"The U.S. will continue to support President Musharraf because there is no substitute for him in the army who can, and will, give the kind of support the U.S. wants in the war on terror," said Lt. General Hamid Nawaz, formerly Pakistan’s Secretary of Defence.______________________________________________
Okay Americans, you have a democracy, a constitution that guarantees your rights of liberty, free speech and a rule of law. Simply put, no government official in your country can crash through your door in the early hours of morning to beat you up, kidnap you to be tortured at length or more simply, put a bullet through your head.
Okay, so you have an incompetent for a president, but then you have no else to blame but yourselves, as a majority of you elected him. Fine, you might have made a human mistake, but then at least you are saved by a political system that gets rid of him once he serves his term (or gets impeached).
Yes, it was extremely tragic that some 2973 people died during the September 11, 2001, attacks. Many of us were devastated by the loss of these hundreds of innocent civilian lives.
(By the way, we are also emotionally distraught by the estimated 64,500 innocent Iraqi civilian men, women and children who have died so far in the aftermath to the war aimed at eradicating those never-to-be-discovered WMDs)
But here is my question:
We in Pakistan also want to have liberty, freedom of speech and a rule of law. Why is it that the US Administration persists in supporting a despot who is denying us our basic rights as human beings?
In today’s Pakistan, a country where the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is illegally held in confinement, then physically manhandled and then put on trial on mendacious charges, can any ordinary citizen hope for a modicum of justice? The clear answer is no.
For example, we have hundreds of people ‘missing’, that is they have been picked up by mysterious ‘agency’ personnel who refuse to be answerable in any court of law. Why? Because they act for Musharraf. And no, these missing people are not typically religious extremists - a large number of them happen to be Musharraf’s political opponents from the provinces of Sindh and Balochistan who have been labelled as ‘enemies of the state’.
Reality states that Bush’s so-called ‘War on Terror’ has allowed his supporting cast to create their own Guantanamos all over the place.
Right now a majority of the civilians in Pakistan are demanding their basic fundamental rights. And what are these? An independent judiciary, a free press, a rule of law, and free and fair elections. Not really much for 165 million people on this God’s earth to ask for, is it?
So then is why the US opposing the people of Pakistan by propping up Musharraf?
The answer might be simple as this: Bush has blundered badly in his ‘War on Terror’; Iraq has been a complete debacle and Afghanistan is shaping to be that way. The US had been counting on Musharraf without any ‘Plan B’ or ‘Plan C’. So the US Administration has foolishly decided to cling onto him as if he offers some kind of life boat to a sinking ship.
The problem is that Musharraf has been 1st mate on Bush’s ship from the day it set forth and is no position to provide a miracle rescue. In fact, the situation is often the reverse; he has been counting on US support and largesse to protect him during his times of crisis.
So the basic point is Bush-Cheney & Co have goofed up badly and there is no earthly reason why 165 million Pakistanis should be made to pay for someone else’s wilful blunders. But by continually propping up Musharraf, Washington is behaving towards 165 million Pakistanis as if we are of no consequence – in other words relegating us to a level of collateral human fodder.
That is why we are coming to despise the USA.
Pakistan
US Foreign Policy
Bush
31 comments:
while i agree with the basic premise of your argument (1. the US supporting musharraf is critical to his maintaining power and 2. ordinary pakistanis do not enjoy basic human rights), i don't buy the whole "let's despise americans in return for bush supporting musharraf" thing. first of all, public opinion has historically very little effect on foreign policy, even in democracies. even in vietnam, the poster child for the belief that public opinion matters, it was actually the situation on the ground that was deemed to be unwinnable that forced the americans out. simply put, ordinary americans have no control over who their president props up. the vast majority don't care, and of those who do, the vast majority cannot make an iota of a difference.
secondly, it is not clear that any other american president would behave differently. they (especially the dems) may talk a good game of acting tougher with musharraf, but all that is based on realpolitik security concerns with the issue of the taliban, not with human rights or any such nonsense. this, incidently, is not endemic to america. china props up arguably the four worst regimes in the world when it comes to human rights: NK, sudan, burma and zimbabwe. the french allowed the genocide in rwanda. surely someone as politcally informed as yourself does not need me to tell you human rights are not a deal-breaker for any powerful country, at any time, anywhere in the world?
You have a point but look at the other side. The huge quantum US economic and military aid flowing to Pakistan currently is not just for Musharraf's personal use, it is for the 165 million Pakistanis who should reap benefits of a buoyant economy as a result. The US has also not made a big issue about jihadis who operate in Kashmir so as not to prejudice Pakistan's strategic interests vis a vis India. Why don't 'liberal' Pakistanis ever go to Muridke or Pakistani Kashmir and see that for themselves?
And Pakistan is following its strategic interests at the cost of human rights in other countries too, what of that? When and if Pakistan starts supporting democracy, liberal values and human rights in Afghanistan, over and above its strategic interests in propping up the extremist Taliban, then perhaps Pakistan can ask that US be as selfless, no?
onlooker: seems like a misdirected rant. A touch on envy for the American system is in order - but hating all Americans is an irrational reaction. Ayesha Siddiqa has done an incredible job fingering the villains of the Milbus. Pick on them.
ahsan: great job on the rebuttal.
thanks libertarian. may i also add that most "moderate" pakistanis already dislike the US. 73% of urban pakistanis believe that the US "definitely" or "probably" seeks to weaken and divide the islamic world. more importantly, THREE PERCENT of pakistanis think al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11 (three!!!). for the record, the margin of error was four percent. i wish i was joking.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/346.php?nid=&id=&pnt=346&lb=hmpg1
I don't think its a rant and even if it was who cares. It's like the retarded argument that if you dn't support Israel your anti-jew.
I don't like american foreign policy...it does not mean i hate Bob and Joanna from middle of nowhere America.
America is no different than any other nation on the planet...they work for their own needs first...if they can help someone out they do so for the most part because of some stragetic or beneficial reasoning.
Countries must stop looking to the west for leadership....we need to find our own way to deal with this. Look at countries like the U.A.E. All it is is a superficial mockup of the west with no substance.
By the way Onlooker.....well over 100,000 thousand Iraqi civilains have been killed. We may never know how many were really killed
God save Pakistan....from us.
jusAthot:
1. American govt – whether Rep or Dem, will do whatever serve their geo-political-economic interests – by hooks or crooks.
2. The average gringo is mostly interested in his “take-home-pay”.
We (Pakistani/Muslim) should consider getting united and than get our house in order. All the rest is details.
The American foreign policy has always been skewed to supporting autocratic/military regimes. Bush administration is not the first.
The US government functions on the doctrines laid down by the corporations, cartels and the military industrial complex. The foreign policy naturally caters to those who prop up the government.
If it isn't through support of military governments, regulations to ensure subservience to Washington are ensured through rules and regulations set up by the IMF and World Bank. And if nothing else works than (courtesy the CIA) covert operations are conducted to ouster an unpreferred government, and they are way too many examples of that to list here.
The point being the US foreign policy (no matter who resides in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue) is structured to support and assist the least democratic governments of the world. And it is very unlikely that that will change anytime soon.
Between Courtiers & Courtesans and a few odd Pimps United Estates of Paksitan Army's chequered history is now getting boring.
The Enfante Terrible if he does not walk the talk will be replaced by some other Enfante. You see the problem is not the PIMP but the proverbial SOBs of FDR have to realize that it is high time for them to call it a day and stop taking dictate.
Sri Lanka is a democracy. Nepal is striving to be one. Bangladesh is striving to be one. Bhutan is training to be one. But the educated class in Pakistan is still debating whether a wheel called democracy needs to be invented. What can any outside power do in that situation ? Sanctions in the 90s did not help establish democracy in Pakistan. Until Sept 11 2001, Musharraf was being lectured about democracy by people like Clinton and his uncle and Pakistanis did not like that either.
It makes no sense for a people to hold a foreign power responsible for imposing democratic norms on themselves unless what they is asking for is to be occupied by that foreign power. The democracy movement in Pakistan has to overcome and survive on its own steam among the 165 million, otherwise all you will get are more US stooges.
pakistanis should take charge of our own lives and stop being bossed around by the army. it has nothing to do with america or anybody else - only pakistanis can unite and ask military to go back to the barracks. army has brought nothing but trouble to the nation.
where are our universities? why do a majority of our children not have an opportunity to learn maths and science? this is the basic problem. we are raising soldiers full of hate and not scholars.
Gentlemen
On an intellectual level, I of course agree that realpolitik dictates foreign policies, as much today as it has done for centuries. And things are certainly not going to change all of a sudden.
___________________________
Currently Musharraf seems to be relying on two sturdy props to prolong his stay in power - the US and the Army.
If for some reason the Washington decides to play tough, Musharraf's support within the military might not be as solid as it is today (after all the US does provide an unaudited cash supplement of USD 1 billion a year to our armed forces these days). And I am sure senior army officers are pretty staggered by the kind of language being openly used against the army in Punjab. Suffice to say, for them loyalty to the army may not automatically include loyalty to Musharraf sometime in the future.
Anyway my gripe is on a different level.
Bol kay lab aazaad hain teray
Bol zabaan ab tak terii hai
For six years Americans such as Fareed Zakaria have moped about the fact how unpopular the US has become around the world - from Iceland to New Zealand (and most countries in between). I reckoned it was time to add a loud, irate and non-fundamentalist protest from Pakistan as well.
If you read the Blog you will note my outburst is directed at the ‘hyperpower’ and not really at the people that reside within it.
http://www.dawn.com/weekly/encounter/
20070505/encounter2.htm
Why our politicians seek West’s blessings
By M. Abul Fazl
PROFESSOR Anwar Syed, in his April 22 column appearing on the leader page, mentions a number of instances where some leaders of Pakistan’s major political parties had seemed inviting foreign governments to take undue interest in Pakistan’s internal affairs, occasionally even seeking their intervention in their favour. He wonders why our leaders or rulers look to foreign powers instead of looking to the people of Pakistan.
He did not say, though he could justifiably do so, that even the “charter of democracy” ignores the people of Pakistan. It does not call upon them to rise to win their rights, nor does it offer to lead them in a mass movement. It says that if the signatory leaders come into power (without specifying how), they would promote democracy in the country.
The leaderships of some parties are more adept, and more open, about soliciting foreign help at one darbar or another abroad. But the heads of other parties are learning the ropes too. Their followers duly brief visiting foreign delegations about the political situation here and about the benefits that would accrue if democracy were restored, preferably if the party in question was assigned the job of governing. Lastly, some leaders openly pay visits to foreign missions whenever there are heightened political differences with the government.
This is nothing new. Rao Rashid tells us that, in 1957, the then president Iskandar Mirza wanted to dismiss the civilian government and seize absolute power. To that end, he wanted to instigate disorder in Azad Kashmir. He went to Nathiagali to oversee the implementation of his plan and invited the ambassadors of the US, Britain and West Germany to join him there. They would thus witness the breakdown and when Iskandar Mirza, making the riots a pretext, declared emergency in the country, dismissed the civilian government and assumed dictatorial powers, they would recommend to their governments to support him. (Jo Mein Ne Dekha, Jumhoori Pubs., Lahore, 2007, p.40). Apparently, the scheme was sabotaged by the prime minister.
Before that, Ghulam Mohammad, Iskandar Mirza and Ayub Khan had gone over the head of the Nazimuddin government to make a military alliance with the US. And the latter had been aware of Ayub’s putschist plans for two years before it was made.It reminds one of an incident in the modern South Asian history. In 1945, Jawaharlal Nehru was to appear as a defence lawyer in the case relating to trial of the “Indian National Army” officers, who were accused of “high treason” for having led an armed struggle for independence.
The British Indian government, having failed to dissuade him, appealed to the US for help. Their vice-consul in Kolkata saw Nehru to ask him not to defend them. Nehru told him that, being an Indian political leader, he could not ignore the strong Indian public sentiment on the subject. The vice-consul said his action would not go down well with the American public opinion. He replied, in effect, according to the vice consul, that he did not give a damn about the American public opinion.
Nehru’s fourteen years in prison qualified him to say that. He represented a party which had mobilised people to defy a world power and, in the process, rid itself of the slag which tends to stick to every movement aiming at power.
...
The remedy lies in industrialising the country fast, depending primarily on internal sources of investment. It lies in a philosophy of looking towards the people of Pakistan for economic development and for their defence. Only they, united, can carry their country forward and ensure its defence and prosperity.
The big boats of Pak Army should pack up. The Pak Army generals are looting the nation. They should be tried by session judge and their assets and loot should be made public. The biggest disgrace beside sentencing for life to prision would be to made 'chaprases/ring boys' in Chief Justice of Pakistan office. Let the power-drunk generals learn the way of civil society.
onlooker: seems you have a visceral distaste for Mush. But Ms. Siddiqa makes a very convincing case for a much deeper problem: the pseudo-political "elites" and the army in a deadly crony embrace. The "elites" make like bandits in return for politically backing the army up. So while I share your frustration with the US, I'm eager to know what your plan of succession would be in a post-Mush Pakistan. And how would it not be like jumping from the frying pan into the fire?
Some folks fear that a change of status quo would mean total chaos, a breakdown in all social order, an end to society itself, or in any case, a creation of the “bearded” bogeymen! Such fearful drum-beating are meant to scare off our illiterate masses about entertaining any notions or any new politico-socio-economic arrangements. Not only that, but also from taking a critical look at the existing “3M” arrangements. They complain: “You are good at criticizing the status quo, but what would you have in place of Mush Potato?” the implication being that unless you have a recipe for a better society, one that is worked out and ready to go, you should keep your mouth shut about the existing deficiencies and injustices of the Mush-Potato-Rule. Politics is too serious a business to be left to the Mush-Potatoes (Read: Army Generals) and their “chumchas”. Beware the heroes with feet of clay! --- jusAthot
------------------
Here’s to the cynics —Ahmad Faruqui
The current dispensation, focused on the single principle of an army chief who exercises unity of command over all organs of state, is the antithesis of Jinnah’s vision that was based on separation of powers. No amount of “enlightenment” can moderate its dictatorial character
The 60th anniversary of Pakistan’s independence looms on the horizon. What better time could there be for discussing the nation’s long-term political order?
Some may argue that it is premature to discuss the post-Musharraf dispensation, since the “Lord of the Dual Offices” is firmly ensconced in both the Presidency and the Army House. He continues to command the support of US President George Bush, recent tiffs with the American vice president notwithstanding.
To the die-hard Musharraf-ites, even the thought of discussing a future without the general is anathema. The economy is doing well. They are quick to tell you that the working man on the streets of Lahore who is trying to make ends meet does not care whether generals or civilians are in charge as long as he can put bread on the family table. And that the woman driving that swank BMW on the streets of Karachi does not mind the fact that economic disparities have risen, since that makes membership in high society a more coveted goal.
On the political front, Musharraf has succeeded in deflecting the tensions arising out of his decision to suspend the chief justice. True, the Jamia Hafsa brigade is trying hard to impose their harsh interpretation of Islam on Islamabad. But the general has proven to be a survivor and is not about to quit.
One can expect him to come up with the cleverest of stratagems when the going gets tough. For example, he may well make Shaukat Aziz the fall guy for the chief justice’s suspension. Like prior prime ministers, Aziz serves at the pleasure of the army chief and not vice versa. Unlike Nawaz Sharif, he has no political constituency to fall back on and will leave without a fight.
That is what gives credibility to rumours that Benazir Bhutto will become the next prime minister. Should the general offer the post to her, she can be expected to take it, whether he is in or out of uniform.
But there will still come a day when Musharraf will leave office, either on his own or otherwise. Kelsen’s law of necessity removes military rulers as easily as it installs them.
Since it is impossible to know the terms of Musharraf’s departure, it is impossible to predict who will succeed him. We can’t even possibly say whether that person would be Musharraf’s deputy in the army, a politician chosen by the army or a politician who wins the next elections.
It is precisely this uncertainty about political succession that casts a cloud on the nation’s long-term future. Something has to change.
For too long, political debate in Pakistan has centred round personalities, whether they were in uniform or in civvies. They all had their supporters while they were in charge. Once they were dethroned, their detractors seemed to crawl out of the ground, like ants after the rain. Now the leaders were called the worst of names. Listening to them, one would conclude that Pakistan was the name of a Shakespearean Kingdom, ruled alternatively by lechers and fools and tyrants.
By focusing on personalities rather than on issues, the nation has neglected to develop its political institutions. This is the fundamental problem.
Because of a lack of institutional mooring, Pakistan has lurched from crisis to crisis, like a drunk staggering from pillar to post. More often than not, major political decisions have been made in the interest of individual expediency rather than in the nation’s long-term interest. It is time the debate shifted to issues, such as the nurturing and development of civilian institutions.
How does one begin this conversation? For Pakistan to survive for another 60 years, the next crop of leaders will have to take a pledge that they will uphold the constitution at all cost. But that will not suffice. A new system of checks and balances will have to be created that guarantees that no presidents, prime ministers, judges or army chiefs will be fired without due process.
Such a system is codified in the rules that embody civilised political conduct in the world’s democracies. These are, of course, the very rules on which Mohammad Ali Jinnah founded the country. But getting the leaders to observe these rules in Pakistan is easier said then done, my cynical friends tell me.
But there is a way to make this happen. It is premised on a new beginning, under which the leaders in the post-Musharraf dispensation literally sign a new “compact” between themselves and the people. Such a “magna carta” would enshrine the Five Principles outlined below.
A professional army: For too long, the army has been politicised. In the future, it will accept its position as a creature of the state, not regard itself as the state. The army will foreswear that it will play any role in politics. It will carry out the defence policies of the state, not make them. The defence ministry will prepare the defence budget, not the army. It will be openly debated in parliament, not covered up from the public.
An accountable executive: Elected officials will rule the country but they will not have a license to mint money for themselves. If they don’t perform, they will be removed through constitutional means.
An independent judiciary: The courts will uphold the constitution and ensure that rule of law prevails in Pakistan. They will ensure that free and fair elections are held on schedule.
A conscientious legislature: It will ensure that the constitutional provision of separation of powers between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary is honoured. It will take on the job of expunging religious extremism from the country’s psyche.
A normal relationship with India: Pakistan’s foreign and defence policy in the first 60 years has been India-centric in a negative way. The arms race with India has diverted billions of dollars that could be used for poverty alleviation in Pakistan. It has to come to an end. In its place should come enhanced bilateral cooperation and trade, building on the positive synergies created by the joint oil pipeline from Iran.
The Five Principles sound utopian, the cynics will remind me. Yes, but they represent the only way forward. The current dispensation, focused on the single principle of an army chief who exercises unity of command over all organs of state, is the antithesis of Jinnah’s vision that was based on separation of powers. No amount of “enlightenment” can moderate its dictatorial character.
Once the old political order is gone, Pakistan will truly gain its independence. Better late than never, I say to the cynics.
The writer, an economist based in San Francisco, has authored “Rethinking the national security of Pakistan,” Ashgate Publishing, 2003
What is ongoing in Pakistan currently is a bitter struggle between the forces of Pakistan Army military sycophants and an ever-widening peoples movement for restoration of democracy. The U.S Musharraf-centric policies were a repeat of the U.S Shah of Iran-centric policies of the 1960s and 1970s and could meet the same fate.
I just watched Democrats debate on CNN, and some bigwigs (Clinton, Edward, probably obama too ) agreed that keeping Musharraf is in the best interest of USA. Clinton did show displeasure at the way CJP was sacked by Musharraf and other undemocratic manner, but she did side with Musharraf
So support for Musharraf and co, is very bipartisan. I only heard Dr. Ron Paul of Republicans primary candidates, of very vociferously disfavoring Musharraf and undemocratic govr in Pak, but he is very much in minority.
JusAthot your posting and rebuttal towards Ahsan's critique is dead on..maybe he will see the error in his premise.
And i believe in 100 percent what Ahmad Faruqui wrote. The reasons stated there are part of the reason i dnt even want to support Imran Khan's party...he is not bad but he also claims only he can save Pakistan.
I was invited to a rally in Washington protesting Musharraf and the TI in the US wanted us to carry a banner saying only IK can save Pakistan
My only contention in the peace is that this war on extremism has nothing to do with religion....there are so many other forces and motivations at play that most don't see. Pakistan will not succumb to so called extremists... as far as i am concerned its a ploy for far greater sinister things both globally and here domestically.
If fellows like JustAhot, Onlooker, libertarian and Mr. Faruqi ever enter politics and create a new party you will have my support.
------------------
Here’s to the cynics —Ahmad Faruqui
The figure being quoted for dead iraqi's is 650,000 as against 64,500 used by our blogger
For calculating Iraqi civilian dead I used info from the database available at Iraqi Body Count Org
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
Without musharraf the moderate Pakistanis would by eaten by the fundamentalists in two bites. He's the thing that keeps this country from becoming the next Afghanistan
It's quite simple the relationship between Pakistan and US is merely business like. Pakistan needs US to survive (Aid, Military Aid, MNC's, Foreign businesses) and US needs Pakistan as a strategic ally in that region. However, once Pakistan is no longer of any use to US then Pakistan will also find itself quite quickly in the "axis of evil"
As for the government of Pakistan, throughout history there have been democratic governments and then a military coup to overthrow them. Democracy doesn't work in Pakistan, dictatorship does. If it was for a 'regular' government, Al-Quaida would already be owners of the nuclear arsenal in Pakistan.
It's easy to criticize Musharraf for what he has done, but the democratic governments weren't any better either.
If the things continue to de-stablize in Pakistan I wouldn't be surprised that US and India would have a plan in an event of Musharaf's government collapsing.
Your protein balance can be estimated by measuring your nitrogen balance, since protein contains nitrogen.
--------------------------------------
Having a positive nitrogen balance is generally taken as a sign of an anabolic (building muscles) state with an overall gain (retention) of nitrogen for the day, whereas a negative nitrogen balance indicates a catabolic (breaking muscles down) state.
The Republicans changing party affiliation get the pleasure of irritating
--------------------------------------
Democrats while not-so-subtly flipping McCain the bird. Yeah, we'll end up voting for him because we actually care about our soldiers and it is somewhat satisfying that McCain's craziness will frighten would be terrorist states.
And what is the inevitable? Well, one of these three is going to win the presidency
--------------------------------------
and none of them are particularly impressive. For conservatives, it's choosing someone who will do the least damage. It is hoped that that person is John McCain.
hi
Thankyou so much for an interesting article post. What else may I get that sort of info written in such a perfect approach please let me know? I read your many others blogs posts in its entirety and I really like it because i am here. Thanks for having shared. essay writing service -
homework answers -
math homework help
hi
Hi,
Thank you for valuable information.
Hire app developers with the best knowledge in find app software developer , including iOS, Android, React Native, from there, the sky is the limit. Our group of engineers are capable in different programming dialects, as PHP, Java, and Python, and utilize the most recent advancements, including AR/VR, IoT, AI, and Blockchain to make top tier applications.
Hi,
Thank you for valuable information
Zazz stands tall as a famous for iphone apps developer. We have a pool of profoundly gifted application designers for iPhone and we assemble incredibly splendid, vigorous and adaptable applications that assist organizations with soaring to progress. We are a circle of the best iPhone application designers
golden goose
off white jordan
bape
ggdb
off white outlet online
off white outlet
golden goose
off white clothing
a bathing ape
off white outlet
Post a Comment