Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

It's Pakistanis' issue: Powell (On Musharraf remaining Pakistani Dictator)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 09:03 AM
Original message
It's Pakistanis' issue: Powell (On Musharraf remaining Pakistani Dictator)
http://www.dawn.com/2004/12/31/top7.htm

WASHINGTON, Dec 30: US Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Thursday that President Pervez Musharraf exercised the option the Pakistani parliament had given him when he decided to retain both the posts of the head of state and the army chief.

Asked for the US reaction to Gen Musharraf's decision, Mr Powell said: "This is a judgment for the Pakistani people to make. The parliament provided for means for him to do this.

more

Hey Colin. Why no democracy for Pakistan like you are bringing to Iraq? Did you forget already? Let freedom reign! Seen a lot of Democratic politicians with their noses up this thugs ass too. I ain't going to forget who they are either.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MSgt213 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 09:06 AM
Response to Original message
1. Didn't the Iraqi people allow Saddam to stay in power? Why is Pakistan
different. You telling me the Pakistani dictator has been allowed to stay in power by not torturing or killing any of his own detractors? Call me crazy but I don't buy that bullshit Mr. Powell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
allemand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. Reliable background information from Amnesty International:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinerow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 09:16 AM
Response to Original message
2. Democracy is for dems that got....everyone else gets rhetoric
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhiteTara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 09:25 AM
Response to Original message
3. fwe only need democracy in certain
countries...you know, the ones that we are invading.  The
others are run  by OUR dictators, er, I mean, friends.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sporadicus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 09:27 AM
Response to Original message
4. 'Yep, He's a Dictator Alright'
'but he's OUR dictator!' That distinction makes all the difference in the world.

Just like Saddam was 'our dictator' until he got too greedy & unnerved the oil barons.

So, watch your step, Musharraf, or you'll be 'jihaded' - more likely for offending your neocon handlers than by drawing the ire of actual Islamic fundies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
6. Lets see what we have here
Predominantly Muslim country run by a brutal dictator. Check!

Posses WMD's. (The real WMD's too. Nukes.) Check!

Proliferater of WMD's (nukes) to other countries. Check!

Known to harbor terrorists. (Including bin Laden) Check!

Excellent friend of the current Republican administration. Check!

Don

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinerow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Looks like he gets all "A's"...but does he play well with others...?
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Art_from_Ark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. He doesn't seem to play too well with India
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack_DeLeon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-05 03:49 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. considering....
that they didnt nuke each other, I guess thats well enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
allemand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-05 07:07 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. Considering that he actually started a peace process with India
I'm not quite sure what the poster wanted to tell us...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-05 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. I remember when Saddam Hussein actually started a peace process with Iran
I'm not quite sure what your point is? Musharraf is just another dictator in a different time.


Don

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
allemand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-05 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. I think you are wrong to put Musharraf and Saddam on the same level.
We already had a long and interesting discussion about this topic and you will certainly remember my arguments. Saddam was a brutal dictator who terrorized his own people, whereas in Pakistan, in my opinion, there is the real possibility of a non-violent transition to democracy, in particular once the Kashmir conflict has been resolved.

Sadly, there is no "magic wand" which could instantly transform Pakistan into a democracy. Take Musharraf away and you still have all the generals of the Pakistani army (many of them a lot worse than Musharraf, some even close to islamists), you have the huge influence and power of the Pakistani army as an institution, a state within a state, which is the result of the long lasting conflict with India over Kashmir, which came to threaten the very existence of Pakistan. Resolve that conflict and things will get a lot better, democracy will have much stronger foundations, civilian rule over Pakistani society will be a lot easier and more stable. In my opinion, Musharraf has a real chance to make that peace deal with India, for which he will have to make concessions which might simply not be possible for a civilian leader, given the strength of the Pakistani army.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-05 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. Do you remember when the US government and media referred to...
...Hussein as "President Saddam Hussein"? Thats right. "President." And they were calling him "President" at a time he was doing the most unimaginable things. Yet back then he was not considered or called a brutal dictator. He was Americas friend. Not sure if you have forgotten, or are just to young to remember? Do you see what I am getting at here?

Don

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
allemand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-05 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #23
25. I can imagine that they called him "President Saddam"...
incredible as it may seem today...

I was too young at the time, but I have no illusions about conformism and self-censorship in the American media.

In this context the editorial in the Washington Post yesterday was a good sign, even if I partly disagree with it's conclusions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
allemand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Dictator, yes, but "brutal"? How did you come to that conclusion?
Musharraf is also not "harboring terrorists", on the contrary the terrorists tried several times to kill him.

As you are acquainted with "The Dawn", you will also have noticed how many articles critical of Musharraf and his latest decision have been published by the paper. The press in Pakistan seems to be in a better shape than in, let's say, Egypt. That's a very good sign and it seems to indicate that there is a real chance for a democratic transformation process in Pakistan, particularly when peace has been made with India, which will diminish the role and the importance of the Pakistani army.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Well the Military Dictator did overthrow the "Elected" gov't--Right?
Edited on Fri Dec-31-04 10:14 AM by saigon68
He is our friend-- he even wears "CIVILIAN" clothes when he comes to DC to "service" the chimp.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinerow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. As long as the madrasas are there, there will be no let up in
terrorsts activities...musharraf is hardly mister goodie-two-shoes...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. Someone tried to kill him. Several times
Edited on Fri Dec-31-04 11:04 AM by NNN0LHI
I think when someone removes the democratically elected government of a country and declares themselves dictator they probably assume assassination attempts will become part of the "political" landscape.

And I agree "The Dawn" and other papers have been very critical of Musharraf declaring himself dictator of Pakistan. Though their criticism hasn't changed anything. Musharraf is still the dictator.

As for being brutal or not do a search on Pakistan's human rights record. Before you waste a lot of time though I can tell you its not good. Especially if you happen to be a Pakistani.

Don

Edit: Just Google -Pakistan's Human Rights Record-, and about 60,000 hits will come up. This one is at the top of the first page. It discusses the US state dpartments own report on the subject from last year. Not sure what you consider brutal? Sounds brutal to me.

http://acr.hrschool.org/mainfile.php/0170/286/

Pakistan's Human Rights Situation 2003: US Report {Report}


Pakistan has come under sharp criticism for its human rights record in the human rights report for 2003 issued by the State Department at a special ceremony addressed by Secretary of State Colin Powell. The report points out that the National Assembly has passed no bills since 2002, barring the budget, while President Pervez Musharraf, the intelligence services, and the military continue to dominate the government. Corruption and inefficiency remained acute, although reforms initiated by the Musharraf government to reduce corruption have had some effect on officials at higher levels of government. While the Supreme Court showed "a limited degree of independence", the overall credibility of the judiciary remained low. The report noted that during the year under review, the press was able to publish relatively freely; however, journalists practised self-censorship, especially on sensitive issues related to the military, and human rights groups continued to report acts of intimidation against journalists by the central government. Provincial and local governments occasionally arrested journalists and closed newspapers that were critical of the government or printed allegedly offensive material. The government retained near-monopoly control of broadcast television and radio, but cable and satellite channels were increasingly popular and uncensored. Journalists were targets of harassment and violence by individuals and groups. During the year, the government sporadically permitted several large anti-government demonstrations; however, it prevented other protests and arrested organisers, including for security reasons. The government imposed some limits on freedom of association, religion, and movement. Governmental and societal discrimination against religious minorities, particularly Christians and Ahmedis, remained a problem. The 42-page section on Pakistan states, "The government's human rights record remained poor; although there were some improvements in a few areas, serious problems remained. In 2002, citizens participated in national government elections; however, many observers found serious flaws in the legal framework for the election. Security forces used excessive force, at some times resulting in death, and committed or failed to prevent extra-judicial killings of suspected militants and civilians. Killings between rival political factions and sectarian groups continued to be a problem. Police abused and raped citizens. Prison conditions remained extremely poor and life threatening, and police arbitrarily arrested and detained citizens." According to the survey, several political leaders remained in detention or in exile abroad at the year's end. Case backlogs led to long delays in trials, and lengthy pre-trial detention was common. The judiciary was subject to executive and other outside influences and corruption, inefficiency, and lack of resources remained severe problems. The government took steps to control the judiciary and to remove itself from judicial oversight. Some aspects of the government's implementation of its anti-corruption campaign violated due process. The government also infringed on citizens' privacy rights. The report was critical of violence against women and children and singled out "honour killings" for special criticism. It said, "Discrimination against women was widespread, and traditional social and legal constraints generally kept women in a subordinate position in society. Sectarian attacks against Shia professionals remained a problem. The government and employers continued to restrict worker rights significantly. Debt slavery persisted, and bonded labour of both adults and children remained a problem. The use of child labour remained widespread. Trafficking in women and children for the purposes of prostitution and bonded labour was a serious problem. Terrorist attacks continued. Most notably, Islamic extremist groups attempted at least twice to assassinate President Musharraf, and Sunni extremists killed over 70 Shias in bombings at a mosque and a police training facility in Quetta." (The Daily Times 27/02/04)


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinerow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. You're using logic again...tsk tsk...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
allemand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. The problem is that most of these problems also existed under Sharif.
No doubt, Pakistani society is in a very bad shape.

A brutal dictator, in my view, is someone who throws his opponents in prison and kills them and who terrorizes society. You have no free press under a brutal dictator.

Saddam was such a dictator, Soeharto, Pinochet, the Shah of Iran, etc. Currently in the region you have Niyazov in Turkmenistan and Karimov in Uzbekistan who without any doubt are brutal dictators. There is simply no comparison to Musharraf.

I think that he has the great historic chance of making peace with India over Kashmir, because he is in a much better position to force the Pakistani army to accept the deal than any civil leader ever could be. Paradoxically, by making peace, he will also reduce the importance of the army and facilitate civil control over it.

We both want democracy in Pakistan. I am just trying to think about concrete ways to achieve it. And it's not all black and whites, there are many shades of gray in between.

;-)

And thank you for providing that information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-05 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #13
21. Under Dictator Musharraf human rights violations appear to be increasing
http://web.amnesty.org/report2004/pak-summary-eng

Covering events from January - December 2003

There was a sharp increase in sectarian violence in the second half of the year particularly in the provinces of Sindh and Balochistan. Hundreds of people were arbitrarily detained in the context of the US-led “war on terror”. Human rights abuses against women, children and religious minorities continued to be ignored by the government. There were severe restrictions on freedom of expression in the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) particularly targeting musicians and artists. At least 278 people were sentenced to death and at least eight were executed.

Background

There was serious concern about constitutional amendments introduced under the Legal Framework Order (LFO) in 2002. President Pervez Musharraf as head of state and chief of army staff retained sweeping powers. The government sidelined the main opposition parties and only held talks on the LFO with an alliance of religious opposition parties, the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA). The talks, which had been initiated in July, did not produce any agreement as the government failed to set a firm date by which President Musharraf would resign as chief of army staff.

The judiciary, especially at the lower level, remained ineffective and prone to political interference and corruption.

In June, the MMA implemented Shari’a law in NWFP, introducing a conservative criminal code reminiscent of that enforced during the Taleban’s control of neighbouring Afghanistan. During demonstrations, MMA supporters destroyed billboards displaying images of women in Peshawar and surrounding areas, saying they were “un-Islamic”. The national and international media criticized the MMA and some multinationals initially threatened to withdraw their investment from the NWFP unless such actions were stopped.

more

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
allemand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-05 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. MMA is the party saying Musharraf is threatening Pakistan with secularism
MMA says govt trying to make country secular
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_1-1-2005_pg7_26

I don't think one can blame Musharraf for what the MMA is doing.

The level of violence is certainly up and the country is in a very bad shape. Frankly, I don't know in which degree the government is responsible for this. Many problems are long-term problems (corruption, abuse of power, debt enslavement, violence against women, etc). There is a real war against terrorism going on (unlike in Iraq), which is the result of very bad political decisions, giving Islamic militants and Islamists much to much influence and power) which began under the rule of Zia ul-Haq (who certainly fits into your category of a "brutal dictator"), war inevitably increases the level of violence. Sadly, I am convinced that there is no alternative: like fascism, we simply have to fight Islamo-fascism.

BTW, there is an excellent essay about Islamo-fascism by Malaysian scholar Farish Noor, the short version of which appeared in today's Daily Times (I can assure you that he would certainly disagree with me about Musharraf, nevertheless I find his articles always very interesting).

Long version:
Stop the Hate: Islamo-Fascism's Battle Against Moderate Muslims
http://www.muslimwakeup.com/main/archives/2004/12/hate_by_farish.php#more

Short version:
VIEW: Hatred for the moderate —Farish A Noor
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_1-1-2005_pg3_6
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-05 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. Musharraf damned near has the Mullahs running the whole country now
Edited on Sat Jan-01-05 11:02 AM by NNN0LHI
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1015/p06s01-wosc.htm

ISLAMABAD AND NOWSHEHRA, PAKISTAN - Pakistan's masses have sent a clear signal of simmering resentment over the US war on terror which is playing out in their own backyard.

The Muttahida Maklis-i-Amal (MMA) – an alliance of five fundamentalist Islamic parties that opposes the US hunt for Al Qaeda terrorists here and wants to impose strict sharia or Muslim law – surpassed even the wildest of expectations in last Thursday's general elections. The MMA swept the vote in two provinces bordering Afghanistan, Baluchistan and Northwest Frontier Province, and made significant gains nationwide to become the third largest political block in the 342-seat National Assembly.

Pakistan's fundamentalist parties have never won more than 10 percent of the vote in past elections. Their remarkable showing this time bodes ill for continued US-Pakistan operations in the tribal belt that borders Afghanistan, and may indicate that Pakistan as a whole is becoming more extremist, say analysts.

"It gives the sense that this is an enterprise that is going somewhere," says Abbas Rashid, a respected political columnist here. "Today they take the frontier. Tomorrow, who knows?"

President Pervez Musharraf, the general who took power in a bloodless coup in 1999 and imposed military rule, has heralded the Oct. 10 polls as a key step in Pakistan's return to democracy. But analysts say Mr. Musharraf opened a political vacuum, which the fundamentalists waltzed into, when he banned major political figures such as ex-Prime Ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif from running.

The moderate general, who is known both personally and politically to oppose extremist Islamic groups, may now be regretting his decision to let the religious parties run, some analysts say.

"He has got the entire frontier now controlled by the Mullahs," says Asfandyar Wali Khan, who was president of the liberal Awami National Party in the Northwest Frontier Province until he resigned after his party's crushing election defeat. "How is Musharraf going to work with them? This is the million dollar question."

more

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
allemand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-05 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. That is certainly a danger, but the NWFP is only a small part of Pakistan,
so things are not that bad yet.



The Northwest Frontier Province is "Frontiere du Nord-Ouest" on this map.

In 1998 it had a population of 17,743,645. The great majority of Pakistanis live in Punjab (73,621,290) and Sindh (30,439,893).
http://www.statoids.com/upk.html

Once the MMA wins in Punjab, we are really in trouble. I hope it never happens.

My impression is that Musharraf tried to sideline traditional parties because of their involvement in corruption (there were allegations of corruption against Sharif, Bhutto and her husband well before the coup), but he didn't achieve much.
His rhetoric seems to be quite good (for example his call for "enlightened moderation"; as far as I know he is the only leader in the Muslim world to use the term "enlightenment" to indicate the kind of cultural changes which are required in Islamic countries in order to achieve development), but he failed to deliver on many of his promises.
So maybe he should seek an alliance with traditional parties now, which would certainly also strengthen the process of transition to democracy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sandpiper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 02:10 PM
Response to Original message
15. They hate us for our hypocrisy, not our freedoms
The U.S. shows once again that while it pays lip service to the idea of democracy, in reality it could care less.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 07:45 PM
Response to Original message
16. Bush has soldiers dying in Iraq presumably to bring democracy there
This kind of development shows Chimpys reason for being in Iraq is bogus.

Don

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-05 04:12 AM
Response to Original message
18. Interesting concept.
Is it a new one?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC