West: What if Musharraf ´Hits Back´?
Rizwan Ghani
February 28, 2008
In a report, published in local paper that Musharraf is said to sulking in a mental bunker and could hit back raises certain issues. Here are my views on the report.
On the international front in response to Western diplomats propaganda that Nawaz Sharif cannot, or will not, deliver on their greatest concern: hunting Al Qaeda and Taliban militancy I as an observer of American, British and European politics can cite numerous instances showing that Americans and Europeans have rejected Bush´s war on terrorism. Media celebrities have gone to the extent of rejecting 9/11 as homegrown event on lines of June 2, 1919 in which bombs exploded in nine cities across US- How Hoover´s Red Scare Echoes in War on Terrorism (K.D. Ackerman LA Times published in Arab New, 23 June, 07). Similarly, the American public voted Democrat Congress to power in 2006; ISG report and current Obama ratings reflect average American´s disapproval of Bush´s foreign policy including Iraq and Afghan occupation.
In UK itself, the unceremonious ouster of Blair and anti Iraq war million-march report rejecting Blair´s Iraq war claims are cases in point. Bush´s Afghanistan war is dead. NATO allies have refused to extend support to the unlawful and illegal occupation. Australia has refused to send military troops to Afghanistan. Major NATO allies have barred deployment of their troops in hotspots within Afghanistan to avoid collateral loss, which is another name for innocent deaths. There is growing pressure for bringing those responsible for such losses to International Court of justice. It is opined that sooner than later the architects and their collaborators will be brought to justice because majority of reports have rejected terrorist links to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Musharraf´s clampdown on judiciary, media and human rights is a ditto copy of Bush´s wartime powers, White House´s definition of torture (Bush´s last-ditch efforts to support AG Gonzales); media gag through freedom of information act. The title of ´Presidential Monarchy´ given to French president Sarkozy by the under assault French media is self-explanatory.
In UK itself Gordon Brown´s undemocratic refusal to go for elections due to Labor Party pro-Iraq policies or parties failure to check Blair, blatant violations of human rights and denial of constitutional liberties and rights to Kingdom´s national are splattered in global press. The latest decision of UK courts linking a criminal case to freedom of speech shows 10 Downing Street disdain for civil liberties. Reportedly, UK like US is still to ratify European Human Rights Conventions that in turn link with International UN Human Rights laws.
London has failed to explain how an Israeli general wanted for authorizing shelling and destroying fifty Palestinian houses was allowed to get away from local British airport despite two hours of efforts by concerned international human rights authorities to surrender. Alternatively, for that matter how generals, govt. officials from third world country fly around with their hands drenched in innocent blood despite EU, American and rest of the advanced world visa restrictions for such culprits. Eerily, this stink of selective justice on part of London, Washington and Islamabad that has undermined trust of third world in western leadership and people of Pakistan are no exception.
Look at Kosovo and burning of US embassy in Belgrade. It is the result of failed foreign policies. Had the west acted decisively to avoid massacre in Balkans in the first place region could have been saved from the era of ´shoebox´ states. The current handling of 40 million Kurd aspirations is not without its critics as was the Cyprus issue.
After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire following World War I (1914-1918), the Kurds were promised the creation of an independent state as part of the Treaty of Sèvres (1920); this part of the treaty was never ratified, however. The Treaty of Lausanne (1923), which superseded the Treaty of Sèvres, did not include provisions for an independent Kurdish state. Since that time, the issue of Kurdish autonomy has been a source of conflict and political instability in those countries with large Kurdish minorities.
During the 1920s sporadic Kurdish revolts broke out in Iran, Turkey, and Iraq. In Iran, the Kurds were successful in securing an autonomous republic following World War II (1939-1945), but this lasted for only about a year. In 1961 Iran established a semiautonomous Kordestān Province.
Turkey put down Kurdish revolts in 1925 and 1945; the Turkish government also passed various laws forbidding the use of the Kurdish language and imposing other restrictions on manifestations of Kurdish nationalism. In the mid-1990s, however, the government lifted some of these restrictions, allowing, for example, the publication of materials in Kurdish. Although all Turkish Kurds possess full Turkish citizenship and millions of Kurds have assimilated into Turkish society, relations between Kurds and the Turkish government continue to be strained.
In 1984 the Kurdistān Workers' Party (PKK), a Marxist group considered a terrorist organization by the Turkish government, launched an armed struggle against Turkey in an effort to secure an independent Kurdish homeland. The conflict intensified, and in March 1995 35,000 Turkish troops moved across the border into northern Iraq to prevent PKK rebels from mounting cross-border raids into Turkey. Turkey withdrew its troops six weeks later. Over the next few years Turkey periodically sent troops into Iraq for retaliatory attacks, each time withdrawing its troops afterwards. By mid-1999 at least 30,000 Kurdish rebels, Turkish troops, and civilians had been killed or left homeless as a result of the fighting since 1984.
In February 1999 Turkish commandos, assisted by U.S. intelligence agencies, captured PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan in Nairobi, Kenya. A Turkish court sentenced Öcalan to death for treason. Following the arrest the Turkish government hinted that it would consider reforming its policies toward Kurds in Turkey if the PKK would stop its armed struggle. In August 1999 the PKK announced that it would impose a unilateral ceasefire, withdraw its forces from Turkey, and transform itself from a guerrilla group into a political organization. In response to these moves, the Turkish government began to phase out emergency rule in southeastern Turkey. In February 2000 the PKK declared a formal halt to its uprising against the Turkish government, affirming that it would work for Kurdish rights within a democratic framework.
If PKK has violated its end of the deal Ankara has also failed to uphold its part of the deal and has in my opinion entered into dead end chase. History shows that dialogue not military might resolves complex problems. Ankara should respect Iraqis sovereignty and listen to Gates, US Sec. Def. and Kurd Regional Government and withdraw its forces and instead initiate dialogue to end the standoff. However, Turkish PM will have to fulfill his party´s election promises of recognizing legitimate Kurd aspirations including stronger political role in nation building. It is the only way to restore peace in the region. White House should not have allowed Iraqi invasion in the first place because the Kurds are now openly accusing America for their miseries.
EU, the self-professed custodians of modern vales and charters of global community imbibed in their Lisbon Treaty have failed to uphold democratic practices within the member states. The way Berlin, London and Paris hop around on foreign policies in name of EU it appears as if EU consists of 4 not 27 members. One wonders where are the democratic voices of all member states on global issues like Palestine, Israel, Chechnya, or Islamabad resorting to ruthless state terrorism against dissenting voices through state machinery.
In domestic terms, the pressure on Islamabad for German-style grand coalition is not new. Look at Kenya where a legal winner of presidential election is being pushed by spineless touts of the west to settle for ceremonial post of PM under a cobbled constitution, which will add fire to the current chaos. Manila is the living example of naked interferences in the name of democracy by the so-called developed democracies resulting in quasi-democracies, fanning simmering discontentment and raising questions about the stability of the national institutions.
The 19 Feb. mediation trip of US Ambassador Kristie Kenny to Philippines to ease standoff with MILF (country´s largest Muslim rebel group) over US soldiers entering Muslim areas in south and the history of the area has serious lessons for Islamabad and ANP that is likely to head the new government in NWFP. It should think twice before entering understanding including honeycombs of ´industrial hubs in FATA etc.´ as part of war against terrorism. The option of extension of political parties´ act, budget allocations, improving border controls in accordance to international conventions and jobs will have better results. The implementation of these steps will save meddling of foreign forces and troops in matters of internal security and peace.
The statement of ANP representative seeking honorable return of Afghan refugees, withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan and call for undertaking of mandatory steps to avoid post-Soviet withdrawal affects reflect political and public sentiment. This statement clearly shows the difference between Musharraf´s continuation of war against terrorism policies and ground realities. The parliamentary elections results have shown that public has rejected Musharraf´s policies and should therefore resign.
Musharraf´s western supporters clearly understand this democratic compulsion and so does their media. It is about time PPPP and its other collation partners understand the consequences of their willingness to work with Musharraf for national security and integrity. He has repeatedly reiterated his pledge for continuation of support for war on terrorism. If Kenny can engage with MILF to save the government in Manila it is time Talibans are also engaged in dialogue to end the security chaos in the region.
In wake of reports of impending failure of NATO Afghan mission the global community including Europe, Asia, Americana and Australia are already pressing for switching of NATO troops to reconstruction role to avoid post-Soviet withdrawal like situation. Otherwise also, NATO troops were originally sent to Afghanistan for reconstruction not fighting. Both Bush and Musharraf have little choice to recognize the ground realities. ANP leadership like any other Pakistani can allow continuation of policies that are detrimental to national interest and Nawaz Sharif is no exception. Politics is all about linking public aspirations with national policies. Something Musharraf and his policies have failed to do.
Attack on independence of judiciary, media and other state institution plus usurping of constitutional liberties and rights are very part of larger scheme of things. The similarity of such steps in other third world countries makes it easy to connect the dots. The local politicians have openly called the war against terrorism in Pakistan as self-created. It is therefore time that all concerned work to restore global security. There is a universal consensus that law not use of force will bring eternal peace. It is therefore time to stop blaming local politicians for dragging the country politics to another dead end. Pakistan needs independent judiciary, reinstatement of judges and free media to start the process of institutional reforms on its road to true democracy.
Finally, national leaders including Nawaz Sharif are just supporting democracy. It will be a tragedy if Musharraf ´hits back´ and end the political process and the democratic aspiration of 165 million Pakistanis. It is therefore hoped that all those who have helped democracy to come this far will allow it in national interest to take its natural course because in independent judiciary, free media and strong institution only lies the future of stronger Pakistan, peace and stable region.
In terms of international issues if West including US really wants to promote peace international law and conventions not individuals should determine the issues- if only it is realized in collective economic and security interests.
On the international front in response to Western diplomats propaganda that Nawaz Sharif cannot, or will not, deliver on their greatest concern: hunting Al Qaeda and Taliban militancy I as an observer of American, British and European politics can cite numerous instances showing that Americans and Europeans have rejected Bush´s war on terrorism. Media celebrities have gone to the extent of rejecting 9/11 as homegrown event on lines of June 2, 1919 in which bombs exploded in nine cities across US- How Hoover´s Red Scare Echoes in War on Terrorism (K.D. Ackerman LA Times published in Arab New, 23 June, 07). Similarly, the American public voted Democrat Congress to power in 2006; ISG report and current Obama ratings reflect average American´s disapproval of Bush´s foreign policy including Iraq and Afghan occupation.
In UK itself, the unceremonious ouster of Blair and anti Iraq war million-march report rejecting Blair´s Iraq war claims are cases in point. Bush´s Afghanistan war is dead. NATO allies have refused to extend support to the unlawful and illegal occupation. Australia has refused to send military troops to Afghanistan. Major NATO allies have barred deployment of their troops in hotspots within Afghanistan to avoid collateral loss, which is another name for innocent deaths. There is growing pressure for bringing those responsible for such losses to International Court of justice. It is opined that sooner than later the architects and their collaborators will be brought to justice because majority of reports have rejected terrorist links to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Musharraf´s clampdown on judiciary, media and human rights is a ditto copy of Bush´s wartime powers, White House´s definition of torture (Bush´s last-ditch efforts to support AG Gonzales); media gag through freedom of information act. The title of ´Presidential Monarchy´ given to French president Sarkozy by the under assault French media is self-explanatory.
In UK itself Gordon Brown´s undemocratic refusal to go for elections due to Labor Party pro-Iraq policies or parties failure to check Blair, blatant violations of human rights and denial of constitutional liberties and rights to Kingdom´s national are splattered in global press. The latest decision of UK courts linking a criminal case to freedom of speech shows 10 Downing Street disdain for civil liberties. Reportedly, UK like US is still to ratify European Human Rights Conventions that in turn link with International UN Human Rights laws.
London has failed to explain how an Israeli general wanted for authorizing shelling and destroying fifty Palestinian houses was allowed to get away from local British airport despite two hours of efforts by concerned international human rights authorities to surrender. Alternatively, for that matter how generals, govt. officials from third world country fly around with their hands drenched in innocent blood despite EU, American and rest of the advanced world visa restrictions for such culprits. Eerily, this stink of selective justice on part of London, Washington and Islamabad that has undermined trust of third world in western leadership and people of Pakistan are no exception.
Look at Kosovo and burning of US embassy in Belgrade. It is the result of failed foreign policies. Had the west acted decisively to avoid massacre in Balkans in the first place region could have been saved from the era of ´shoebox´ states. The current handling of 40 million Kurd aspirations is not without its critics as was the Cyprus issue.
After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire following World War I (1914-1918), the Kurds were promised the creation of an independent state as part of the Treaty of Sèvres (1920); this part of the treaty was never ratified, however. The Treaty of Lausanne (1923), which superseded the Treaty of Sèvres, did not include provisions for an independent Kurdish state. Since that time, the issue of Kurdish autonomy has been a source of conflict and political instability in those countries with large Kurdish minorities.
During the 1920s sporadic Kurdish revolts broke out in Iran, Turkey, and Iraq. In Iran, the Kurds were successful in securing an autonomous republic following World War II (1939-1945), but this lasted for only about a year. In 1961 Iran established a semiautonomous Kordestān Province.
Turkey put down Kurdish revolts in 1925 and 1945; the Turkish government also passed various laws forbidding the use of the Kurdish language and imposing other restrictions on manifestations of Kurdish nationalism. In the mid-1990s, however, the government lifted some of these restrictions, allowing, for example, the publication of materials in Kurdish. Although all Turkish Kurds possess full Turkish citizenship and millions of Kurds have assimilated into Turkish society, relations between Kurds and the Turkish government continue to be strained.
In 1984 the Kurdistān Workers' Party (PKK), a Marxist group considered a terrorist organization by the Turkish government, launched an armed struggle against Turkey in an effort to secure an independent Kurdish homeland. The conflict intensified, and in March 1995 35,000 Turkish troops moved across the border into northern Iraq to prevent PKK rebels from mounting cross-border raids into Turkey. Turkey withdrew its troops six weeks later. Over the next few years Turkey periodically sent troops into Iraq for retaliatory attacks, each time withdrawing its troops afterwards. By mid-1999 at least 30,000 Kurdish rebels, Turkish troops, and civilians had been killed or left homeless as a result of the fighting since 1984.
In February 1999 Turkish commandos, assisted by U.S. intelligence agencies, captured PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan in Nairobi, Kenya. A Turkish court sentenced Öcalan to death for treason. Following the arrest the Turkish government hinted that it would consider reforming its policies toward Kurds in Turkey if the PKK would stop its armed struggle. In August 1999 the PKK announced that it would impose a unilateral ceasefire, withdraw its forces from Turkey, and transform itself from a guerrilla group into a political organization. In response to these moves, the Turkish government began to phase out emergency rule in southeastern Turkey. In February 2000 the PKK declared a formal halt to its uprising against the Turkish government, affirming that it would work for Kurdish rights within a democratic framework.
If PKK has violated its end of the deal Ankara has also failed to uphold its part of the deal and has in my opinion entered into dead end chase. History shows that dialogue not military might resolves complex problems. Ankara should respect Iraqis sovereignty and listen to Gates, US Sec. Def. and Kurd Regional Government and withdraw its forces and instead initiate dialogue to end the standoff. However, Turkish PM will have to fulfill his party´s election promises of recognizing legitimate Kurd aspirations including stronger political role in nation building. It is the only way to restore peace in the region. White House should not have allowed Iraqi invasion in the first place because the Kurds are now openly accusing America for their miseries.
EU, the self-professed custodians of modern vales and charters of global community imbibed in their Lisbon Treaty have failed to uphold democratic practices within the member states. The way Berlin, London and Paris hop around on foreign policies in name of EU it appears as if EU consists of 4 not 27 members. One wonders where are the democratic voices of all member states on global issues like Palestine, Israel, Chechnya, or Islamabad resorting to ruthless state terrorism against dissenting voices through state machinery.
In domestic terms, the pressure on Islamabad for German-style grand coalition is not new. Look at Kenya where a legal winner of presidential election is being pushed by spineless touts of the west to settle for ceremonial post of PM under a cobbled constitution, which will add fire to the current chaos. Manila is the living example of naked interferences in the name of democracy by the so-called developed democracies resulting in quasi-democracies, fanning simmering discontentment and raising questions about the stability of the national institutions.
The 19 Feb. mediation trip of US Ambassador Kristie Kenny to Philippines to ease standoff with MILF (country´s largest Muslim rebel group) over US soldiers entering Muslim areas in south and the history of the area has serious lessons for Islamabad and ANP that is likely to head the new government in NWFP. It should think twice before entering understanding including honeycombs of ´industrial hubs in FATA etc.´ as part of war against terrorism. The option of extension of political parties´ act, budget allocations, improving border controls in accordance to international conventions and jobs will have better results. The implementation of these steps will save meddling of foreign forces and troops in matters of internal security and peace.
The statement of ANP representative seeking honorable return of Afghan refugees, withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan and call for undertaking of mandatory steps to avoid post-Soviet withdrawal affects reflect political and public sentiment. This statement clearly shows the difference between Musharraf´s continuation of war against terrorism policies and ground realities. The parliamentary elections results have shown that public has rejected Musharraf´s policies and should therefore resign.
Musharraf´s western supporters clearly understand this democratic compulsion and so does their media. It is about time PPPP and its other collation partners understand the consequences of their willingness to work with Musharraf for national security and integrity. He has repeatedly reiterated his pledge for continuation of support for war on terrorism. If Kenny can engage with MILF to save the government in Manila it is time Talibans are also engaged in dialogue to end the security chaos in the region.
In wake of reports of impending failure of NATO Afghan mission the global community including Europe, Asia, Americana and Australia are already pressing for switching of NATO troops to reconstruction role to avoid post-Soviet withdrawal like situation. Otherwise also, NATO troops were originally sent to Afghanistan for reconstruction not fighting. Both Bush and Musharraf have little choice to recognize the ground realities. ANP leadership like any other Pakistani can allow continuation of policies that are detrimental to national interest and Nawaz Sharif is no exception. Politics is all about linking public aspirations with national policies. Something Musharraf and his policies have failed to do.
Attack on independence of judiciary, media and other state institution plus usurping of constitutional liberties and rights are very part of larger scheme of things. The similarity of such steps in other third world countries makes it easy to connect the dots. The local politicians have openly called the war against terrorism in Pakistan as self-created. It is therefore time that all concerned work to restore global security. There is a universal consensus that law not use of force will bring eternal peace. It is therefore time to stop blaming local politicians for dragging the country politics to another dead end. Pakistan needs independent judiciary, reinstatement of judges and free media to start the process of institutional reforms on its road to true democracy.
Finally, national leaders including Nawaz Sharif are just supporting democracy. It will be a tragedy if Musharraf ´hits back´ and end the political process and the democratic aspiration of 165 million Pakistanis. It is therefore hoped that all those who have helped democracy to come this far will allow it in national interest to take its natural course because in independent judiciary, free media and strong institution only lies the future of stronger Pakistan, peace and stable region.
In terms of international issues if West including US really wants to promote peace international law and conventions not individuals should determine the issues- if only it is realized in collective economic and security interests.
Print
Email
