Showing posts with label Musharraf. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Musharraf. Show all posts

Saturday, 23 August 2008

Breaking news from around the world

  • Tensions have intensified between the Western world and Russia and controversy still reigns over the ceasefire signed between Russia and Georgia. Cold War rhetoric has gone through the roof.
  • (Former) President Musharraf of Pakistan is no longer the leader. At last.

    More soon!

  • Thursday, 22 November 2007

    Pakistan's state of mayhem

    So President Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency on 3 November, justifying the need to secure the state for his blatant repression of anything free in Pakistan (security over freedom). One might even call this a second coup. Needless to say, any deal with Benazir Bhutto is off the table. Her period of house arrest has ended, but other political opponents to Musharraf and human rights proponents have been jailed.

    Meanwhile the United States government has been protecting Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Bad idea for a country on the brink of total instability, teeming with radical Islamic fundamentalists to have an unsecured collection of nuclear weapons, so I see the need for the US to do so. The US has urged Pakistan's leader to end his rule of martial law.

    A less helpful foreign policy move has been America's friendly position with Gen. Musharraf in the first place.

    Today Pakistan was again rightfully suspended from the Commonwealth.


    I hope everyone who celebrates Thanksgiving had a nice one!

    Saturday, 6 October 2007

    Musharraf 'wins' one-man election

    Gen. Pervez Musharraf has apparantly won Pakistan's presidential election, although, as usual in a controversial way. Even if this wasn't a one-man race, I doubt the election would be fair, considering the precedent as well as Musharraf's lack of respect for the democratic process.

    NYT:

    President Pervez Musharraf easily won the presidential election today, but an opposition boycott and pending hearings in the Supreme Court, which still has to decide on his eligibility to stand for election in uniform, left him with an incomplete victory.

    The vote, by national and provincial assemblies, ended up as a one-man race after other candidates withdrew. All opposition parties refused to take part and only legislators from the ruling coalition, plus a few independents voted.
    ...
    General Musharraf had been widely expected to win the vote because the government coalition holds a majority in all but one provincial assembly.


    Pakistan's president has been facing many troubles lately, not least the failed attempt at power sharing with ex-PM Bhutto or the rise of extremism since his authoritarianism has pushed out the moderates. Engineering an election doesn't seem to be one of Musharraf's problems. He has defied the courts, ran in uniform, and always makes sure the vote goes his way (in this case, a boycott by the opposition led to the lack of, well, opposition). I wonder what the Supreme Court will say on this issue. More importantly, will Musharraf follow their decision, and what consequences lie ahead for Pakistan's people? Will 'war on terror' ally America recognize this election for the undemocratic sham it is, or will it turn (another) blind eye?

    Thursday, 20 September 2007

    Date set for major Pakistani election

    Pakistan's presidential election will take place on 6 October, the official electoral commission stated today.

    Pakistan's election commission Thursday named October 6 as the date for a presidential poll in which embattled military ruler Pervez Musharraf will seek re-election in uniform.


    Musharraf has a history of trickery when it comes to elections. He will probably run in uniform, as the above article says, which directly contradicts a previous ruling by the Supreme Court. If challenged, he will either temporize more, or declare martial law and reshuffle the government only with people he likes. He already deported former PM Nawaz Sharif after he dared to come back to his country earlier this month after the courts ruled he could. Musharraf is like any other dictator: he likes power, and will hold on to power for as long as he can, doing whatever it takes to maintain the presidency.

    General Musharraf will not worry about this. He wants to cling to power, and he has two options. First, he can seal a deal with Ms Bhutto.
    ...
    The army, and it alone, is General Musharraf's constituency and the source of his power. By stripping himself of its uniform he reasonably fears that he would be an emperor without clothes.

    His alternative is to go it alone. He already has a simple majority in Parliament, which is sufficient for a presidential re-election. Without the PPP, he will not have the two-thirds majority necessary to make constitutional changes. In effect, that means that if his re-election were challenged on legal grounds—as it surely would be—General Musharraf would be at the mercy of the Supreme Court.

    On recent form, the judges might rule against him. If so, General Musharraf would probably then declare martial law. This would allow him to re-run the events that followed his 1999 coup: he would gut the Supreme Court of dissidents, ask the remaining sycophants to rule on the legality of his suspension of democracy, then hold elections. So long as a fair portion of the opposition participated in these, they would probably pass muster with America. But how would Pakistanis respond?


    Will the election be free and fair, as America and others wish? Don't count on it. What happens next could be more clashes between the courts and Gen Musharraf, but it looks like he will stay in power -- for now. Pakistani politics are notoriously hard to predict.

    Monday, 10 September 2007

    Musharraf's idea of a warm welcome?

    A not-so-inviting homecoming
    According to his PML-N party, the Pakistani government detained thousands of supporters of exiled Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif just before he began the voyage home to his country. Sharif arrived as expected today, only to be deported to Saudi Arabia, as had been feared, despite the Supreme Court ruling that he may return. The EU says the court's decision should be respected; the US government has pussyfooted the issue, as it often does on matters pertaining to Pakistan and democracy.

    General disarray
    Pakistani politics are explosive right now — literally. Violence and threats by extremists have been on the rise as the nation's embattled military dictator, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, is challenged for power. Could the man he kicked out in a 1999 coup be his next challenger? Assuming they aren't rigged or delayed again, elections should be coming soon to Pakistan. There have already been rumors that Musharraf is in political talks with also-exiled ex-PM Benazir Bhutto, leader of the opposition PPP party.

    So why is Sharif returning to the nation whose government threatened to kill, imprison, or deport him last time he overstayed his welcome (in their eyes)? Last month, the Supreme Court ordered that Sharif could return, only a month after Musharraf reinstated the popular and judicial Chief Justice Chaudhry of the court whom he had removed in March because he was one person of power who would actually challenge Musharraf and attempt to put him in check.

    If you take away the center, only the extremes are left
    I'm hoping that Musharraf will give democracy a chance — 'ally' America has been fairly lax on the pressure — and that political freedom will triumph over both military authoritarianism and Islamic extremism. Musharraf's oppression of liberals and moderates has allowed the militants to rise to the top; a political vacuum has been created in Pakistan in which the extremes grow as the moderates sink. In some cases he has had to appease the extremists, but almost never the moderates.

    I agree with Benazir Bhutto in that moderate forces have been driven out and extremists have take hold of a country on the verge of total disarray.

    Upcoming dates:

    14 Sept: Date Ex-PM Benazir Bhutto will announce details of her homecoming
    15 Sep-15 Oct: Timeframe Gen Musharraf has set for his re-election as president by parliament
    October: Parliament expires and general election must be held

    Thursday, 9 August 2007

    Pakistan's state of emergency postponed

    As it turns out, Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf did not impose emergency rule (see this post for background) — which would have quelled more civil liberties and pushed the elections back to who-knows-when — possibly due in part to pressure by Condi Rice.

    "My focus in terms of the domestic scene there is that he have a free and fair election and that's what we have been talking to him about and hopefully they will," Mr Bush said at a White House news conference.

    A Pakistani government spokesman said there was pressure on Gen Musharraf to declare an emergency but that he had decided not to because he was "committed to democracy".


    Since we're already on the topic of Pakistan's president/military dictator, it's relevant to note that...
    Mr Bush said he expected Gen Musharraf to act against al-Qaeda leaders who the US says are sheltering in the areas. Pakistan has called the US warnings "irresponsible and dangerous".

    and
    Gen Musharraf pulled out of the three-day Afghan council, or peace jirga, on combating the Taleban, citing commitments in Islamabad.


    One of the reasons the US is probably still sticking with Pakistan as a GWOT ally is that its one of the only allies it has at its disposal. If Pakistan and America weren't tied that could mean more extremism because of lack of external support for Musharraf; on the other hand we have seen more extremism develop because of the US-Pakistan relationship. Sort of like with the controversial topic of troop pullout from Iraq: the US leaves there are almost no security forces and Iraq could become even more of a black hole of turmoil with Iran and the Saudis squaring off unchecked; on the other hand foreign occupation provides radicals with a rallying cry for insurgency and fuels Islamic terrorism.

    Democratic elections in Pakistan are due later this year. Whoever wants to bet that Bush's wish that they'll be 'free and fair' will come true has the odds against them.

    Wednesday, 8 August 2007

    Musharraf: another political victim of the 'war on terror'

    Will one of America's major allies in the 'war on terror' fall into the sea of turmoil devouring parts of his nation?

    Dictator Musharraf is growing unpopular, and neither the US nor the Taliban is helping. Someone who both works with terrorists — namely by condoning the hotbed of extremism on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border — and an unpopular nation seen as a hegemonic power, while also ruling undemocratically, is bound to run out of luck sometime. Musharraf has faced a series of debacles, including the taking of the Red Mosque in Islamabad by fundamentalists and backlash to his sacking of Pakistan's chief justice and critic of the regime (although he was reinstated).

    It has just been reported that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf may declare a state of emergency, although that is denied by the government.

    A member of the inner circle of the Pakistani leadership told Reuters, however, that U.S. ally Musharraf was considering the option, which could allow him to extend the tenure of the national and provincial assemblies by 12 months and delay elections due by the turn of the year.

    The government could explain such a step by citing growing insecurity because of the threat posed by Islamist militants allied to the Taliban and al Qaeda after a series of attacks, many of them by suicide bombers, in the past month.

    Political analysts and opposition leaders, however, have feared that Musharraf, who is going through his weakest period since coming to power in a 1999 coup, might resort to an emergency because of difficulties he faces in getting re-elected by the sitting assemblies, while still army chief.


    Many have lost political support by cooperating with America. To make up for that, in certain cases the US gives massive amount of aid, like in the case of Saudi Arabia, but most still keep their distance.

    Portrayed by extremists as an imperial occupier bent on the destruction of Islam and working with its Zionist pal Israel to achieve that goal. Obviously that is a misconstrued perception meant to radicalize the population, but it makes it all the more easier to see why it is not good to be seen as a puppet of the United States, not least in the Middle East [and the Muslim world in general].

    Pakistan has proven itself to be not only a hotspot for extremism because of the extremists there, but also because of Musharraf and gang are seen as friends of the Great Satan (i.e. America). In addition it, along with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other undemocratic nations, is a perfect example of American neocon hypocrisy on outsourcing democratic principles while also working closely with and giving massive amounts of help and aid to — with few positive results — horrible regimes. How is it OK justify the invasion of Iraq as removing a tyrant (Saddam Hussein) if you are giving billions in military aid to governments almost as condemnable?, has become a common question.

    I believe that, under President Bush, America has taken the wrong path to ridding the world of Islamic extremism. It has been made all the more powerful by actions by Washington and its allies that have just fueled the fire paradox.

    While his pall Mubarak looks to be doing fine turning Egypt into a full-fledged police state, Musharraf faces a darker future. The religious extremists don't like him, believers in liberal democracy hate him too. US presidential candidate Barak Obama has even jumped on the Musharraf-hate bandwagon, it seems, naive move of course and one he will regret.

    Pakistan, a nuclear power, runs the risk of being taken over by extremists. America has once again chosen security over freedom in supporting dictatorship over democracy, although, in its defense, both seem like pretty bad options (think: the democratic election of Hamas). It as failed in principle and seems to be failing in practice. What is needed is stability, a hard thing to come by in the turbulent [extended] Mideast region.

    Delaying the democratic process is bad enough. It is all the more worse, for Musharraf and democratic principles, if America assists him in maintaining his dictatorship, as it has in other so-called allies in the GWOT. It's probably going to end up being a lose for Musharraf, a lose for the US and its 'war', and a lose for democracy. Meanwhile, the Pakistani government appears to be falling apart... perhaps declaring a state of emergency is redundant at this point.

    Tuesday, 10 July 2007

    The final throes of the insurgency: two situations

    Firstly, a short-term operation that looks to have an end and objective: the fight against Islamic militants who have taken hold of Islamabad's Red Mosque in Pakistan.

    Pakistan's army says an operation to flush out militants from a mosque in Islamabad is in its final stages - 24 hours after troops stormed the complex

    Of course the impact the Red Mosque fiasco will have on Musharraf's already, ahem, tarnished presidency will be interesting. The end of the siege, however, is in sight.


    Secondly, Bush is asking for more time for the US military operation in Iraq as more and more Americans convert to 'defeatism' every day. Of course the 'surge' will finally start working and under Bush's wise leadership America will win the winnable "war on terror". No true benchmarks or oversight is needed — setting an "artificial" deadline would show that America has lost. It just needs more time, hmm...

    Republicans are getting very antsy. However the chance of both parties working together — which seems like a foreign idea in the polarized political climate of today's Washington — is small (at best). Iraq has become the issue, and neither party has much of a solution, yet alone unity on it.

    President George W. Bush on Tuesday brushed aside the criticism of fellow Republicans over Iraq and demanded the U.S. Congress allow his troop buildup more time to work.

    Bush ruled out an immediate change in strategy, even though prominent Republican lawmakers like Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar have broken ranks and called for him to shift course on Iraq.

    Defiant in the face of a frustrated American public and Congress, Bush said the 28,000 additional troops he ordered into Iraq have not been in place long enough to gauge results because the final wave arrived only last month.

    The president defended his policy ahead of the release as early as on Thursday of an interim report expected to show mixed progress by the Iraqi government in meeting U.S. security and political benchmarks. The report, which is due by Sunday, is bound to fuel further debate about the war.
    ...
    A new USA Today/Gallup poll showed on Tuesday that more than seven in 10 Americans favor withdrawing nearly all U.S troops from Iraq by April. Sixty-two percent said sending U.S. troops to Iraq was a mistake, the first time that number topped 60 percent in that poll.


    The surge had time to work. Hell, even I gave it a chance. But Baghdad's security situation is as dire as ever. The "green zone" — normally a US-occupied oasis of security in a sea of violence — is becoming more red by the day. However we have overlooked some of Iraq's successes. Not all of Iraq is as bad as the wider central and southern regions and that is good — American, British, and other troops have done a fine job there and it's been overlooked. But the wider picture reveals an Iraq in turmoil at a nationally and often at a local level. Conclusion: A politically/strategically bottomless, downward-spiraling war with mixed (negative) support at home and abroad.

    Oh yeah, and
    Meanwhile, the White House threatened to veto the defense policy bill senators were debating, if it is amended to set a withdrawal date. The administration also threatened a veto of the bill for a provision it already contains, giving new rights to detainees at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

    Tuesday, 15 May 2007

    Pakistan explodes

    The row over the dismissal of the pragmatic Pakistani Supreme Court justice has turned violent. Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry had maintained the independence of the court, often standing up to the dictatorial power of Pervez Musharraf. As I blogged about a while back, since the chief justice's dismissal, there have been fairly nonviolent protests my lawyers in Karachi — Pakistan's largest city, in the south — and elsewhere. This past weekend the protests worsened as government loyalist forces clashed with protesters. Soon unrest came and tens died.

    Restraints have been put on the Pakistani media's coverage; protests have been all but quelled; and the police has been given the authority to shoot dead anyone trying to spark up more protest — nonviolent or otherwise. Chaudhry, meanwhile, has been marching in protest. A key Supreme Court official was found murdered in his house early on Monday, certainly not a coincidence. Fearful of the chaos, businesses have had to close in several major cities, effectively paralyzing Pakistan.

    Speculation has consumed western coverage of the events, as Musharraf's legitimacy is at stake. He says he will follow the Supreme Court's electoral decision — whenever the rigged election takes place — and his ousting of Chaudhry shows that while he may indeed follow the court, he will make sure it is on his side. His message is this: no one shall challenge my power. Of course since Pakistan is supposedly an ally in the American 'war on terror', the US has remained virtually silent on the issue, let alone the democracy bashing by a leader (Musharraf) marginalized by the radicals and the normal people seeing his country too close to the not-well-liked United States.
    Here are some of Musharraf's options:

    Broadly speaking, the emerging consensus is that the president has four options.

    * To ride out the crisis in the hope that the protests run out of steam. The experience of Lahore suggests that is not working.

    * He could simply accept that he had been wrongly advised, reinstate the chief justice, and look for a scapegoat. But many say it is too late for that now.

    * He could declare a state of emergency and impose martial law. That might lead to violence on the streets, and to international condemnation, including from his strategic ally the United States.

    * He could reach out to the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) of Benazir Bhutto, generally seen as the most popular political force in the country. According to the rumoured outlines of such a deal, corruption charges against Ms Bhutto would be dropped and she would be allowed to return from exile, if the PPP supported General Musharraf's presidency. However, the PPP says it will not accept the president if he stays on as army chief.


    Meanwhile the attacks continue across the nation. Pakistan is a nuclear state, and its stability is at stake. If Musharraf cannot rule, someone else must. The worst case scenario would be if extremists took over. Then the world would see real madmen with nukes.


    Technorati technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    Wednesday, 28 March 2007

    Meet our next police state: Egypt

    Authoritarian police states are all the rage — or at least they must be, with Egypt and others becoming only more undemocratic. Some of the terrorism-fighting provisions of indefinite length 'passed' in the probably-rigged vote are similar to those the US passed after 9/11 (though that vote was not rigged: it was not even a vote by the people but a decision by the executive to use terrorist attacks as an excuse to expand powers). Of course, it is much worse than that...

    BBC News:

    Controversial amendments to Egypt's constitution have been approved by 75.9% of those who voted in Monday's referendum, government officials say.

    Turnout for the vote was 27%, the justice ministry said, although some independent groups put it at 5%.

    The country's main opposition group, the Muslim Brotherhood, boycotted the vote and criticised the amendments as paving the way for a police state.

    A senior Muslim Brotherhood official said the result was forged.
    ...
    President Hosni Mubarak hailed the result on Monday.

    "The people are the real winners in this referendum. What has been achieved does not represent the end of the road," he said.
    ...
    Officials say the changes will allow the drafting of a new anti-terrorism law to replace the emergency legislation in place since 1981, giving police wide powers of arrest and surveillance.

    KEY AMENDMENTS
    Article 5:
    Bans political activity/parties based on religion
    Article 88:
    Removes judicial supervision of elections
    Article 179:
    Invokes special powers to fight terrorism

    In addition, the amendments ban all religious-based political activity and parties, a blow to the Muslim Brotherhood - an Islamic party banned in Egypt which represents the strongest opposition force.
    ...
    The amendments also allow the adoption of a new election law and do away with the need for judicial supervision of every ballot box.

    Opposition groups have voiced fears about the wording of the articles on the new anti-terrorism law because it will be possible to bypass the constitutional guarantees protecting basic freedoms.

    Human rights group Amnesty International has called the changes the greatest erosion of human rights since a state of emergency was declared after the assassination of President Anwar Sadat 26 years ago.


    For a great article on Egyptian politics and Islamic democracy, see this Harper's article.

    Russia is also making a steady and swift transition to an authoritarian police state under President Putin. Egypt is one step ahead of them, but Russia does have a larger organized crime element — often with political allegiances — that sprung up after the collapse of the Soviet state's tight security. However, they are both receiving foreign criticism.

    Just as Putin and Mubarak are moving up the power ladder, another dictator, Pakistan's Musharraf, is facing plenty of opposition over his demanding a revered judge step down. The reason? Because the judge often ruled against the undemocratic Musharraf regime; he was a beacon of light in Pakistan's judicial and political darkness and corruption.

    Not only does Musharraf look like a puppet of America to his own people, but to the US he is looking less and less like an ally, not least because of his recent agreement with the same tribal militants who are likely creating a haven for Taliban forces near the Afghani border, thus increasing Afghanistan's troubles.

    Technorati technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , ,