Pakistan

[DrBenway]

Musharraf is in deep doo doo. The Islamists managed to gain a lot of political ground in the last elections 10/02. The Sharia has become the law of the land in parts of Pakistan. To quote from an excellent article: http://www.intl-crisis-group.org/projects/showreport.cfm?reportid=925

"Initial steps, such as a ban on music in public, attacks on cable television operators, and police action against video shops are signs of what lies ahead as the MMA implements its program.

"Though MMA leaders have tried to allay worries that their governments might adopt Taliban-style policies, their actions show preference for strict religious rule. The MMA agenda includes an end to co-education, a first step towards the total segregation of women in public life, and the addition of more Islamic texts to school and college curricula."

Musharraf used the Islamists to opposed secularists who might compete with himself for power. Now he owes the Islamists a bit of pay back. Sort of like how Dubya is paying back his fundie supporters with the "faith based" money.

The Islamists hate the U.S., just as the Taliban and OBL hate us, and for the same reasons. The secularists in Pakistan are shivering in their boots.

I think we need to tell Musharraf that we'll support him, so long as he distances from the Islamists and takes a stand for secularism. Otherwise, we part company.

Pakistan illustrates the civil war within Islam that's on the verge of open warfare. The war is on hold, cuz everyone is too busy hating the U.S. to bother.

Apologies ahead of time for boring The Fool with this topic.

 

[Cleopatra]

This is an excellent article Doctor so is the source.

Do you remember the other day that I was telling you that you can't rule the World for ever, judging by double standards?

Well... even in the"Twelveth Hour"... USA can to something do change this.

Pakistan is a good start, I agree with you.

 

[corplinx]

I think we need to tell Musharraf that we'll support him, so long as he distances from the Islamists and takes a stand for secularism. Otherwise, we part company.

I wish we could. Let us not forget that while we are across the world from him, he lives there.

Here is what he should do. Tell all the fanatics to cross over into afghanistan. Hopefully we can turn the fanatics into a minority.

Seriously, I have no idea how to help Musharraf win the hearts of minds of Pakistani fanatics over to more moderate thinking. Therein lies a big problem.

 

[The Fool]

Apologies ahead of time for boring The Fool with this topic. [/B]

No Doc, you are never boring No doubt this will fill your heart with Joy because you get the official "Fool's seal of approval" for this one as you didn't attempt to propose that despite thier minority status all pakistan muslims, deep down, want MMA to take over...

 

[a_unique_person]

- WORLD


Made by the USA: a $6billion rebel group that haunts its former masters
Who built the monster? America itself, with Pakistan's help, writes Christopher Kremmer.


If, as the old saying goes, you must set a thief to catch a thief, then America may have found the right partner for its new war on terror.

Since the 1970s, Pakistan has patronised Islamic fundamentalist groups with close links to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda ("The Base") organisation, experts say. Ironically, it organised them at the behest of the same United States Government which now demands their elimination.

were they just doing what they were told in pakistan?

http://old.smh.com.au/news/0109/18/world/world11.html

 

[a_unique_person]

this is what happens if you try to form a democracy in the middle east.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0302/S00131.htm

Democracy for the Middle East? Bah, Humbug!

By Firas Al-Atraqchi
Mainstream media, talk shows and online columns in the past few weeks have been festooned with the urgent call to liberate Iraq from dictatorship and install democracy in the region. "Liberating the Iraqi people," we are told makes for a sound moral and legal argument."Other Arab nations will become democratic," we are also told.

However, to the informed reader and Middle East analyst (not the type you are allowed to hear from) the call to liberate Iraq is a thinly veiled hypocrisy that is as much an insult to the intelligence as it is to the people of the region.

History provides ample proof that no undertaking in the Middle East has been for the liberation of the peoples of the region.

Iraq's western neighbour, Iran, is perhaps the most illuminating case in point. In 1906, an intelligent, nationalistic, and affluent character by the name of Mohammed Mossadegh worked diligently to bring constitutional reform to Iran. Mossadegh was most concerned with Russo-Anglo attempts to carve up Iran as a chessboard for early twentieth century imperialism. He sought to create a free and stable Iran, free from tyranny and oppression.

In 1951, the Iranian people held their first, and last, truly democratic elections and chose Mossadegh to lead Iran. His first act was to nationalize the oil industry, which had been under the control of British colonial rule.

In 1951, journalist J.H. Carmical, reporting for the New York Times, wrote "Since Anglo-Iranian is owned by British interests, with the British Government holding a majority of the stock, nationalization of the Iranian oil properties would be a severe blow to the British economy." (New York Times Archives, March 25, 1951).

 

[a_unique_person]

and more US hypocrisy.

''Holding tight: U.S. and the new Shah of Pakistan''
Printed on Saturday, August 31, 2002 @ 01:00:07 EDT ( )

By Yusuf Agha
YellowTimes.org Columnist (United States)

(YellowTimes.org) – America has a penchant for snuggling up to dictators destined for short-lived rule. Recall the Shah of Iran, monarch plenipotentiary installed by the 1953 CIA coup, only to be undermined by the Islamic revolution a quarter of a century later. All the U.S. got for its Persian foray was a lousy T-shirt with "The Great Satan" written all over it.

Recall again the mighty ally, General Zia of Pakistan, who cuddled up with the U.S. to rout out the Red Army from Afghanistan. For what we had sown by supporting the fundamentalist tyrant, we reaped the Taliban and their "guest," Osama.

Since "once bitten, twice shy" has never been the motto of the U.S. State Department, this year's award for America's "tightest" new dictator goes to General Musharraf of Pakistan.

The General, who seized power from Pakistan's elected government in October 1999, was once an outcast with whom President Clinton refused to be photographed during his post-coup visit to that Pakistan.

One U.S. president's pariah is another president's best friend.

After Musharraf decided to respond to Bush's dual-tone "with or against" threat with a resounding "with" - causing his erstwhile ally Mullah Omar to flee for the hills astride a Harley Davidson - the General has become the hottest thing in Washington since the Shah of Iran. Make that Pinochet - or rather, General Zia - or maybe Anwar Sadat - or better still - never mind!

It seems the General had a price in mind for the U.S.; in exchange for his unmitigated support to the "war on terror," the U.S. is expected to drop its loincloth demand for democratic reform for Pakistan.

Bargain struck. In mid-August, Musharraf went ahead and announced his constitutional "reform" package for Pakistan. With one foul swoop, the General initiated 29 amendments to the country's constitution, proclaiming himself to be nothing short of the new Shah of Pakistan.

http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=637

 

[DrBenway]

and more US hypocrisy.

I'm tired of hypocrisy. That's why I want my government to take a stand for basic human rights, such as the right to vote and participate in politics, without discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or religious affiliation.

I want my government to say, if you're for these things, we're on your side. If you're against these things, we're against you.

I don't think we can play the lesser of two evils game effectively right now. I think we need to seriously stand up for what we feel is right.

This doesn't mean that I feel the U.S. ought to use military force to oppose those against human rights. We at least ought to go public with our opinion, then justify our actions in some way consistent with that opinion.

 

[DrBenway]

Re: Re: Pakistan

...you get the official "Fool's seal of approval" for this one as you didn't attempt to propose that despite thier minority status all pakistan muslims, deep down, want MMA to take over...

I've done a poor job of articulating my position, if it seems I'm saying that "all pakistan muslims, deep down, want the MMA to take over."

I see the moderates as divided and unable to articulate a convincing legal position for their moderate views, in many cases. Their toleration of the extremists buys them time, but I don't think it's wise.

To add: The MMA is not a minority group, exactly. To quote from the article, the MMA "now runs the government in the Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP), bordering on Afghanistan, and shares power in Baluchistan."

 

[DrBenway]

Re: Re: Pakistan

I wish we could. Let us not forget that while we are across the world from him, he lives there.

We won't win anyone's respect if we look like opportunists. That was yesterday's game. Today, we have to prove we're about more than materialism.

I'm not so afraid of a temporary uprising of fundamentalism in parts of the world, that I feel the need to support "friends" who play unfair political games to keep hold on power.

 

[DrBenway]

I've been reading more articles at "Crisisweb." That is an amazingly good site: http://www.intl-crisis-group.org/default.cfm

From a recent article about Afghanistan:
"Afghanistan's legal system has collapsed. Never strong to begin with, it has been nearly destroyed by 23 years of conflict and misrule. There are few trained lawyers, little physical infrastructure and no complete record of the country’s laws. Under successive regimes, laws have been administered for mostly political ends with few protections of the rights of individuals to a fair trial. Although the country has signed up to most international agreements on human rights, abuses have been widespread, and military commanders have enjoyed impunity.

"The challenges in remedying the situation are enormous. No justice system can thrive in a state of insecurity and corruption since judges and prosecutors will be intimidated or bribed. There are deep divisions between those who favour a very conservative interpretation of Islamic law and those who want to revive the more progressive ideas in the 1964 Constitution. The loss of trained staff has been such that it will take a generation at least to rebuild a system that even before the conflict only really functioned in the main cities and towns."

Looks to me like Afghanistan needs some help from the outside. The Islamic fundamentalists are organized and well funded. I predict they will fill the judicial vacuum, unless somehow the more moderate Muslims can organize and provide education and direct support of the legal infrastructure in Afghanistan.

 

[DrBenway]

here I am spamming my own thread. hehehe.

You know what I would like to see? A system of Internet Universities in Afghanistan, with on-line courses particularly in law, paramedicine, journalism, English, and computer science. I'd gladly donate to a cause like that.

 

[corplinx]

and more US hypocrisy.



http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=637

A simple explanation of a complex issue AUP. The issue was that we browbeat Musharraf into holding elections as a matter of long-standing foreign policy. Then when he did reactionary fanatics were elected.

The good part here is that he has shown the west that he is open to republic ideals. Even though there is still not a democracy there, at least they have the whole "voting" thing down.

Let us not forget it took Russia a while to transition.

 

[corplinx]

I'm tired of hypocrisy.

Well duh. Unfortunately we have a different joker as commander in chief every 4-8 years. This means one guy 20 years ago may have done something that todays CIC does the opposite of. This is not hypocrisy. This is a policy change. It happens.

What I am sick of is myopic small minded people who consistently harp on how hypocritical it was to greenlight the Iraq/Iran border war (done in the Carter admin) or that we helped the afghans repel the Russians (during the reagan admin) and they try to say that because we did those things then that we cannot oppose the resulting regimes now.

I'm tired of simple-minded rubbish.

 

[Cleopatra]

here I am spamming my own thread. hehehe.

You know what I would like to see? A system of Internet Universities in Afghanistan, with on-line courses particularly in law, paramedicine, journalism, English, and computer science. I'd gladly donate to a cause like that.

... and turn an agricultural society into a society of lawyers and english teachers?

Oh My! THIS would be a revenge!

 

[WildCat]

I'm tired of hypocrisy. That's why I want my government to take a stand for basic human rights, such as the right to vote and participate in politics, without discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or religious affiliation.

I want my government to say, if you're for these things, we're on your side. If you're against these things, we're against you.

I don't think we can play the lesser of two evils game effectively right now. I think we need to seriously stand up for what we feel is right.

But this is where things get complicated very quickly. In the Middle East this could be interpreted as anti-islam, Turkey is the only muslim country I can think of which has a secular gov't (and this is probably because they have historically been more identified w/ Europe than the middle east). As has been shown in other countries (Pakistans oct. elections, Nigeria's northern states, etc.) when they do hold elections the islamic fundies can win and impose sharia.
It's easy to criticize the Bush admin. for cozying up to Musharraf, but how could we have ousted the Taleban and suppressed al-Qaeda otherwise? After 9/11 we couldn't just ignore the place.
Does anyone have any ideas (that don't involve a time machine to change the past!) to resolve the current mess gracefully? It would so much easier if religion weren't such a large part of the picture.
I'll check back here after work tomorrow (I don't have a comp. there so don't flame me for not responding to any criticisms immediately!).
WildCat

 

[a_unique_person]

... and turn an agricultural society into a society of lawyers and english teachers?

Oh My! THIS would be a revenge!

oh dear, more racism.

i understand that before all the current troubles, afghanistan was quite a cultured place.

 

[corplinx]

i understand that before all the current troubles, afghanistan was quite a cultured place.

Pre-soviet troubles or pre-taliban overthrow? As I understand it, Afghanistan had some regions controlled by warlords which weren't too nice (some of which are still controlled by warlords btw).

I imagine that maybe the capital was the big cultural center?

 

[DrBenway]

But this is where things get complicated very quickly. In the Middle East this could be interpreted as anti-islam

Hi, WildCat

Yes, I've been wrestling with this problem for months. The standard wisdom has been: don't poke the fundies with a sharp stick.

The moderate Muslims have been laying low, standing by their brothers in Islam, and losing political ground. When they take a stand against fundamentalism, they get branded as apostates and threatened with a fatwa, a la Salmon Rushdie.

So now I think the west ought to poke the moderates with a sharp stick. Let's put them on the spot to differentiate themselves from the fundies. Let's embarass them. Let's call them on their secular values, which contradict the mainstream Muslim teachings, until they start putting out some strong, coherent language in defense of secularism in the Islamic world.

But let's also come out clearly as friends of the Muslim secularists, ready to help them out if persecuted by the fundies.

If you read the article on Pakistan at Crisisweb, you'll see they reach the same conclusion.

Musharraf helped the fundies, so his secular opposition couldn't mount much of a challenge to himself. He is a weenie.

 

[DrBenway]

... and turn an agricultural society into a society of lawyers and english teachers?

As much as it pains me to admit it, lawyers are necessary, if the rule of law is to replace warlord justice. Without law and order, there is no hope for people to work to better themselves.