What's new

And Now, The Charter of Demands—The Comedy Continues!

AgNoStiC MuSliM

ADVISORS
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
25,259
Reaction score
87
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
And Now, The Charter of Demands—The Comedy Continues!

By Ahmed Quraishi

Turkish President Abdullah Gull was not impressed. There was no Robert Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, or John McCain to receive him here. Not even Howard Dean. Just Nawaz Sharif, Benazir Bhutto, and Imran Khan. If our dear Turkish friend was expecting to meet towering statesmen, he was in for a surprise.

According to the people accompanying Turkish President Abdullah Gul in the Pakistani capital yesterday, the Turkish leader was not very impressed after meeting the cream of the Pakistani political elite.

“This bunch of jokers failed to impress him,” said a protocol officer who witnessed the meetings.

The Pakistani political circus has been a source of much international interest lately. Interest for the media, shame for the Pakistanis. But it’s one thing to see Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif performing on television screens (where they don’t look bad, let’s admit it), and it’s quite another thing to actually hear them talk face to face.

The Turkish President appeared bored to death throughout his meetings with Mr. Sharif, Mrs. Bhutto-Zardari, and Mr. Khan.

Mr. Gul came to talk about the larger picture, Pakistan’s regional and global status and reputation, the threats emanating from Afghanistan, where many different players are using the Afghan soil to create havoc in Pakistan, and the international situation where the American media is bent on demonizing Islamabad’s military and nuclear capabilities.

The Turk president was expecting strategic discussions with first-class Pakistani politicians. He ended up with third-rate classroom backbiting.

Examples:

Abdullah Gul: “The international community must remain committed to a constructive approach towards Pakistan, keeping in view its pivotal role against global terrorism.”

Benazir Bhutto: “Terrorists can seize Islamabad and take control of Pakistani nuclear installations at Kahuta!”

Abdullah Gul: “Democracy is essential … but at the same time the realities of a country should be taken into consideration … there’s a need to get the big picture ... all leaders must look to the future.”

Nawaz Sharif: “We need to boycott elections to bring down the government!”

Benazir Bhutto: “The ban on third-time premiership negates democracy.”

I wonder what BB's hosts for so many years, and her biggest cheerleaders right now, would think of the idea tha their bar on third time Presidencies "negates democracy".


With this type of “strategic” dialogue, it is no wonder that Mr. Gul was bored stiff. He maintained the same fixed grin on his face with his left hand tucked under his left knee throughout the back-to-back meetings with Pakistani politicians.

The point here is that, here you have a leader of a crucial country, a NATO member, a U.S. ally that stands its ground on major issues, coming to Pakistan to say: You know what, we are concerned about your great nation. You don’t deserve to demean yourselves like this, have some pride and don’t create conditions for your enemies to exploit by showing that you can’t run your country.

Gul came to revive our faith in ourselves, but he ended up with selfish and self-centered politicians who think the nation can’t be if they are not in power, and for this they will join hands with anyone else in the world that would help them come to power.

And it’s not just Turkey’s Abdullah Gul. There is also Mr. Hu Jintao, the President of China. On 3 November, when the U.S. media came down hard on Pakistan and Britain maneuvered behind the scenes to kick Pakistan out of the Commonwealth, Mr. Hu sent a strong message of support to Pakistan and the people of Pakistan. He sent another message on 30 November. In total, two important messages for the Pakistanis in less than one month from the leader of China.

If any Pakistani has an iota of patriotism and pride in his/her veins, they would stand up and salute the Chinese president for the message he sent to the Pakistanis and to the world. To the Pakistanis Mr. Hu said, when all is said and done, it is Pakistan’s stability that is above everything else. Don’t forget that. Pakistan’s strength is in development and stability, everything else comes second, including Western notions of democracy. And to the world, his two messages were a clear sign: China will not abandon Pakistan. If someone thinks they can profit by creating internal strife in Pakistan, this will not be allowed to happen.

The Turkish president, breaking the norms in government-to-government relations, landed in Islamabad to tell the world to back off and give Pakistan a breathing space.

In the backdrop of all this, consider the performance of the Pakistani political elite.

Almost all major Pakistani politicians worth their salt ignored these important messages from the friends of the Pakistani nation.

Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif met to announce “a Charter of Demands.” This comes after the farce of “Charter of Democracy” last year.

Nihal Cassim, a Karachi businessman, reacted to the news of the new charter like this: “Charter of Demands—the comedy continues.”

But jokes aside, he also asked a very interesting question: “Why doesn’t anyone ask how the success of Charter of Demands will be measured. All or some of the demands have to be met?”

Don’t ask me, Nihal. This is a country where probably the cleanest of politicians, Mr. Imran Khan, failed to build a decent political party in five years. Why? Because he wants to be the sole leader within his party. Dissent not allowed. The classic problem of Pakistan’s hopeless politicians.

Look at the bright side, President Gul. You’re back home by now. We still have to live with this circus.

Ahmed Quraishi.com

I am really beginning to like this guys commentary on the state of affairs in Pakistan.
 
Why are Nawaz Sharif and Benazir even being granted the permission to interact with foreign dignitaries on an open forum in an "official capacity"? For now they are just two citizens who are hoping to get elected into office at some point in the future.

Apparently Lance Armstrong is being touted as a future republican nominee for the presidential elections ; but guess what, he doesn't get to sit in on meetings with Manmohan Singh or Hu Jintao to discuss the future of American policy with their respective nations whenever either of them come to Washington DC.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Benazir or Nawaz should be locked away and not be allowed to interact with foreign officials; I just think that it should be under the appropriate venue. Nobody is stopping them from going to Gull's house and seeking an audience with him in the living room.
 
Why are Nawaz Sharif and Benazir even being granted the permission to interact with foreign dignitaries on an open forum in an "official capacity"? For now they are just two citizens who are hoping to get elected into office at some point in the future.

Apparently Lance Armstrong is being touted as a future republican nominee for the presidential elections ; but guess what, he doesn't get to sit in on meetings with Manmohan Singh or Hu Jintao to discuss the future of American policy with their respective nations whenever either of them come to Washington DC.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Benazir or Nawaz should be locked away and not be allowed to interact with foreign officials; I just think that it should be under the appropriate venue. Nobody is stopping them from going to Gull's house and seeking an audience with him in the living room.

That is a very valid point - Though it might be in their capacity as leaders of their respective parties, which would potentially be the two largest opposition parties, if not the two largest parties in Pakistan.

Do State guests interact with both Republican and Democratic leadership of the house when visiting the US? Though even if they did it would be more of an interaction with "elected" leaders from the legislature, and not simply aspirants.

I do know that Gul stated that his own party had its leader, Tayip Erdogan, disqualified, but it still participated in the elections and won a large majority and the Pakistani parties should look at that and take heart. Perhaps he was attempting to suggest to BB and NS that it is their party that counts, and not them individually for democracy to flourish.

That message sadly was delivered to two egomaniacal and power hungry individuals who couldn't care less for "institution building", except when the institution might help them come into power (the former SC).
 
That is a very valid point - Though it might be in their capacity as leaders of their respective parties, which would potentially be the two largest opposition parties, if not the two largest parties in Pakistan.

Do State guests interact with both Republican and Democratic leadership of the house when visiting the US? Though even if they did it would be more of an interaction with "elected" leaders from the legislature, and not simply aspirants.
As I said before, it's all about the capacity and the venue in which people meet. When one is a guest of a state, they are hosted by group of individuals running the nation and at the whitehouse. But on that visit, if time permits, they are free to go wherever they choose, Hu Jintao is more than free to go to the local walmart and laugh at all the customers if he so pleases. He can also meet whomsoever he wants in private and discuss anything to his heart's content. But there is discretion involved. Unless specified appropriately, nothing is deemed official or given media coverage and breaching that protocol is a big faux pas. Ahmedinijad can go and talk his heart out at Columbia University provided the nature of the meeting (academic purposes) is clearly specified.

In this case however, it seems to me that the characters involved were engaged in an open discussion about the state of affairs of Pakistan with one of the nation's closest ally and financier.

As per the article:
OP said:
Mr. Gul came to talk about the larger picture, Pakistan’s regional and global status and reputation, the threats emanating from Afghanistan, where many different players are using the Afghan soil to create havoc in Pakistan, and the international situation where the American media is bent on demonizing Islamabad’s military and nuclear capabilities.
What authority does anyone sitting on that Pakistani panel have to shed light upon any of these things? Only Musharraf or one of his delegates can answer these questions since his administration has direct oversight of all the matters in question. Anything the rest of them say is nothing short of hearsay and thereby devoid of any empirical value.

Heck, Nawaz and Benazir haven't even been in Pakistan for almost a decade!
 
I recon it was worth a good move to allow President Turkey to meet these buggers. Atleast now world knows there worth. They can have faith in Mushy's stance. Am glad they opened themselves up infront of them.
 
Pakistan News Service - PakTribune
LAHORE: Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaaf Chairman Imran Khan has said if Benazir Bhutto boycotted the elections then he would help end her corruption cases. :what:

What's going on????

I was under the impression PTI was launched as an alternate to the corrupt and incapable BB and Sharif.
Today, Mr. Khan the chairman of PTI is promoting them!!!
Does these political cheifs, have any thing such as principles and ideology?
 
And it’s not just Turkey’s Abdullah Gul. There is also Mr. Hu Jintao, the President of China. On 3 November, when the U.S. media came down hard on Pakistan and Britain maneuvered behind the scenes to kick Pakistan out of the Commonwealth, Mr. Hu sent a strong message of support to Pakistan and the people of Pakistan. He sent another message on 30 November. In total, two important messages for the Pakistanis in less than one month from the leader of China.

If any Pakistani has an iota of patriotism and pride in his/her veins, they would stand up and salute the Chinese president for the message he sent to the Pakistanis and to the world. To the Pakistanis Mr. Hu said, when all is said and done, it is Pakistan’s stability that is above everything else. Don’t forget that. Pakistan’s strength is in development and stability, everything else comes second, including Western notions of democracy. And to the world, his two messages were a clear sign: China will not abandon Pakistan. If someone thinks they can profit by creating internal strife in Pakistan, this will not be allowed to happen.

Whatever it is, destiny, fate, strategy, coincidence.. Pakistan has made a very good move in allying politically with China. The strongest of allies :china::pakistan:
 
Whatever it is, destiny, fate, strategy, coincidence.. Pakistan has made a very good move in allying politically with China. The strongest of allies :china::pakistan:

This is expected, Sino-Pak relations is like US-British relations. Strongest allies.
 
This is expected, Sino-Pak relations is like US-British relations. Strongest allies.

Brothers.
While Pak china friendship is worthyof being proud of and is time tested, I would add a word of caution. China helps Pakistan because of a symbiotic relationship. There are various advantages for China to do so, mainly to keep India on a tight leash. Also Pakistan serves as a conduit for Western technological Knowhow to trickle in to china,which is put to very good use. However, in International relations there are no eternal friendships or enmosities. It is in Pakistans interest to stand on its own two feet ASAP, so that this business of dependency comes to an end once and for all. I am sure, we would have a much stronger relationship with a lot of countries including China and I dare say India, if we were economically more powerful and secure.
Regards
Araz
 
Brothers.
While Pak china friendship is worthyof being proud of and is time tested, I would add a word of caution. China helps Pakistan because of a symbiotic relationship. There are various advantages for China to do so, mainly to keep India on a tight leash. Also Pakistan serves as a conduit for Western technological Knowhow to trickle in to china,which is put to very good use. However, in International relations there are no eternal friendships or enmosities. It is in Pakistans interest to stand on its own two feet ASAP, so that this business of dependency comes to an end once and for all. I am sure, we would have a much stronger relationship with a lot of countries including China and I dare say India, if we were economically more powerful and secure.
Regards
Araz

I'd disagree. US-Pakistan is more of a symbiotic relationship. When US needs Pakistan, it becomes its ally. When there's nothing Pakistan can do for it, then there's no relationship. China has been there throughout. China doesnt have much to gain and probably more to lose by supporting the emergency when other allies? are supporting corrupt politicians and throwing it out of their instituions. Ally-wise, easily the strongest. There's something more fundamental within the Sino-Pak relationship. Though China does have interests in Pakistan. It also knows the value of Pakistan geostrategically for it.

Forget about India. China could crush India militarily and is years ahead of India technologically and economically. It's not an obvious ally, but perhaps similar sets of circumstances came about in both countries that set them on a path to becoming allies.
 
Brothers.
While Pak china friendship is worthyof being proud of and is time tested, I would add a word of caution. China helps Pakistan because of a symbiotic relationship. There are various advantages for China to do so, mainly to keep India on a tight leash. Also Pakistan serves as a conduit for Western technological Knowhow to trickle in to china,which is put to very good use. However, in International relations there are no eternal friendships or enmosities. It is in Pakistans interest to stand on its own two feet ASAP, so that this business of dependency comes to an end once and for all. I am sure, we would have a much stronger relationship with a lot of countries including China and I dare say India, if we were economically more powerful and secure.
Regards
Araz


Quote:
Originally Posted by roadrunner View Post
Whatever it is, destiny, fate, strategy, coincidence.. Pakistan has made a very good move in allying politically with China. The strongest of allies
This is expected, Sino-Pak relations is like US-British relations. Strongest allies.

I tend to agree with Araz.

More logical and less sentimental.

China has never intervened when Pakistan required it most - 1971 or Kargil! More so, 1971 since the action was in the East!

Would surely have made a difference! Pakistan may not have been bifurcated and humiliated by the rag tag Mukti Bahini!

I am all for Indo Pak amity. Unlike most of you, I have seen it all, including after Partition when I went to East Pakistan and Karachi. Even then, I had a wonderful time there!
 
I tend to agree with Araz.

More logical and less sentimental.

China has never intervened when Pakistan required it most - 1971 or Kargil! More so, 1971 since the action was in the East!

Would surely have made a difference! Pakistan may not have been bifurcated and humiliated by the rag tag Mukti Bahini!

I am all for Indo Pak amity. Unlike most of you, I have seen it all, including after Partition when I went to East Pakistan and Karachi. Even then, I had a wonderful time there!

The Chinese support for Pakistan over East Pakistan/Bangladesh was recorded by Nixon and Kissinger.

China would stand by Pakistan in the present crisis. This position began to develop with a rather low-key remark at a dinner on the first night that China "could not but take some interest in the situation." The dinner between Chou-En Lai and Nixon ended with a request to the US President to convey assurance of Chinese support to Yahya Khan.

Nixon has been recorded as saying: "I told Chou that we were trying very hard to discourage an Indo-Pak war. I assured him that we were bringing all the influence we could to try to prevent a war from developing. Chou said this was a good thing, but he inferred that we might not be able to do too much because we were 10,000 miles away. China, however, was much closer. Chou recalled the Chinese defeat of India in 1962 and hinted rather broadly that the same thing could happen again." The Chinese detestation of the Indians came through loud and clear. Conversely, China's warm friendship for Pakistan as a firm and reliable friend was made very plain. The Memorandum of Conversation recorded on February 23, 1972, narrated that.


rediff.com: Kuldip Nayar on the US-China-Pak equation in the Bangladesh war

As to why the Chinese didn't interfere in East Pakistan..

I guess .. a little discrimination might have accounted for it..

"China did not even go over the exercise to help Islamabad. It turns out that both were interested in 'saving' West Pakistan."
 
Brothers.
While Pak china friendship is worthy of being proud of and is time tested, I would add a word of caution. China helps Pakistan because of a symbiotic relationship. There are various advantages for China to do so, mainly to keep India on a tight leash. Also Pakistan serves as a conduit for Western technological Knowhow to trickle in to china,which is put to very good use. However, in International relations there are no eternal friendships or enmosities. It is in Pakistans interest to stand on its own two feet ASAP, so that this business of dependency comes to an end once and for all. I am sure, we would have a much stronger relationship with a lot of countries including China and I dare say India, if we were economically more powerful and secure.
Regards
Araz
I'm with Araz here. Historically the biggest problem that has plagued Pakistan is it's eagerness to become a client state for "strategic" purposes to spite India. In most cases, the beneficiary eventually falters on the relationship because the agreement is no longer useful or that something else is deemed more valuable. Also, in each case, the next beneficiary is considered to be "the one" and "strategic partnerships" (of dependence/subservience) are immediately drawn only for history to repeat itself with different players. Pakistan is an excellent foil for China to keep tabs on South Asia, the same is true for the USA.

The truth of the matter is that each beneficiary state is out for their own private interests. After decades of anti-India stances, the USA has come to the conclusion that strategic partnership with their old enemy is far more beneficial given the trillions of dollars in potential trade. There is no saying the same won't be true for China, who are already discussing sensitive nuclear trade and trying their level best to enter the big market. Like it or not money trumps everything and frankly, there is nothing wrong with that. Each nation should be responsible for itself without over-reliance upon any "benevolent" beneficiary. It's just common sense and an urgency for Pakistan for the sake of it's own future.
 
I'm with Araz here. Historically the biggest problem that has plagued Pakistan is it's eagerness to become a client state for "strategic" purposes to spite India. In most cases, the beneficiary eventually falters on the relationship because the agreement is no longer useful or that something else is deemed more valuable. Also, in each case, the next beneficiary is considered to be "the one" and "strategic partnerships" (of dependence/subservience) are immediately drawn only for history to repeat itself with different players. Pakistan is an excellent foil for China to keep tabs on South Asia, the same is true for the USA.

The truth of the matter is that each beneficiary state is out for their own private interests. After decades of anti-India stances, the USA has come to the conclusion that strategic partnership with their old enemy is far more beneficial given the trillions of dollars in potential trade. There is no saying the same won't be true for China, who are already discussing sensitive nuclear trade and trying their level best to enter the big market. Like it or not money trumps everything and frankly, there is nothing wrong with that. Each nation should be responsible for itself without over-reliance upon any "benevolent" beneficiary. It's just common sense and an urgency for Pakistan for the sake of it's own future.

To stand on ones own two feet is important. But Pakistan needs the help of a major power or superpower for this. It needs to catch up on lost time basically. There's no use reinventing the wheel like Bharat wants to with things like the LCA (which they've now seeked outside help for). Better to used the tested stuff, and build from there. Only China would be prepared to let Pakistan have this stuff. This immediately gives Pakistan a technological catch up card. Once it has caught up, Pakistan can then think about standing on its own two feet. I wouldnt say it will take long, depending on the progress of China, and on Pakistan itself of course..Remember China was the one to suggest to Pakistan to "stand on your own two feet", and suggested they become joint partners in the manufacture of the JF-17. The Sino-Pak relationship is deeper than just a symbiotic one.
 
The Chinese support for Pakistan over East Pakistan/Bangladesh was recorded by Nixon and Kissinger.

China would stand by Pakistan in the present crisis. This position began to develop with a rather low-key remark at a dinner on the first night that China "could not but take some interest in the situation." The dinner between Chou-En Lai and Nixon ended with a request to the US President to convey assurance of Chinese support to Yahya Khan.

Nixon has been recorded as saying: "I told Chou that we were trying very hard to discourage an Indo-Pak war. I assured him that we were bringing all the influence we could to try to prevent a war from developing. Chou said this was a good thing, but he inferred that we might not be able to do too much because we were 10,000 miles away. China, however, was much closer. Chou recalled the Chinese defeat of India in 1962 and hinted rather broadly that the same thing could happen again." The Chinese detestation of the Indians came through loud and clear. Conversely, China's warm friendship for Pakistan as a firm and reliable friend was made very plain. The Memorandum of Conversation recorded on February 23, 1972, narrated that.


rediff.com: Kuldip Nayar on the US-China-Pak equation in the Bangladesh war

As to why the Chinese didn't interfere in East Pakistan..

I guess .. a little discrimination might have accounted for it..

"China did not even go over the exercise to help Islamabad. It turns out that both were interested in 'saving' West Pakistan."

And with all that, what was the bottomline?

Let delusions not seize and build castles in the air!

West Pakistan was never in danger!

But, if it comforts you, believe in what you believe as you believed with the US!

Chinese are a very pragmatic lot.

They know their onions!

If conversations are a saviour, so be it!

One should believe in action and not words!
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom