Musharraf Tells Bush To Butt Out!

[Awaaz]

I think the best compromise would be to:

1. lift the gag order on the TV.
2. free all lawyers/politicians/political workers etc.
3. keep the emergency in the NWFP along with points 1&2.
4. lift the emergency from the rest of the country.

Well kind sir could you give us a break down reason why emergency should be lifted from rest of pakistan and not from nwfp?. Why is the goverment and some people out there using nwfp as an excuse for internal politics that are being waged between the democracy seekers, judiciary and the military dictatorship?.

The situation in nwfp is hostile but its not to a boiling point or any other where it threatens national security. There is militancy in some areas but by large thats not the case.

Your comment are a divider factor in what people feel, as it is a discriminating remark that singles out people for others to be cautious of. A stereo typical view, yet most of you have criticism when i speak what i feel.

 

[Munir]

The reality is that US is not happy with Pakistan going for gas from Iran and getting close to China. They marked frredomfighters now terrorist (Afghanistani taleban) and now feudalism is democracy? My ***.

Letter from Pakistan: Resisting Feudalism?
Pakistan on Friday, Nov. 16, 2007. (Mohammad Zubair/AP Photo) OPINION By SABIHA SUMAR and S. SATHANANTHAN
Nov. 18, 2007

declared in Pakistan solely to his alleged "greed for power" and desire to continue to hold the offices of both president and chief of army. Any mono-causal explanation of political events, especially those fuelled by power struggles, is immediately suspect, for they are outcomes of complex interactions of competing social forces.

Equally facile is the assertion that President George W. Bush is putting pressure on the "dictator" to save the Pakistani people and usher democracy. But as we know in the world of realpolitik, states are guided by interests and not by sentiments. It is naive to believe that President Bush and his administration are shedding tears for the democratic rights of Pakistani masses. Indeed, the Bush administration cheerfully continues to bankroll medieval kingdoms and emirates in West Asia. No mention of democracy there. Rather, we must dig deeper; we must look at U.S. interests in Pakistan and the surrounding region to understand Bush's foreign policy posture.

When Musharraf overthrew the democratically-elected Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in the 1999 coup, he stymied Sharif's ploy to make the Koran the supreme law of the land a la Saudi Arabia and turn Pakistan into an undemocratic Islamic state. Western governments, especially in the U.S. and U.K., welcomed the "dictator" with open arms. They embraced him as a comrade-in-arms in the war against Islamic extremism. There was no talk of democracy then, because both Bush and Tony Blair took it for granted that Musharraf would be their docile ally.

But for Musharraf, Pakistan's national interest comes first. He refused to go along with Bush on Iraq. That was the first fissure.

Now, he is refusing to tow Bush's line and isolate Iran. In fact, he is going ahead with building the natural gas pipeline between Iran and Pakistan in the teeth of opposition from the Bush administration. Similarly, he is expanding bi-lateral relations and nuclear cooperation with China against the express wishes of the Bush administration. So he has fallen out of favor in Washington (and London).

They need Musharraf to continue as president in the frontline state in the war on terror to keep the extremists at bay. But they also need to reduce his power and induce a change in Pakistani foreign policy to the advantage of U.S. and U.K.

So, democracy rears its ugly head!

Bush is promoting Benazir Bhutto because she is putty in his hands. If elected prime minister, she said, she would offer U.S. intelligence agencies access to Dr. A.Q. Khan and would allow U.S. forces free entry into Pakistan to search for Osama bin Laden. Musharraf has stoutly refused to concede both. If an Indian leader had similarly capitulated to a major foreign power, he or she would have been banished by the country's political elite. But Pakistan's immature political elite cannot see the wood for the trees. So Bhutto merrily sails along, willing to do Bush's bidding in return for his administration's support to occupy the prime minister's seat. She has made it clear to him she will go along with U.S. foreign policy Iraq, Iran and China.

In fact, the power sharing Bush talks about between Musharraf and Bhutto boils down to Bhutto getting control of Pakistan's foreign policy so that she could obligingly dovetail Pakistan's foreign policy with Bush's foreign policy -- which is something Musharraf has steadfastly refused to do.

In this "regime adjustment" the Bush administration has found allies amongst Pakistan's elite, which is unremittingly feudal. Bhutto, for example, comes from a traditional feudal family and married into another traditional feudal family; for her, the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) formed by her father, is her fiefdom -- she is president for life. Inner-party democracy is the stuff of fiction. It is important to keep in mind that the PPP and Nawaz Sharif's PML(N) are not the secular modern parties voters are accustomed to in the west.

Feudals in both parties oppose Musharraf's reforms tooth and nail. Because his administrative modernization set up, for the first time, representative, elected local government institutions (Nazims) and politically empowered the poor; his economic liberalization (including privatization) is promoting the growth of the middle class -- universally recognized as the backbone of liberal democracy. Both hit at their feudal roots. Predictably, the judiciary has time and again ruled against Musharraf's privatization of key economic sectors.

The clerics in the religious coalition -- the MMA -- resist his educational reforms and promotion of women's rights since both are undermining the ideological domination of the religious establishment. In the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) the ruling MMA is systematically sabotaging Musharraf's reforms.

By all accounts, Musharraf allowed the highest degree of media freedom ever experienced in the country's history. This is exposing the average Pakistani to the world outside, and to modern values of democracy and individual rights.

Not surprisingly, the PPP, PML and the MMA are ranged against the army, led by Musharraf.

It is crucial to keep in mind that he is the first leader who has attempted the modernization of Pakistani economy and society.

Many prominent lawyers leading the opposition to Musharraf are either members of PPP or are closely connected to it through kinship links. A majority of the lawyers and judges and "liberal" defenders of human rights are part of the feudal elite; the rest share in the feudal values. They feel extremely threatened by Musharraf's modernization and are bent on protecting their inherited status and privileges. They are hardly the stuff of independent, modern professionals.

Some of the street support for Bhutto on TV is, of course, from party workers. But a lot of it is the poorest of the poor, most of whom are serfs who live a hand-to-mouth existence on the fiefs of feudals. They are lured in truckloads with the offer of two meals a day, which is a luxury for them.

This is the background to and the essence of the sordid "pro-democracy" movement.

It would be a real pity if American opinion makers and professionals lose sight of this unfolding power struggle between the army led by Musharraf on the one hand and the obscurantist feudal and clerical forces on the other.

If the Pakistani legal establishment and liberals were able to rise above their self-interest, they too would support Musharraf, like the liberals in Turkey who backed their modernizing army.

 

[BATMAN]

I think the best compromise would be to:

1. lift the gag order on the TV.
2. free all lawyers/politicians/political workers etc.
3. keep the emergency in the NWFP along with points 1&2.
4. lift the emergency from the rest of the country.

Why free any one who acted violently, assaulted or attempted to assault any state security personal or civilian.

After all, security personals are there to protect the peaceful majority citizens.

I don't think any mob who burn civilian or state cars or damage civil or state property or disrupt normal life should walk out free. In my opinion if this happens next they will be even more violent.

It was the lawyers who bullied there fellow lawyers on grounds of difference in opinion.
I can bet majority of arrested are only political activists.

In past, Pakistan had gone through Martial laws, those times were not as horrible, as some are describing present emergency. We had wonderful relations with US during Zia and Ayyub era!
Any way, I believe emergency was justified in the present situation.
In past rule of N.Sharif political opponents had been subjected to brutal tortures in various police stations. Aitizaz Ahsan was once hanged upside down in one police station of Lahore, but no news paper had freedom enough to condem it.

Now, if we compare a situation of freedom with our neighbor India, where laws like TADA permits to arrest people and hold them unlimited without any trial ever. Pakistan is 1000 times more democratic and have 10000% more free and critical media.

Laws and Regulations - India Intelligence Agencies

The Supreme Court in May 1995 upheld the Government's authority to suspend fundamental rights during an emergency....Under the Official Secrets Act (OSA), the Government may restrict publication of sensitive stories.....Under the act, a district magistrate may prohibit the press from publishing material resulting in "incitement to murder" or "any act of violence." As punishment the act stipulates that the authorities may seize newspapers and printing presses.....the police may conduct searches without warrants....At times of civil tension, the authorities may ban public assemblies or impose a curfew under the Criminal Procedure Code.....Indian Telegraph Act authorizes the surveillance of communications, including monitoring telephone conversations and intercepting personal mail......Special Powers Act passed in July 1990, security forces personnel have extraordinary powers, including authority to shoot suspected lawbreakers and those disturbing the peace.......The National Security Act (NSA) of 1980 permits detention of persons considered security risks......the law that had been subject to the most extensive abuse--the Terrorist and Disruptive Practices (Prevention) Act (TADA)--...more than 3,000 charged under other laws in addition to TADA......Government reported that 15,826 people were detained under TADA in the state between 1990 and 1995.....

I never heard any one in India or abroad had any problems with thousand's dissapearing every year, particular from a minority group.
Infact, you will always find Hindus advocating and very supportive of such laws.

All those arrested in pakistan were in streets for no valid reason.
Pakistan have a democratically elected parliment and President, and much more freedom and ecnomic progress than any past government in entire history of Pakistan. What else do we need in context of democracy and governance.

N.Sharif rose through the ranks of politics by licking the *** of a martial law administrator.
ZA.Bhutto licked the *** of another martial administrator.
Difficulty now is that licking the *** of Musharraf is not enough, because it is the state law which bars both BB and N.Sharif from becoming PM third time and they are on the course of black mailing and forcing the state to modify law in there favor.
Specially, BB was very hopeful of a favorable amendment but now parliment is suspended, so she is desprate. As usual, she didn't find it hard to lure in other political parties to acheive her personal ambitions, which are purely financial, and anti-Pakistan. She is out there for a deal.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Awaaz,

First - it does not matter to me who you are or who you claim to be - your origins have nothing to do with the validity of the arguments you make.

You make an excellent argument of the corruption and lack of institutional development in Pakistan - and our system has many failings - but what I also see in you is flip flopping from one extreme to the other, you have no consistent stand. At one point your posts were borderline racist - alluding to "the Indianness" of everyone but the Pashtun.

You say that you are not against "development, and reform" - yet in the Tribal areas thread it was you who made comments to the effect of "the Tribal areas should not be changed - that is their culture and where the homeboys roll". What is that, if not a desire to maintain the medieval code that has resulted in so much violence and lawlessness?

Corruption and lawlessness rule the roost, but where else do you see the anarchy that has become symbolic of the Tribal belt, and the Baluchistan Sardars? No one will deny you that the problems that afflict our nation need to be fixed, but no one will also make the argument that you, and in similar fashion the Mullahs, make to justify the anarchy and violence.

You are correct that the entire NWFP does not need emergency, in fact thank you for admitting that the vast majority of the NWFP is completely in sync with the rest of the country and part of mainstream Pakistani society in attempting to redress the grievances of Pakistanis through peaceful means.

Now, what do you suggest be done with the militants carrying out cross border raids against NATO, and bombing and killing innocent civilians and soldiers?

 

[roadrunner]

Mega projects now are sixty years too late, in previous decades most attention was paid to karachi due to a port and most investment was made there. Other mega projects were in punjab and other parts of sindh, now 30/40 years down the line china has interests in securing its oil and various other supllies a port has been opened at gwadar. Well we are against modernisation you say, of course not i say, but would there have been a port built at gwadar if it didnt serve chinas interests?.

I'd simply say, stop being so ignorant. At least know some history. First off, the reason Karachi port was developed over Gwadar was because the Muhajir banks moved into that area bringing with them their money, which naturally they wanted to invest into the area they were living in. Karachi wielded a lot more political power than Gwadar because of this reason alone. So Karachi got developed. Secondly, when resources are limited it's impossible to spread the wealth evenly if you want progression. Some places need to be developed well so they last, and produce an amount of profit, and then other places can be worked on. Gwadar would not have given the same sorts of profits as Karachi because Karachi had the workforce. So why invest in Gwadar if it doesn't make economic sense? Just to let emotions get in the way and run down the economy? Everything built in Pakistan is built in Pakistan's interests. Half of the army generals are Pashtun. By this logic of yours NWFP should be one of the most developed regions in Pakistan, but it isn't because the Pashtun leaders know and accept that mega projects cannot be spread evenly, especially in those less progressive areas. A final comment is that the tribals and sardars are against development because it means erosion of their cultural grip on the people. The sardars need to go, and then investment can take place. You don't invest billions on an estate full of vandals, do you?

I say no, then we would have not be hearing that people are against modernisation because nothing would have been and goverment wouldnt have given a toss.

Same with gas and other mineral found in balochistan, well goverment didint invest for 40 odd years in this province but now all these minerals are found it pretends it cares and is out for local peoples interests. Its not because it didint care for decades its only after filling the its pockets.

Bullshyt as usual Gas was being drilled in Balochistan from 1950 onwards. Sui was discovered way back at partition and the Pak government knew there was huge gas reserves in Balochistan from this time. If it wanted to it could have invested in Balochistan from the 1950s when they were drawing up gas from the area. They only started recently due to the long-overdue elimination of the sardars.

You say i may be an indian, shall i give u my nic number? tell you my place of birth, he he he why me as a pakistani not allowed to criticise my country, am i not allowed freedom of speech and thought?.

Typically, it's always people like you that think by saying (on the internet!) you are an ethnic group, you must represent them and their views. You like to make a big fuss about your ethnic group on the internet which is about the same sort of whispers we hear from those Pak soldiers phoning up our keyboard cowboys here and giving them top secret information about what's going on in operations involving Pakistan Army. I am in fact Atal Vajpayee, and your kind words are much appreciated in India

 

[Awaaz]

Look all i got tosay is think did the federal goverment open gwadar port in the interests of the local population or was it in the interests of china?

 

[blain2]

Look all i got tosay is think did the federal goverment open gwadar port in the interests of the local population or was it in the interests of china?

Its in the interest of Pakistan first and foremost. Trade route means fees and jobs in transportation, ports, development.

Its in Pakistan's interest because Pakistan can become a conduit for trade in land into CA.

This is the same logic as the IPI pipeline. Gas is for India, but Pakistan gets transit charges. Results in more money for Pakistan.

On the issue of not lifting emergency in NWFP, all that essentially means that Army can move around and take action as needed. It has nothing to do with curbing rights of the people in NWFP. Once the militancy in FATA and Swat comes under control then Emergency can be lifted.