Speaking outside the house, in front of police barricades, she repeated opposition demands that Gen Musharraf should lift the state of emergency, resign as army chief and hold elections by mid-January.
"We are calling for the revival of our constitution and respect for our judiciary," she said.
"We are calling for General Musharraf to keep his commitment and retire as chief of army staff on 15 November."
The BBC's Chris Morris in Islamabad says Ms Bhutto's defiance raises the possibility of mass protests.
She had been intending to address a huge rally in Rawalpindi, but thousands of police were deployed to block the main roads.
White House concerns
The United States, which has been the principal backer of President Musharraf in his fight against pro-Taleban militants, was quick to criticise the restrictions on Ms Bhutto.
"Former Prime Minister Bhutto and other political party members must be permitted freedom of movement and all protesters released," US National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said.
"We remain concerned about the continued state of emergency and curtailment of basic freedoms, and urge Pakistan's authorities to quickly return to constitutional order and democratic norms."
Security threat
Ms Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party says thousands of its supporters have been detained in the past two days.
A small number of PPP activists tried to evade security by going to a planned rally in Rawalpindi through alleyways and side streets.
But after a while a running battle started, with protesters throwing stones and police using teargas.
The authorities had banned the event, saying attackers were trying to target it.
Last month a suicide bomber killed nearly 140 people at a mass gathering as Ms Bhutto returned home from exile.
Pakistani deputy information minister Tariq Azim told the BBC that the opposition leader was being detained "for her own security".
Another minister said the three-day detention order might be lifted early.
Meanwhile in the city of Peshawar, police say a suicide bomber targeted the residence of the minister for political affairs, Amir Muqam.
They say two security personnel were killed, along with the attacker, but the minister is safe.
BBC News
Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto has been placed under house arrest and her home surrounded by security forces.
The move came as she tried to leave her Islamabad residence to join a planned rally in nearby Rawalpindi.
The United States has criticised the move saying that she must be "permitted freedom of movement."
Ms Bhutto has vowed to wage a campaign aimed at forcing President Pervez Musharraf to stand down as army chief.
Police in Rawalpindi clashed with members of Ms Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party (PPP) who were trying to defy a ban on rallies imposed under emergency rule.
A three-day detention order was served on the former prime minister after she tried to cross the heavy police cordon set up outside her home on Friday.
Earlier reports said the order would apply for 30 days.
Speaking outside the house, in front of police barricades, she repeated opposition demands that Gen Musharraf should lift the state of emergency, resign as army chief and hold elections by mid-January.
"We are calling for the revival of our constitution and respect for our judiciary," she said.
"We are calling for General Musharraf to keep his commitment and retire as chief of army staff on 15 November."
The BBC's Chris Morris in Islamabad says Ms Bhutto's defiance raises the possibility of mass protests.
She had been intending to address a huge rally in Rawalpindi, but thousands of police were deployed to block the main roads.
White House concerns
The United States, which has been the principal backer of President Musharraf in his fight against pro-Taleban militants, was quick to criticise the restrictions on Ms Bhutto.
"Former Prime Minister Bhutto and other political party members must be permitted freedom of movement and all protesters released," US National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said.
"We remain concerned about the continued state of emergency and curtailment of basic freedoms, and urge Pakistan's authorities to quickly return to constitutional order and democratic norms."
Security threat
Ms Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party says thousands of its supporters have been detained in the past two days.
A small number of PPP activists tried to evade security by going to a planned rally in Rawalpindi through alleyways and side streets.
But after a while a running battle started, with protesters throwing stones and police using teargas.
The authorities had banned the event, saying attackers were trying to target it.
Last month a suicide bomber killed nearly 140 people at a mass gathering as Ms Bhutto returned home from exile.
Pakistani deputy information minister Tariq Azim told the BBC that the opposition leader was being detained "for her own security".
Another minister said the three-day detention order might be lifted early.
Meanwhile in the city of Peshawar, police say a suicide bomber targeted the residence of the minister for political affairs, Amir Muqam.
They say two security personnel were killed, along with the attacker, but the minister is safe.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler