Color-Blind Love One of the best articles I've read on Chowk in a very long time!

Ciao

Surviving Musharraf\'s Exit? re: zeemax # 153

Zeemax, by all accounts, Pakistan has serious economic problems and the reason for giving the finance portofolio to PML-N was that PPP wanted to make sure that PML-N got its share of blame too. As PPP has accepted the ownership of the GWOT, it will be blamed for it, as time goes on, and had it not shared the blame, with PML-N, it would have allowed Nawaz Sharif to reap a political windfall at its expense and would have paid for this dearly at during the next elections.

There is nothing remarkable in the distribution of the assignments, because like any other coalition, this one too is interested in sharing the credit and blame alike. Let us wait till the end of the first 100 days of this government and see if there has been progress. There are serious problems to be solved and once this government has its fill of populism, it will realize that solutions will require policies and not speeches and as I said to tahmed32, the nation's patience level is very low; almost non-existant and it will not tolerate an extension of the honeymoon period for this government beyond the 100 days of its goverance.

The best we can hope for is that all stake holders in Pakistan will soon realize the wisdom of moving away from their maxmalist positions towards a common consensus on major policies. We should not be too surprised if we see a movement in that direction. The civilians would have to listen to the military and take the military on board in formulating a policy on GWOT and in return, the military would be expected to vacate the sphere of civilian authority and remove itself from non-military aspects of politics in Pakistan.

Let me hazard a moment of unguarded optimism and suggest that parliamentary style of government generally has been more inclined towards coalition governments, because such governments naturally create a sense of checks and balances, based on a common interest - the willingness to stay in power - and such governments then offer themselves to a more transparent nature of policy discourse, whereby policies of unilateralism are discouraged because it tends to fray the coalition political interests, i.e staying in power.

This government has a very hard task before it and it has to do everything right at the first go and has no room for mistakes, for such is the expectation levels of the common person in Pakistan. I have my doubts about how long will government last, but I still wish this government the best simply because it will need all the luck it can muster in the comming days and weeks ahead.

Ciao

Surviving Musharraf\'s Exit? re: leadenwinter

Democracy may be a fiction, but it is a fiction that works better than most other "real" alternatives.

Ciao

War of Another Kind re: Masadi

Proof? It is ironic that a person, who calls others names and questions them, without proof, demands proof. :)

Since you are all assuming and all knowing, I will accept that you know what the majority of the Pakistanis believe and do not believe in. :)

Ciao

War of Another Kind re: Masadi

You said and I quote, "Of course as a major peon of the West on this site, Feroz will push the American line and anything that detracts from it will be rejected by him. He thinks that Pakistanis consider themselves God's armies out to defend Islam-"

The vast majority of the nation, Pakistanis, thinks that they are here on this earth to defend Islam and they all support this idea.

re: majumdar

Let's see, what happens...

re: tahmed32

Sirji, only time will tell and sirji, you also need to keep an open mind and not be blinded by prior assumptions. :)

For the sake of the nation, I hope you are proven correct and till that point, I am not pinning my hopes on this alliance lasting very long. I am simply offering an alternative to your hypothesis :)

Ciao

An Agenda for the New Government re: majumdar

Article 6 of the 1973 Pakistan constitution states that anyone held responsible and found guilty for subverting the constitution, will face a death penalty. There is no stated constitutional provision for converting such a penalty (that I am aware of) into a life sentence, though such could be amended if so desired by the executive and the legislative branches. This, at least, is the theory and we all know, in Pakistan, theory hardly ever materializes into reality.

As to Musharraf being tried to discourage future Bonpartists, that would depend if you have the means to carry this process to its logical terminal end. Chest beating and sounding brave on the air waves is one thing, taming the army to allow this process; the process of putting one of it's former chiefs on trial, is the real challenge. Musharraf may have shed his uniform and Kiyani may have been distancing the army from the presidency, but will the army still remain committed to the so-called democracy, when that democracy poses an institutional threat to the military itself?

At this stage of the analysis, I must fully concur with Masadi. There are external based interests, which may not allow this possibility and yes; I am talking about the United States' strategic foreign policy goals, or what Masadi calls as the "US elites". The United States, historically speaking, has favored working with the bureaucratic-military complex in Pakistan (to borrow a phrase from Dwight Eisenhower) than it has with a civilian government and there is no emperhical evidence to suggest a paradigm shift in that assessment based on past historic experience.

There is a papable fear in Pakistan from speaking out against Al Qaeda and there is a very strong indication that this goverment may well appease Al Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban by ceding FATA to them in exhange of "peace" in Pakistan itself. Pakistani civilian politicans are afraid of speaking the truth about the presence of Al Qaeda in Pakistan and to divert attention, they espouse popularism.

However, there is no written gurantee that terrorism in Pakistan will stop if this government gives up FATA but the United States' fear, and for which they came to apprise themselves, was that the present Pakistani government seems to be headed towards a "Munich Agreement" with the militants. The fact that such an agreement might well be the final death knell of Pakistan is immaterial to the United States, but what is of concern to them is their interests inside Afghanistan and their ability to protect those interests - read military logistics, which need Pakistani cooperation in order to be sustained.

Thus, the question. Will the United States allow the democratic process in Pakistan to undermine its regional intrests?

The answer seems to be a "no".

FATA of Pakistan has developed into a linchpin of American military operations inside Afghanistan and that is why, there is a growing realization inside United States' foreign policy decision making circles that critical battles in GWOT that will influence the strenghtening of United States' regional interests, will be fought inside FATA and Pakistan.

The United States' strategic interests will always take precedence over individual choices/policies and likewise, Obama or Clinton or McCain will still target and bomb FATA if that is in American interests regardless of whether there is a Musharraf in power or not or if there is a military or a civilian government in Islamabad.

Presently, the United States is quiety observing the developing political scene inside Pakistan, and suggesting to the new government that a policy, which encourages a lessening of Pakistan's role in GWOT is not necessarily the best solution. One has to remember that Pakistan can ill afford to follow a policy, which basically amounts to one of isolationism from the GWOT, because Pakistan does not have the capacity to sustain such a policy for the long term.

Pakistan's economy is dependent on foreign aid and all of its debts were rescheduled on the promise of its contributions in the GWOT and therefore, Pakistan can be financially squeezed to make it cry "uncle" should the need warrant itself in the future.

At this stage, the crux of the matter is what Masadi said in the past and with which I tend to agree and that is; in the larger scheme of things, Musharraf's fate is immaterial to the final equation and putting him on trial might be pointless unless and until, we can are also capable of removing the United States' influence from Pakistan and being economically and political independent from the United States' and from its global strategic interests.

Therefore, Majumdat sahib, in order to discourage future Bonapartist in Pakistan, you have to discourage the institutions that support them. Punishing people, who act as spokespersons for such institutions, may gain a sense of popular retribution but will achieve nothing in the long run and the words from the Eagles song, it would all have been "a wasted time".

Ciao

War of Another Kind re: jayp

I agree, with you completely.

This present political alliance is held together by a mutual hatred of Musharraf and therefore, the question is how long will it last after Musharraf.

Ciao

An Agenda for the New Government re: tahmed32

Sirji, I did not misunderstand your post. It is just that I do not share your sense of euphoria about this government accomplishing anything other than revisiting old vendettas. I see nothing but another wasted opportunity, when Pakistan does not have any more time left to keep tinkering with a broken system, trying to fix, with worn out and tired out solutions that have failed in the past.

I agree, building up Pakistan's political capacity is good idea, but to do so with the intention of creating another round of confrontational politics, is a bad idea.

National reconcilation means forgetting the past and not embarking on another witch hunt! :)

Ciao

An Agenda for the New Government re: tahmed32 # 7

Sirji, pardon my cynicism but the political capacity, which you tout so highly is a chimera. The reason, why I am so doubtful of this political capacity of Pakistan's to save the day is that all the criteria you have identified are still in the process of developing and still, despite your best wishes, are vunerable to a change of events.

If you listen to the conventional wisdom on the street, it clearly speaks of a concern that the next year, upto spring 2009, is a very fragile year for Pakistan. Pakistan is still not out of the proverbial woods yet. The reason being that Musharaff still retains the senate and the elections for the next senate are not due till 2009. Therefore, Musharraf is not overly concerned about a two-thirds majority or a parliamentary majority turning against him and impeaching him as long as he has senate, which can block any bills from the National Assembly he does not favor too much.

This might all change in 2009 if Musharraf loses the senate and that raises the probable question if this assembly will be even allowed to finish its term if Musharraf believes that he will lose the 2009 senate vote.

Sirji, the race has just began and it does not make sense to already declare a winner yet when there are still 12 months of uncertainity ahead of the nation. As mentioned in my earlier post, the Pakistani peoples' expectations of this government solving their problems are very high and even if this government does the best it can; it still has to manage the best it can within the limitations of the reality under which it must work.

Will a democratically elected government coming into power suddenly fill Pakistan's parched rivers full and thus, provide the water to generate electrical power and lessen the daily amount of loadshedding in the nation?

Will the army sit back and do nothing, as this government implements a reduced Pakistani role in GWOT?

Will the Americans support a dialogue with the militants, and still continue to support this government as it prepares to talk with the militants? Why do think the American delegation was in Pakistan? They were here to make sure that the United States' interests in GWOT are protected and not undermined by the actions of this government.

Will everyone in Pakistan now have a job, a roof over their heads and clothes on their backs and a chicken in every pot because there is a democratically elected government in power?

Will the streets be safe and a virgin carrying a pot of gold can walk unmolested in the middle of the night?

This is what I meant by expectations and though this government may well achieve some of these objectives, it will take time and unfortunately, the people of Pakistan have no more patience left.

Hamidm is right - the first 100 days will tell the tale.

Sirji, with all due respect, much water needs to flow under the bridge and we must all live through another 365 odd days of angst before we can pat ourselves on the back and say congragulations to each other.

Ciao

An Agenda for the New Government re: tahmed32 # 2

The past historic experience of governance in Pakistan does not support an optimistic asssessment of the sitution in Pakistan or this government's ability to resolve the issues confronting Pakistan.

Too much optimism is a certain recipe for disappointment and it would be better to wait and see, how this government performs and what it accomplishes before singing its praises. There is a difference between being elected to power and ruling a nation and so far, this government has not ruled Pakistan or proven itself in that regard. Therefore, only time will tell how well or miserably this goverment performs.

As to the civil society, it would be the first one to cheer the military back into power.

Do not forget the images of the civil society distributing sweets after the coup of 1999 in the streets of Pakistan.

Sirji, nothing has changed at all. Let there be elections in 2013 and let this government accomplish tangible results and let it visibly improve the lot of the average person in Pakistan and then, and only then, we can say there will be "...better days ahead of Pakistan...".

Ciao

Why not hang Surabjit Singh? re: harish_hyd #38

I second your comments.

Ciao

An Agenda for the New Government The expectations of the people, for this government to solve their problems, is the reason why this government will have a difficult time succeeding.

Expections will always exceed results and the pace of the results will never equal the rising expectations of the people.

This government will be stepping into a strange cocktail of expectations and disappointments and though the people are looking to it and to the future it holds for the nation, with a sense of expectation; they are mindful of the past broken promises of the past governments.

The threshold of a failure is very low in Pakistan and the failure of this government, should it go the manner of so many other governments in the past, will be tragic for Pakistan in more ways than one.

Ciao

New US Strategy Needed in Afghanistan and Pakistan re: tahmed32

Thanks for clarifying your comments, Sirji. :)

Sirji, the appropriateness of the United States' post-September 11 policy is not the issue; what may have been a good policy choice in 2001 does not necessarily mean that it will remain as such in 2008 or even beyond.

I do not see a policy rethink in the United States or the need to reevaluate the results of their policy choices since 2001. The United States is simply reinforcing failure by thinking that it can tinker tailor changes and it will see a different result. What is needed is a complete overhaul of the United States' regional policy for Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan and for that, the United States needs to address the political dimension of question.

A policy success for the United States will only happen if the United States knows what it wants in the region, but if it has no policy other than to kill Muslims and keep occupying their lands, then it is headed into one of the most sigificant disasters of its modern political history.

Bush going to a mosque is of an immaterial consequence in the larger scheme of things. :)

That is like saying wearing a T-shirt with a Pakistani flag will improve Pakistan's standing in the American public opinion! :)

Gimmicks! Gimmicks do not make sound policies and policies made on the basis of gimmicks are simply a subsitute for a lack of a viable policy! :)

One of my favorite definations of madness is that you keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results.

Presently, the United States policy for the region is a defination of madness, as explained above and unless the United States alters its policy, it will not see a different result.

If the result is to win this GWOT, then there needs to be a better, more thought-out approach to the problem. :)

Ciao

New US Strategy Needed in Afghanistan and Pakistan re: zeemaz

As to your question, I do see the "connection". My disagreement with Fisk is that though there is a linkage between western influence/occupation of Muslim lands and the Muslim resistence to it, I do not agree with Fisk that western powers vacating Muslim lands will end the "terror".

The problem is one of compatibility. The Muslim world has to exist within the existing international system and it cannot exist outside of it. The Muslim world view is not the dominant view in the present international system and this view has a niche in the system, but will not be allowed to dominate the system. The Muslim political opinion, as manifested by the actions of groups normally associated with the ideology of Al Qaeda - Islamic militancy - wish to create a parallel system and as things are, the present domiant international system will not tolerate that eventuality.

In a sense, the present international sytem is based on the Brettonwoods agreement and though it has been modified since the late 1940s, the it still retains its core characteristics, which is basically the monoploy of the global financial institutions by the United States. The United States had replaced the European colonial powers as the global hegemon after the Second World War and since then, even thoughout the Cold War, its policies have been designed to make sure that the status quo of the post-1945 world it inheirated from the European powers continues unchanged in the favor of the United States.

Therefore, even if the United States and the western powers leave Muslim lands, there is no gurantee that the Muslims will wish to exist within the Brettonwood system. Now, we are presently engaged in a global power struggle to redraw the global balance of power, which was in fact made necessary with the demise of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War and the emergence of China and India as the two main contenders for influence in the new global balance of power in the post Pax Americana period.

The United States, according to many analysts, has reached a stage of "imperial over-reach" and is now in decline, both politically and militarily. The American imperialism is made possible courtsey of a deficit economy but how long that economy is supported by external powers, remains to be seen. The present financial crisis is a herald of this and the most likely beneficaries will be India and China, followed by Japan and Russia and the European Union and between them, they will adjudicate a new balance of power.

The United States, will be accomodated in this new balance of power, which will see the revivial of multipolarity in the affairs of the world and the United States, given its debt obligations to its external creditors, will be forced to accept a diminished role.

In any case, should such a new international balance of power emerge, it will not be willing to accomodate the Islamic view point. Simply, because the Islamic view point in the international affairs seeks the end of the present system and its replacement by a sharia inspired system, which is not acceptable to the non-Muslim states of the world.

Hence, non-Muslim powers leaving Muslim lands is no longer an option and even if they, there is no gurantee that it will end the terror as Fisk hopes and which is why, I disagreed with Robert Fisk.

Ciao

New US Strategy Needed in Afghanistan and Pakistan re: tahmed32

The question of concern is not if there was nothing new in the article, but if the United States has capacity to endure this war for long?

Wars are about logistics and financing and not killing per se. For the record, have you ever wondered where the financial ability of the United States to wage this conflict is coming from?

The United States is financing this war by selling debt instruments, which are being picked by the Chinese, Japanese et al. How long will these nations keep funding the American war chest by buying dollars? Dollar since 1973 has been the international reserve currency and lately, it has been losing ground against all major international currencies.

How long will the nations of the world hold dollar accounts, when those accounts continue to depreciate in comparsion to the Euro, for example? Nations are already switching to "mixed baskets" of holding both Euro and dollar as foreign currency accounts, but with the dollar slipping, they might decide to cut their losses and move over to non-dollar based foreign exchange reserves and stop buying US Treasury bonds, whose sales are presently keeping the US economy afloat.

More empires in history have disappeared from the world scene due to economic over-reach than were destroyed by conquering armies. There was a proposal in the United States to offer citizenship for military service and Rome, when it was in its terminal decline, was giving Roman citizenship to the Germanic tribes in exchange for military service to "guard the frontiers of the empire". There is a hint of reality behind this and to understand the recruitment shortages which hampering the United States' military, just glance at the demographics of whose is doing the fighting in Iraq. Otherwise, if the American citizens themselves had been fighting and committed to this war, there would have been no need to proffer this idea as a solution.

Sirji, if I were you, I would be really concerned how you plan to fight this war when the money dries up. The Soviet Union did not lose militarily to the United States, but economically! Just remember that! :)

Ciao

New US Strategy Needed in Afghanistan and Pakistan re: majumdar # 501

Agreed. The Muslim backwardness in pre-1947 India was the net result of their own choices.

Ciao