Pakistan takes a turn -- in the right direction?

A little while ago Pakistani dictator Musharraf was forced to step down. Now the party formerly led by Benazir Bhutto looks set to instal the next leader of the unstable South ASian nation. Remember this is a country with nuclear weapons. Pakistan probably harbos more members of international terroist groups than any other nation, the northern region bordering Afghanistan is the biggest trouble spot. Will Pakistan fall into disarray or will a new democratic government bring peace and stability to this country?

Hey, at least old Hosni is out of the building!

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!

The end of Musharraf?

Pakistan held elections today, the results of which are flowing in as we speak...

The Times:

President Pervez Musharraf’s supporters conceded defeat last night in a landmark parliamentary election that could seal his political fate and resurrect democracy in Pakistan after eight years of military rule.

But while the two main opposition parties appeared to have swept the vote, neither was expected to win an outright majority, setting the stage for a coalition government in this chronically unstable country.
...
Final results are not expected until tomorrow, but preliminary figures suggest that the PPP will win the most seats followed by the Pakistan Muslim League (N) led by Nawaz Sharif, another former Prime Minister.

One can only hope an opposition party will emerge as winner in this election, and that the dictatorial Musharraf will finally face impeachment. Most Pakistanis want him out anyway.

Meanwhile, a NYT op-ed warns that instability in Pakistan is a problem to all of us — the south Asian country holds active nuclear weapons (not to mention that it's a hotbed of Islamic terrorism).

Benazir Bhutto assassinated!

BBC News:

Pakistani former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has been assassinated in a suicide attack.

Ms Bhutto - the first woman PM in an Islamic state - was leaving an election rally in Rawalpindi when a gunman shot her in the neck and set off a bomb.

At least 20 other people died in the attack and several more were injured.

President Pervez Musharraf has urged people to remain calm but angry protests have gripped some cities, with at least 11 deaths reported.

Security forces have been placed on a state of "red alert" nationwide.

There were no immediate claims of responsibility for the attack. Analysts believe Islamist militants to be the most likely group behind it.

Bhutto was playing a major role in Pakistan's hopefully democratic political future. She led the powerful opposition PPP party and recently returned from exile. This surprise-killing should be seen as a sign that instability is not over in Pakistan, even as Musharraf makes security laws more lenient after initiating emergency rule this fall.

The fate of Pakistanis is as unclear as ever following following the death of one of their more famous political figures. She has escaped several near-death experiences over the past few months; I guess it was a matter of time before either Musharraf's camp of the Islamists killed her.

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!

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

States, failed and failing

The Fund for Peace and Foreign Policy magazine have published the 2007 Failed States Index.

The index measures the vulnerability of failure for 177 of the states surveyed — i.e. the chance of outright collapse. As the index says,

The world’s weakest states aren’t just a danger to themselves. They can threaten the progress and stability of countries half a world away.

The index uses 12 socio-economic and political indicators to score the potential for failure for each nation.

Let's see who made the top-12 cut this year...
1. Sudan
2. Iraq
3. Somalia
4. Zimbabwe
5. Chad
6. Côte d'Ivoire
7. Democratic Republic of the Congo
8. Afghanistan
9. Guinea
10. Central African Republic
11. Haiti
12. Pakistan

Most of the states are in Africa (eight), and the rest are in the Middle East (three) — hold Haiti, a turmoil-stricken Caribbean nation.

Let's now take a look at these top 12 most faltering nation-states. Sudan is number one. Because of the state-encouraged ethnic genocide and fighting in its Darfur region, among other political reasons including international pressure, Sudan is a breeding ground for state collapse and instability.

Iraq is another obvious one: the sectarian civil war and the insurgency arising from the occupation, not to mention an unbelievably week government that even the strongest military force on the planet has a hard time keeping up. Iraq practically is a failed state.

Next is Somalia, which is more worse off governmentally than Iraq. The consensus a few years ago kept in line with the common wisdom about the Horn of Africa state: it is a failed one. Islamic rebels, traditional warlords, and foreign troops (Ethiopians supported by America) are all forces pushing this country on the brink of irreversible collapse. Its people aren't doing too well either. In the cases of both Somalia and Iraq, the worst fighting and actions posing the strongest threat to stability occur in the capitals, Mogadishu (I spelled it correctly on my first try!) and Baghdad, respectively.

Zimbabwe is high up on the list because of the humanitarian and economic disaster there. The inflation rate is tin the thousands and the thuggish leader Robert Mugabe shows no signs of giving up power, but even his own party is becoming discontented.

Chad is inheriting a lot of the problems of its neighbor Sudan. It also has problems of its own similar to the other failed or failing states in the index.

Côte d'Ivoire I do not know much about. From some research on the internet I have figured out the country also known as the Ivory Coast is experiencing civil war, or the aftermath of such a war. Elections have been put off time after time because of the fighting or the prospect of fighting. It has received little coverage by American media, like many other major world issues, including those talked about in the index and this blog post. Some consider the West African nation out of civil war, but the prospect of renewed fighting is daunting.

DPRC, or rather Congo has been recently stabilized by UN peacekeeping. It finally had elections last summer after years of bloody war.

Afghanistan is similar in many ways to Iraq, though not as dire: insurgency to foreign occupation, weak government, foreign and local Islamic extremist forces, etc.

Further down the list, Haiti has been in political mayhem for years now and UN peacekeepers are trying their best to maintain some form of stability.

Pakistan is facing the threat of an overthrow by extremists or other groups, and opposition to its dictatorial president Musharraf for allying himself with and against the people, with America, and with the militants. Not to mention the surprising inflammation caused my him dismissing a senior judge who disagreed with his regime's legal and political policies.

As we see, some instability is centered on certain regions (e.g. Darfur) or cities (e.g. Baghdad; Mogadishu; Port-au-Prince), whereas some is nation-wide (e.g. Zimbabwe).

Iraq and Somalia are probably the worst on the list, although none of the aforementioned 12 are by any means stellar in their state political security. If Palestine was a state — though it is looking like two right now — it would surely be near the top of the index due to its civil war and massive amounts of homegrown terrorism.

The Economist has made a map of the top 10 countries of the Failed State Index.



For more on happy topics like this one, see Conflict Meter.

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 tags: Chaudhry, musharraf, pakistan, karachi, justice+violence+pakistan, lahore, islamabad, pakistan+supreme+court, political+stability, united+states, usa, war+on+terror, news

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 tags: putin, authoritarianism, police+state, mubarak, musharraf, egypt, russia, dictator, politics, news, pakistan

Cheney's attacks: Pakistan, China, and beyond

US Vice President Dick Cheney, recently wrapping up a three-day excursion to Australia, has sparked plenty of global controversy. First of all, he finally roughed up Pakestan a bit, which he visited following his rhetoric-spewing sessions with right-wing Aussie PM John Howard in the land down under. (Howard was the man who said if Barak Obama won the 2008 election for US president, it would be a 'victory for al-Qaeda'.) Australians are angry about Iraq, among other things, including the United States' illegal detention of an Australian citizen, David Hicks. As a result, there were plenty of protests for the man charged with war crimes in Belgium, i.e. Cheney, during his stay in Australia. Why aren't Americans angry about the detention of US citizens, namely Jose Padilla?

On the Pakistan topic, Cheney said, or we think he said, it needed to do more in combating terrorism and, namely, the Taliban, which the government looks to be supporting. I hate to admit it, but, like with Russia, I agree with Cheney, or at least the comments coming from anonymous officials saying they speak Cheney's position and that he was tough with Pakistan's leader during the short visit.

NYT:

A particular source of concern is Mr. Musharraf’s peace accord with the tribal leaders, a deal giving them greater sovereignty that he has assured Mr. Bush would not diminish Pakistan’s commitment to fighting extremists. Mr. Bush noted in September that Mr. Musharraf had looked him “in the eye” and said, “There won’t be a Taliban and won’t be al Qaeda.” Now, American officials contend those groups have gained ground.

One problem is the secretive nature of the visit and the lack of reporting thanks to the media-hating — unless the media is really supportive (e.g. post-9/11, pre-Iraq war) — White House. He attacks even his allies; whether democracy-supporting political foes at home or despotic US-friendly regimes abroad, Cheney seems to be lashing out at everyone — or so it seems.

Maybe Cheney's views aren't being represented by the mysterious mouthpiece(s). If that be the case I retract my agreeing with him to a small degree on the Pakistan issue. He was either pushed to pressure Pakistan, genuinely wanted to pressure Pakistan, or didn't actually pressure Pakistan — there are conflicting reports and views. His Russia comments, while somewhat true, were also cavalier for an executive of the world's most powerful state to say and only made foreign relations worse. Both Pakistan and Russia need to respect the will of the people, as well as not inflame terrorists or — in Russia's case — seemingly only help Iran with its nuclear program while claiming otherwise the whole time.

Pakistan is a dictatorship, plain and simple; and effectively so is Russia, or it is becoming one that is. Pakistan has been a long-time American ally in the 'war on terror', though it may only be an ally by name. The US gives hundreds of millions of aid to the Musharraf regime. Like with much aid, who knows where it goes.

During his Australia visit, Cheney warned China once again of its growing military. China is an up-and-coming world power, what does he expect? Throughout history military might has been key to the assumption of a state's power. When the United States embraced its industrial development, a military expansion followed. What peoples of a country do not want is a constant wartime economic and military attitude, one the US seems to adapted especially under President Bush. During wartime, parts of an economy grow, but so does the deficit. Generally peacetime economies try to defeat deficit, not enlarge it.

Cheney's comments on China focused strongly on its recent test of an anti-satellite missile and expansion of its army. He hinted at his belief that China's massive military expansion is not peaceful. His controversial comments have resulted in Beijing calling Washington a 'nosy neighbor'. (Wow, that's gotta hurt — leaning something you already knew about yourself.)

We know Cheney has directly attacked verbally Russia and China, but the Pakistan stance remains washy. In the past Cheney has been one for hypocrisies: strongly condemning one country for being undemocratic yet supporting another that is just as undemocratic or worse. That pretty much sums up this administration's policies toward its 'favorites' in the global realm, though Cheney is a but more pro-[what he calls] democracy than some in the White House. He will strike at about whoever he wants, and will not hold back. Not much has changed since the Cold War, methinks, and the 'war on terror' is just as vague as to the menace, and worse in the fact it can't be considered a war by any standards.

We know Cheney has openly attacked Russia and China for being undemocratic and a bully and for escalating militarily, respectively, but his stance on Pakistan remains washy. Putin of Russia has struck back and now China has called the US 'nosy'. Which state will be next, and for what reasons?

Update: I forgot to mention the attempt on Cheney's life when he visited Afghanistan following Pakistan.

technorati tags: dick+cheney, cheney, pakistan, china, foreign+policy, united+states, international+relations, news, in+the+news, china+military, pakistan+terrorism+democracy, russia