Okay, So We Have Problems In Pakistan
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Foreign Affairs | Musharraf | Pakistan — Comments (6) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Gen. Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency in Pakistan on Saturday, suspending the constitution, replacing the chief justice before a crucial Supreme Court ruling on his future as president, and cutting communications in the capital.
Pakistan's main opposition leader, Benezir Bhutto, flew back to the country from Dubai and was sitting in an airplane at Karachi's airport, waiting to see if she would be arrested or deported, a spokesman said. Dozens of paramilitary troops surrounded her house.
Seven of the 18 Supreme Court judges immediately condemned the emergency, which suspended the current constitution. Police blocked entry to the Supreme Court building and later took the chief justice and other judges away in a convoy, witnesses said.
The government halted all television transmissions in major cities other than state-controlled Pakistan TV. Telephone service in the capital, Islamabad, was cut.
A copy of the emergency order obtained by The Associated Press justified the declaration on the grounds that "some members of the judiciary are working at cross purposes with the executive" and "weakening the government's resolve" to fight terrorism.
Obviously, this situation will require restraint on all sides for the various parties to be able to sit down and settle their disputes. But the long term issue at stake here appears to be Musharraf's fear that by relinquishing his position as Army chief of staff in anticipation of renewing his term as President of Pakistan, he will give up massive amounts of political power and in fact be vulnerable to a coup in the future.
American policy should remain consistent in urging Musharraf to step down as Army chief of staff. Musharraf will keep finding reasons not to do so. In the immediate term, this spells deep trouble for Pakistan and a significant challenge for American foreign policy. And the fact that this crisis is occurring while American and Pakistani forces are working to further curb al Qaeda's reach and influence makes resolving the issue all the more important and urgent.
« So Tell Me, Mr. Immelt, Why Are You Killing American Servicemen? — Comments (30) | Darfur — Comments (16) »
Okay, So We Have Problems In Pakistan 6 Comments (0 topical, 6 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Pakistan is in the first stages of an escalation by the rat bags. In an unstable time the judges felt the need to boost the instability by deffering their decison until November 17. Just maybe their delay precipated Musharraf's declaration.
to keep the taliban and "activist's" from taking over. If that is suspending "democracy" so be it. I don't believe we need to make any statements and allow this man who AQ and the taliban hate take care of his country.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
The incongruence of this administration's pronouncements about democracy and its global actions isn't lost on our enemies or our citizens. Or, in another vernacular, to be taken seriously, if we talk the talk, we gotta walk the walk.
You propose that it is acceptable to suspend democracy in Pakistan so that the leader of that country can protect it from activists.
Is that acceptable here also?
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. -T. Jefferson
Seriously, gang: don't even answer this creep. The last line "Is that acceptable here also?" shows him to be just a jerk who's looking for excuses to attack. He's not here in good faith.
Leave it alone.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
Neil is correct. I don't come here in good faith. I don't come here to read but not post. I don't come here as an extra in a little online play. And I don't come to "Hear! Hear!" to those "regulars" that feel they own the content (though some do own the medium).
I post only when I think I have something useful to say or when I feel the need to respond to offer a differing point of view and I always try to be brief. The last post was obviously too brief for some. So, I'll expound. To please Neil, I'll not end with a question, rhetorical or otherwise.
The situation in Pakistan is a far greater risk to the national security of the United States than was Iraq or is Iran. The reason, familiar to anyone who reads here I'm sure, is that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, people in their nuclear program who have a history of spreading nuclear technology, and a significant population of Muslim extremists.
The implication of that is we must do whatever it takes to keep Pakistani nuclear weapons out of the hands of extremists and terrorists. If we were willing to bomb Iran in the near term to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons in the future, imagine what we more we might have to do (and should do) in Pakistan.
That paints us into a particulaly precarious corner. Do we support the re-establishment of a dictatorship in place of a new democracy because a dictatorship is an easier state to police? Or do we support the budding democracy that will likely become anti-American and possess WMD?
The writer to whom I responded had proposed we just keep quiet and let Musharraf do whatever it takes (presupposing he can do that without our explicit help). To keep quiet should not be confused with not sending a message. It sends the message that we believe in democracy when it happens to suit us. That message is easily used by our enemies as a recruitment tool. And it furthers the lack of credibility the Bush administration has with the people of this country.
The answer to my rhetorical quistion is "Of course it isn't acceptable here". We must loudly say that it isn't acceptable anywhere. But we must also say that if the democracy in Pakistan fails, we will ACT to prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists. It's a message with a very fine edge, but one that must be communicated.
Do I believe that Bush & Co can pull this off with the proper finesse? The track record isn't good. Do I believe we should sit back quietly and watch what happens? Absolutely not.
Let's hope Musharraf can thread the needle and make this conversation moot.
because he didn't step down ahead of the election, the judges weren't going to let the vote stand.
Oz
Read my most recent story, "Immigration may be Hillary's undoing" on First Cut Politics