The Not Yet Nation

Several senior administration officials said that with each day that passed, more administration officials were coming around to the belief that General Musharraf’s days in power were numbered and that the United States should begin considering contingency plans, including reaching out to Pakistan’s generals. NYT, U.S. Is Looking Past Musharraf in Case He Falls, Nov 15, 2007.

I have argued, for a while and to earlier criticisms, that the American support for Pervez Musharraf is wrong-headed - not just on ideological terms (our self-proclaimed call for Freedom's March Across the Muslim World) but also in the strategic terms (our efforts to eliminate al-Qaeda and counter extremist ideologies in Western Asia).

The support for Musharraf on ideological terms seems to me to be a rather indefensible position but people still manage to do it, including the White House. The defense hinges on the "Not Yet Thesis" - freedom is good, dictators are bad, but Pakistan is not yet ready for freedom and must depend on dictators to build civic institutions, train the electorate and, in future, bring democracy. (Which is akin to waiting for the fox to install security in the henhouse. Makes perfect sense.)

We maintain that the man we know - a benevolent dictator named Pervez Musharraf - is better than the multitudes we do not know. We fear the multitudes on two fronts. One is that we conceive of them as masses without politics - forever hostage to gross religious and ideological provocations. Masses which do not constitute a body politic or act with an interest in self-preservation or self-growth. Faced with that absence of reason, we are forced to support native royals to do the job (from Egypt to Pakistan). We justify it by stressing that we may not like these dictators but we know that if we did not have them, the masses would instantly betray us to the very forces of extremism that we seek to destroy. This ignores, of course, actual historical and political realities in those countries. Such mis-engagement means that our knowledge remains sketchy, undifferentiated and reliant on gross generalizations of the "masses". It intimately links us to the gross abuses of power that our dictators exert - with means provided by us. Second is that these masses are Muslim. This fear grounded in our history can, at best, be understood as the fear of the "Other" and, at worst, as the Lewis/Huntington model of civilizational clash. Either case, it is borne out of our inherent belief in "difference". They are not like us. They do not possess reason, etc. (Ask Dick Cheney why nuclear deterrence worked with the Soviets but cannot work with Iranians.)

The strategic case is just as nonsensical. The fight against extremism is a fight that ordinary Pakistani citizens have much more at stake in. It is their immediate freedoms that are threatened by the Talibanization of their society. It is their frustrations that are being capitalized upon by the Islamists. The historical, political and social trends have always clearly shown that the Pakistani publics predominantly prefer a moderate and open society. If we really are serious, we need to empower the Pakistani publics and not facilitate their oppression.

The conventional wisdom, however, remains against such a reading. Take Fareed Zakaria's Pakistan’s Pinstripe Revolution in Newsweek - where he feels that benevolent dictators should be cut some slack and that Pakistan needs that helping hand. But Zakaria seems to misread Pakistan's judicial and political history and, at the very least, Musharraf's entire public persona. He argues that the judicial problems of Musharraf begin in 1999 when he asked - for the first time - for the Supreme Court justices to resign and re-take their oaths of allegiance. What he fails to point out is that Musharraf was simply following in the footsteps of every dictatorial regime in Pakistan - all of whom asked the judiciary to re-take their oaths and that the judiciary acquiesced in every single case. The 'new-ness' of Pakistan's recent judicial crisis is that only recently did they decide not to rubber stamp the military regime. The causes for this break are diverse and I have outlined them elsewhere.

Zakaria makes further dubious claims: "He turned the country's strategic orientation away from the Taliban, revived the economy with real reforms, empowered women and spoke out against the pernicious influence of Islamic extremism." He turned the country away from Taliban insofar as he didn't. The Taliban continue to find solace and refuge in the northwestern province and his relationship with Karzai's regime have never gone below the boiling point. He revived the economy insofar as US poured 10 billion dollars into the Pakistani military-industrial complex since 2001. This influx of money has created the biggest land and industry holding entity in Pakistan's history - the Pakistan Army. Please look at Ayesha Siddiqa's Military, Inc. for a solid understanding of that immediate history. Empowered women insofar as he allowed the Hisba Bill to pass in NWFP and it was only the Supreme Court that stepped in to stop it. And finally, on that Islamic extremism front. I do not really think that publishing an editorial in the Washington Post about "Enlightened Moderation" qualifies as doing much if one constantly cuts deals with Islamist militants in NWFP, Swat, Quetta and Islamist parties in Islamabad.

Another recent piece, Lee Smith's Mixed Messages, in Slate is even worse. It argues not only that we should support Musharraf but that that is the only way to combat extremism. Leaving aside the Orientalist reading of history, Smith appears horribly mis-informed about Pakistan. He claims, for example, that, "The Pakistani military, as is the case with most armed forces in the Muslim world, is the citadel of the country's modernity, its most significant secular institution and protector not only of the modern nation state but the idea of the nation state itself." I don't really know what being a citadel of modernity actually means but the Pakistan Army has undergone a rigorous program of Islamization and faith-based militancy since Zia ul Haq in 1979. Whatever lingering secularism is there, belongs to the older cadre of senior staff that came into the military pre-80s. Folks like Musharraf. The main troop strength comes from rural Punjab, Baluchistan and the Northwestern province and no one is reading Karl Marx or Nietzsche, I assure you.

Therein lies the heart of our problems with making a ideological or strategic case for aligning with dictators. We trust and privilege the narratives they provide us. Musharraf, like Zia ul Haq before him, has successfully explained Pakistan and the world to us. The forces of darkness hover at the border and only the rightfully guided leader can shepherd the nation. For Musharraf the bugaboo is extremism, for Zia ul Haq it was Communism. In both cases, we pumped amazing amounts of liquid cash and military hardware and waited for the eventual victory. Some how we still act surprised when victory doesn't materialize.

The good news is that, as I watch the Democratic Presidential debate - Biden, Obama, Edwards and Richardson are all agreeing that we need democracy in Pakistan before we need to prop up Musharraf's dictatorship. Tide is shifting. The people of Pakistan may yet escape the not yet. Read more on this article...

Enlightened Dictators

Things to keep in mind: Thursday, November 15th is officially the end of Musharraf’s current term as president. Which means The General has to take the new oath - which he is prohibited to do by the house-arrested Supreme Court - and he has to do it as a civilian. The General wants new election for the dissolved assemblies by Jan 9th. My bet is that Musharraf keeps that army uniform on for the while and maybe we will have another "crisis". Yeah?

Benazir Bhutto is getting tons of press. Our intrepid reporters should note that unlike virtually every other opposition leader, Benazir Bhutto, seems to have direct access to all international and state media - including holding gloriously orchestrated press conferences. Still, she has been ratcheting up her rhetoric - declaring now that "I will not serve as prime minister as long as Musharraf is president". Of course, she follows that with the clear-eyed assessment that "even if I wanted to work with him, I would not have the public support." Ah, the machinations of freedom's glorious march across the Muslim world.

I say what I said before, these protests are fulfilling a crucial role: they are making sure that things do not return to status quo, that the vacuum persists and that back-channel deals are forced into the public. In that regards, the role of internet-based distribution of information cannot be stressed highly enough. Benazir may have landed in Pakistan with deals but the democratic forces - those lawyers and college kids - are forcing her to play by new rules. And I say "forcing" because, trust me, she is no Aung San Suu Kyi.

Which isn't to say that there is no other 'viable' leadership in Pakistan (a common refrain from the likes of "realists" like Fareed Zakaria and Zakaria-lites). NYT has a great profile of Aitzaz Ahsan - a stalwart of opposition in many a regimes. He is currently in jail.

Perhaps feeling the inevitable Buyer's Remorse, Pervez Musharraf has been out of sight but he makes a brilliant comeback to the press limelights. First off, he is mad at being called "our sonofabitch" and so he kicks out the Telegraph reporters. Then, the interview, which promises to be just scads of fun with some amazing quotes from the NYT write-up:

About Benazir Bhutto, speaking as a dejected suitor promised a scented garden: “You come here on supposedly on a reconciliatory mode, and right before you land, you’re on a confrontationist mode. I am afraid this is producing negative vibes, negative optics.”
....
And next speaking as a truly enlightened man of the 21st century:

He called Ms. Jehangir, the leading human rights advocate in Pakistan and one of the first women lawyers, “quite an unbalanced character.”

General Musharraf criticized Ms. Jehangir for being too ambitious in her agenda on how to achieve better rights for women.

Pakistani women deserved more opportunities, and he cited his own legislation that amended the laws to protect women against accusations of rape and adultery.

But Ms. Jehangir, he said, wanted to go too fast, and would therefore fail.

Asma Jahangir is currently under house arrest.

And finally, Stephen Zunes, writing in FPIF Policy report, concludes: Given the unwillingness of both the Republican administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress to stop U.S. military support for the current Pakistani dictatorship, it may be time once again for concerned citizens to engage in similar nonviolent actions to end U.S. support for the oppression. For those at risk as a result of U.S. policy are no longer just those currently oppressed by the Pakistani regime. Some day, as a result of a possible blowback from this policy, it could be Americans as well. Read more on this article...

Going Public

The tide seems to be receding. The protests are not spreading beyond the lawyers and the students. The opposition parties have had no luck mobilizing. Benazir Bhutto's me-first strategy is d.o.a. That robust media, Aaj TV, Geo TV, ARY TV remain inaccessible to the majority of the population. The Supreme Court justices are in house arrest. The majority of the opposition is under strict duress. The General has made a series of announcements while jiggling his Google Calendar and seems to be announcing something for January. Enough, in any case, to placate the White House.

Is it over? This nascent movement for democracy and freedom.

It is, if you conceive of it as an instant reaction to an authoritarian step - a flash of anger and frustration that is slowly simmering back down. It is, if you believe that the lawyers and the students represent rather insulated factions of the overall society who do not effect life in a significant enough manner for "ordinary Pakistanis". There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that Musharraf's crackdown on "information" is working. He has sequestered most of the trouble makers. He has cut off any public discussion. He is threatening to try civilians in military tribunals. And the only possible alternatives look like Benazir Bhutto. These are indeed massive odds.

Yet, I do not believe that these are KwiK E Protests that will just go away. Think back to the amazing crowds - hundreds of thousands - that mobilized for the Chief Justice. Think also of those reports about the unpopularity of Musharraf, the fall from grace of the Pakistan Army, the growing discontent about the state of affairs in Pakistan. None of that has changed. None of those miseries have gone away. The Baluchistan crisis is now the Swat and Baluchistan crisis. The Islamists have not disappeared.

These nascent protests will not go away. In fact, they have awakened a new segment of the civil society against The General. A fact that is abundantly clear to those inside. Read more on this article...

Memo to Media: Supporting Musharraf is NOT Realism

Now that I am out of Pakistan, I can watch international news again. (General Musharraf, author of the doctrine of "enlightened moderation," has shut down access to international cable channels, presumably because they undermine the fight against international terrorism.) I have been able to watch the same lawyer in Multan get arrested several times. I have seen Benazir Bhutto arrive in Islamabad, sticking her head out of an armored car in case anyone would like to make up for missing it in Karachi.

Watching the international media framing the events reminded me of a Bob Dylan song I was listening to on the plane:

If there's an original thought out there, I could use it right now.

I see Bush talking about his "freedom agenda," Musharraf at the White House, arrested lawyers, turbaned Taliban taking over another town in northwest Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto asking the world to live up to its ideals, U.S. planes swooping over Afghanistan, Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein on behalf of President Reagan (that sure worked out real swell!), and, finally, Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, explaining that China can help us with North Korea, Saudi Arabia can help us against Iran, and that sometimes democracy promotion has to take a back seat to security concerns.

This is supposedly "realism," not just in the sense of being tough rather than idealistic, but in following the analytic and prescriptive precepts of the realist paradigm in international relations. According to this paradigm, the main actors in international relations are states, states act out of rational motives of self-preservation, these self-regarding interests result largely from international power relations, and the internal structure of states is largely both independent of their international behavior and impervious to international influence. Hence promoting democracy is a noble endeavor that has limited effect and sometimes has to be subordinated to urgent security interests. In the case of Pakistan, the realist frame states, "Even if General Musharraf is a dictator, we need his help in the war against terror."

I agree that promoting democracy (even if it were done sincerely and intelligently, which is not the usual practice) sometimes has less priority than other goals. In any case, democracy cannot function without internal security and the rule of law.

But don't the reporters notice that the very pictures they are showing contradict the realist frame? General Musharraf has not suspended the constitution to fight terrorism. He has not even continued to fight terrorism while suspending the constitution for other reasons. Of course the Pakistan Army is happy to pocket the $100 million a year it receives for giving the U.S. basing rights and otherwise supporting the effort in Afghanistan (while undermining it in other -- and cheaper -- ways). The Pakistan Army is not about to commit suicide by openly defying the whole international community and cutting off support for NATO operations in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile Musharraf sent his police to arrest lawyers, liberal politicians, and human rights activists, while doing virtually nothing against those Taliban in their scary turbans, who are taking over Swat:

The imposition of emergency in Pakistan has not put any pressure on Taliban in Swat district. Taliban have taken over police stations in Matta, Khawazkhela and Charbagh. This scribe visited the Matta police station after the imposition of emergency in Pakistan. Taliban there have replaced the Pakistan's flag with their own at the police station after more than 120 soldiers surrendered two days ago. Taliban commanders controlling Matta police station were not worried about the emergency.

Immediately after President Musharraf's speech, the Pakistan Army swapped 25 Taliban fighters for 211 kidnapped soldiers in South Waziristan. There was a feeling of achievement among local militants over the banning of private TV channels all over the country as they think Musharraf had accepted their point of view in this matter.

Taliban leader Maulvi Fazlullah is moving around half of the Swat area like a ruler with full protocol. He has appointed his own 'governors' in Kabal, Matta and Khawazkhela. He has also ordered setting up of Islamic courts for providing justice in areas under his control.

Why is this happening? Because an illegitimate military regime could not motivate the security forces it has trained for jihad in defense of Islamic Pakistan to fight against domestic jihadis, even if it really wanted to. Realism assumes that states are constituted once and for all and that their capacity is a function of their economies and order of battle, not their legitimacy. But that is wrong. In Afghanistan the Afghan National Army, on which the U.S. has spent billions of dollars, is being undermined by mullahs, who in some areas will not pray at the funerals of fallen ANA soldiers. Pakistani troops and police are surrendering rather than fight the militants at the behest of a dictator beholden to the U.S.

That does not mean, as stated in the usual blackmail note passed by Pakistani generals to American leaders, that only the Army stands between Islamabad's nuclear weapons and a mass Islamic revolutionary uprising. Support for a Taliban government is marginal in Pakistan. Even the mainstream Islamist parties like Jamaat-i Islami, who support the "resistance" in Afghanistan, are against it. But the military regime has not been able to provide an alternative legitimate leadership, and its own institutional interests prevent it from doing so.

The military and in particular its leader, General Musharraf, has a vital interest in staying in power. The generals believe their own rhetoric, that their personal and institutional interest is identical to the national interest, but few other Pakistanis do, and we should not either. The problem of how to handle the tribal agencies illustrates the dilemma.

For the past 30 years, initially using U.S. and Saudi covert action funds, the Pakistani military empowered jihadi groups in the tribal agencies. Along with the growth of a commercial economy based on smuggling, drug trafficking, and remittances, this support to militants undermined the tribal leadership through which the British colonial state and its successor, the Pakistani military state, controlled the border region. This closed area provided a deniable platform for the "covert" use of jihadis against the USSR, India, and Afghanistan.

When the U.S. demanded that the military join the "War on Terror," it responded by sending in the army and arresting some Arabs and Uzbeks, while leaving the Taliban able to operate in Afghanistan. When the U.S. finally demanded more action, Islamabad claimed that the local Pashtuns supported the Taliban and that therefore military action alone would not work. Instead they reached an agreement with government-controlled "tribal leaders" in South Waziristan to control militant activity. Some in the Pakistani government sincerely hoped this agreement would work. It did not. Trying to regain control of the tribal agencies by reviving the tribal leadership is like trying to reconstitute the Mediterranean out of bouillabaisse. (My apologies to Marseille.)

Pashtuns in the tribal agencies are constantly sending messages complaining of how the militants are terrorizing them, how they don't want to be used against Afghanistan, and how they are being blamed for the covert actions imposed on them by the Pakistani military. A few days ago, after I gave a lecture at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad, two students from NWFP came up to me in a very agitated state, with the same protests, that Pakhtuns are not Taliban and that this "terrorism" had been imposed on them. These areas are ripe for political leadership that would oppose both the militants -- absorbing many of the youths they are recruiting -- and military rule. But creating conditions for such leadership to develop would require not sending in the military to bomb and shell the tribes, but legalizing political parties and social organizations (which are outlawed in the tribal agencies) and enabling the people of the tribal agencies to exercise self-government. Rather than give up its own power, the military balances the militants and the weakened tribes.

Only a transition toward more democratic civilian rule would create a constituency that would enable the Pakistani state not just to suppress militants by force but to offer a legitimate alternative to militancy. This the military regime will not and cannot do. Only a democratic transition, with its attendant uncertainties, offers a chance for Pakistan not so much to defeat militancy as to render it irrelevant. Genuine realism -- which includes an analysis of the role of legitimacy in state capacity -- requires support for the rule of law and transition to democracy.

Dylan again:

I met the sons of darkness and the sons of light
In the bordertowns of despair

And what were both the sons of darkness and the sons of light looking for in those bordertowns?

Wise man lookin' in a blade of grass
Young man lookin' in the shadows that pass
Poor man lookin' through painted glass
For dignity.

It shouldn't be that hard to understand. Read more on this article...

Islamabad: Parting Thoughts on Policy

Islamabad -- Before I leave in a few hours, I wanted to jot down a few notes on what Pakistanis are saying about the United States in particular and the "West" in general.

The most common feeling toward the U.S. I have encountered is a kind of anger mixed with disappointment. Pakistanis are angry at the U.S. and consider it hypocritical because it has consistently supported dictatorship in Pakistan. Many are also baffled and furious because they see clearly the complicity of part of the Pakistani security forces with the Taliban on both sides of the border and cannot comprehend U.S. continued support for that same military.

They see a weak reaction by the U.S. to the virtual martial law decreed by General Musharraf. In particular they hear U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates say, "We are reviewing all of our assistance programs, although we are mindful not to do anything that would undermine ongoing counterterrorism efforts." What they hear is, the U.S. will review its support for education and health programs, but it will continue its massive subsidy (an estimated $1 billion per year) to cover the cost of operations by the Pakistan military: the same military that has declared a pseudo-emergency (in reality, martial law), under which protesting lawyers have been beaten and hundreds of non-violent democratic political leaders arrested, while the militants continue their campaigns without hindrance.

Naturally conspiracy theories abound. [The following conspiracy theories are NOT endorsed by the author and should NOT be circulated all over the internet and attributed to the author, who is merely trying to convey some of the flavor of local discourse.] The U.S. wants the Pakistani Taliban to surround Islamabad so that it has the excuse it seeks to destroy Pakistan's nuclear weapons. Musharraf has promised the U.S. some sort of assistance in a war against Iran. And these are only the more plausible theories I have heard.

Let me describe the situation on the ground to which Musharraf has responded by suspending the constitution, arresting several senior judges, and detaining hundreds of non-violent democratic political leaders. According to sources in the Northwest Frontier Province, the Taliban (Afghan and Pakistani) have established an Islamic Emirate centered in Mirali, North Waziristan, the home base of Commander Jalaluddin Haqqani (Afghan Jadran from Khost) and his son Sirajuddin. This Emirate acknowledges Mullah Muhammad Umar as Amir, but it is mainly run by the Haqqanis, with the Pakistani Mehsud leader, Baitulah Mehsud of South Waziristan, as its main public face. The Emirate has established structures in all seven Tribal Agencies, though it is strongest in North and South Waziristan and has not penetrated the Shi'a areas of upper Kurram. Besides Pakistani and Afghan Pashtuns, its forces include the Uzbeks displaced from South Waziristan and others from the former USSR (collectively if not accurately called "Chechens"), whom the local people accuse of the greatest brutalities, such as the beheading of prisoners.

From these bases, the Emirate has launched its offensive in Swat and has infiltrated around Peshawar from several directions. Recently Taliban appeared in Qisakhani Bazaar in the old city of Peshawar and ordered traders to remove "un-Islamic" posters. There was no reaction from the police or administration. There are dozens of Taliban FM stations broadcasting calls to jihad in both the tribal agencies and the "settled" (administered) areas of NWFP. Not one of them has been shut down; instead the martial law regime has blocked transmissions of liberal cable television stations and blocked the Blackberry network used by the political elite.

Many if not most of my Pakistani interlocutors do not believe that the Pakistani military is using either martial law or U.S. assistance for "counter-terrorism." They believe it is using it to perpetuate its own power in the service of a national security project that serves neither Pakistan nor Afghanistan and is doing great harm to both. Any civilian government would, for the first time in Pakistan's history, assert its authority over formerly prohibited areas of policy: Afghanistan, Kashmir, the frontier agencies, perhaps even military expenditure. Therefore the generals fear, and international security interests demand, a rapid transition to civilian democratic rule.

As I understand them, the most urgent requests to foreign governments and organizations put forward by the Pakistani supporters of democracy whom I have met are: (1) Clear and strong condemnation of the state of emergency, which is only a thinly disguised form of martial law; (2) Termination of assistance, especially assistance going directly to the Pakistani military, until the constitution is restored and the democratic transition back on schedule; and (3) Use for the same purpose of all levers of U.S. and international influence, including suspension of ongoing military contracts.

My Pakistani interlocutors do not seem to fear the destabilizing effect of such measures nearly as much as they fear the destabilizing effect of a martial law regime. Unlike past martial law regimes, this one enjoys little popular support (though I met a few elite women who believe that only Musharraf will defend their rights effectively). Musharraf's rhetoric about fighting terrorism they largely see as an unconvincing and transparent disguise for maintaining his personal power and the dominant position of the army at the expense of the rule of law.

For a statement of some of these views by a leading Pakistani writer, see Ahmed Rashid in the Washington Post. Read more on this article...

Musharraf Adopts Bush-Cheney Doctrine of "Lawfare"

Islamabad -- One of the curious aspects of General Musharraf's speech last night (by the way, it is General, not President, as he first annulled the constitution and then invoked one of its provisions to declare an Emergency, acting not as president but as Chief of Army Staff), at least to this observer, was the general's thoroughly un-self-conscious invocation of two major threats to the security and integrity of Pakistan: terrorism and "judicial activism." It did not seem to occur to the general that, to some observers, even flawed or over-reaching attempts by duly constituted bodies to uphold the law might not be equivalent to mass murder. Judging by the General's actions, judicial activism is a much more sinister and immediate threat than terrorism, as all of his actions since yesterday have targeted the former rather than the latter. Indeed Musharraf's agents managed to pirate the codes to prevent Geo TV from uploading its programs to satellite, while Maulana Fazlullah's FM station in Swat continues to broadcast calls for jihad without impediment.

Opposing "judicial activism" is one of the rallying cries of the American right. Initially this was simply a cover for racism, as the most salient examples of "judicial activism" were Brown vs. Board of Education and other decisions by the Warren Supreme Court overturning American apartheid. Over time, however, the term began to cover a larger protest against attempts to extend the rule of law to the disadvantage of the powerful.

Not until the Bush administration, however, was this political code word integrated into the National Security Doctrine of the United States. Scott Horton of Harper's, writing on "Bush's War on the Rule of Law" describes how the attack on judicial activism entered national security doctrine through the concept of "lawfare":

According to Major General Charles J. Dunlap Jr., now the Air Force’s deputy judge advocate general, lawfare is the “strategy of using or misusing law as a substitute for traditional military means to achieve an operational objective.” As the neoconservative lawyers David Rivkin and Lee Casey have put it, lawfare aims to “gain a moral advantage over your enemy in the court of world opinion, and potentially a legal advantage in national and international tribunals.” The concept, which has been discussed in the Federalist Society and at National Review Online, became doctrine in the March 2005 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America: “Our strength as a nation state will continue to be challenged by those who employ a strategy of the weak using international fora, judicial processes, and terrorism.” Note the equation of “international fora, judicial processes, and terrorism.” In other words, turning to courts for the enforcement of legal rights, appeals to international tribunals, and terrorism are seen as the elements of a single consistent enemy strategy. In the strange reasoning of the lawfare theorists, lawyers who defend their clients, or who present their claims to domestic or international courts, might as well be terrorists themselves.

This could serve as a cogent summary of the doctrine presented by President Musharraf. Unlike Bush, Musharraf at least had the decency to announce to the whole world that he was placing the constitution "in abeyance" and arrogating all power to his sole person. The Bush administration prefers to promulgate shadowy memoranda, signing statements, and Humpty-Dumpty like amendments to the meaning of common words. Since the courts are instruments of terrorists (and can even be used to demoralize the security forces!) counter-terrorism logically requires the abolition of the rule of law.

Comparing England and India in the 19th century, Karl Marx wrote, "The country that is more developed industrially only shows, to the less developed, the image of its own future.” But the 20th century refuted Marxism through praxis, giving birth to new laws of history. In the 21st century, the country that is less developed institutionally only shows to the more developed the image of its own future.

Update: Uncanny echoes from the Borowitz Report:

In what he described as “an emergency mission to help a key ally in the war on terror,” President George W. Bush flew to Islamabad today to give General Pervez Musharraf tips on how to eliminate democracy.

Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Mr. Bush said that while he commended General Musharraf’s impulse to eliminate democratic institutions, he felt that the military strongman was going about it the wrong way: “When you’re getting rid of democracy, the last thing you want to do is tell people you’re doing it.”

Worth a quick read.


Read more on this article...

The General Speaks

The printed text is a bit off from what he actually said. Below is my hasty translation. I have tried to stick as close to his formulations as possible. It is a surprising speech (in many respects). Reading between the lines - ie, the english and urdu lines, I venture an opinion that this was not done with the approval of the US/State. Perhaps even done in defiance of them. The other observation is that when I called him a megalomaniac earlier, I was being circumspect. The state of Pakistan, at times, seems an extension of his very personality. Note the references. The third observation, my how the times have changed ... there is no mention at all of India. This is a testament to how drastic is the shift in South Asian geopolitics since the invasion of Afghanistan. China's role in the economic growth of Pakistan - from their investment in mobile and transportation infrastructure to their investments in Baluchistan emerge out at the top while American concerns are barely mentioned - and are actually completely absent in the English portion of his remarks.

President Musharraf speaking on national TV, 03-Nov-07, 23:00 hr::

My dear brothers and sisters, Assalam o Alaikum.

Today, I am speaking to you as Pakistan stands at a dangerous crossroads. It is in inner turmoil, everything that is happening, it is due to internal reasons.

This moment ... in the history of many nations there are moments of painful decisions ... this is such a moment for Pakistan when important and difficult decisions have to be made. And, I fear, that if we don't act immediately, then God forbid, the very union of Pakistan is in danger.

Before I say anything else, I just want to make one promise to this nation. That whatever I do, whatever decision I have made, it is, before all, on the basis of Pakistan ... and that is my guiding principle. Before all, Pakistan. Beyond personal benefit, beyond personal consideration, Pakistan first. And I hope that the nation will also feel the same way.

My brothers and sisters, in the past months, the circumstances have changed rapidly in Pakistan. I want to speak with you about that - frankly. One thing I have been saying all along - terrorism and extremism has reached extreme levels. Right now, suicide attacks are happening across Pakistan. That which happened in Karachi, and then in Rawalpindi, and then in Sargogha, in all of Pakistan, it is intensifying. Extremists are roaming across the country without fear and without hindrance. In fact, they are not even scared of the law enforcement agencies. They are confident. Things were happening in the frontier provinces and we were dealing with that. Some of it spread to the settled areas. You know what is happening in Swat and in southern districts as well. We have faced that challenge. But, the tragedy is that in Islamabad, the heart of Pakistan, the capital of Pakistan ... even here, extremism has spread and people are uncertain. These extremists are taking the writ of government in their own hands. They want to establish a state within our state. And the worst bit is that their corrupt ideas about Islam, they want to forcibly enforce them upon the peace and justice seeking people of Pakistan. And in my view this is a direct challenge to the union of Pakistan.

Let us move forward. How is the government functioning? In my view, it is in semi-paralysis, stricken. All of the senior representatives of the government are constantly going to the courts - especially to the Supreme Court. They are being giving sentences. They are being shamed publicly in the courts. Hence, they don't want to take any more decisions. At least 100 suo moto cases are currently running in the Supreme Court. And I am being told that thousands of applications are pending. And all of these suo moto cases are concerning the executive branch of the government. Functioning of the government is paralyzed at the moment.

Let us look at law enforcement agencies. In my view, they are demoralized - especially in Islamabad. They have given up hope. Why? Because their officers are being punished - same trips to the Supreme Court. Ten officers - including two Inspector Generals - are suspended or convicted. And so, we have a demoralized force with low morale, afraid to take any action. They don't want to do anything except sit with their arms crossed.

Next, let us look at the democratic systems - the practice of democracy. In that, hurdles have been placed. In 1999, when our government came, I put together a plan of action - with three stages - a transition to take the country towards democracy. Because in 1999, we had a failed, defaulted state; the systems of democracy were broken; no government had finished its tenure; there was only nominal democracy. That is why, in Stage One, from 1999-2002, we acted according to my plan. I was in total control. I ran the government. Then came Stage Two - from 2002 to 2007. A democratic system with elected governments, national assemblies, provincial assemblies, local government and a full democratic system of elected officials which I oversaw. I watched over it, sure, but the state functioned on its own. I was President and Chief of Army Staff. That was the second stage - which we passed in good stead. There were problems but we set a record that for the first time the assemblies and the government fulfilled their electoral term.

Now, we are in the final stage of this transition. Stage Three. I mean, I had hoped that in 2007, when the assemblies finish their tenure on November 15, we can have, with decorum, Presidential elections, with all the candidates for Presidency. And then General elections. And an elected government - whoever wins - can go forth in a new age of political reconciliation and full democracy. I had hoped that. As I said, for the first time, we tried to do a transition with a well thought out plan.

But, in my view, with great sorrow, I must say that certain powers are interfering in this democratic plan, putting hindrances and trying to stop it. Just as all the time had already passed and only a few months remained, this third stage is being sabotaged. In my opinion, this is being done deliberately for personal and political gain, and for the detriment of Pakistan.

All this that I have told you - the terrorism, extremism, the judicial cases, the demoralizing of the law enforcement, has caused, and I say this with great sorrow, a decline in our economic upswing. Though it can still be reversed. I am observing that Capital and Business that was flowing into the country is now stopped - they are now questioning whether to invest here or not Pakistan will remain stable. Our economy, the livelihood of our nation which improved over the last 7 years - in economy, in livelihood, in infrastructure, roads, ports, airports, railways, telecommunication, mobile telephone, landlines, rural telephone, information technology, building and construction, the entrepreneurs across the land, the rapid development across Pakistan, the thousands of industries launched, water irrigation, dams, canals, canals with brick linings, water courses, and then the social sector, education, health on the primary and secondary level, and education at every level - on all these Pakistan was moving forward, all this. I am very saddened, God Forbid, that 7 years of hard work may be washed away. And I am very sad, because I was personally involved in these development scheme. I cannot watch them get destroyed.

Under great duress, based on all these reasons, the whole nation is depressed and uncertain. I am getting phone calls from everywhere ... my own acquaintances, private, from outside the country, from inside the country, asking, "What is going on?" I am being taunted, "What are you doing?" They are taunting me that I was the decision maker, "What happened to you now? Why can't you decide now?" I have listened to these taunts in silence, and watched in disbelief what has been happening to Pakistan, in Pakistan. I had hoped that the judiciary and the government establishment will deal with these challenges ... and in that hope I sat silently and watched ... for improvements. But in my opinion this didn't happen. And the situation was getting worse by the day. And Pakistan was going rapidly into a negative direction.

And I also want to say, as I am sitting in front of television cameras, I want to say that the media - certain channels, and certain programs on certain channels - has also contributed to this downslide, this negative thinking, this negative projection. And I am saddened by this too. Saddened because this is the same media, in 1999, that there was only PTV in Pakistan and independent media did not exist. I gave that independence. Because I believed that media should be independent - that is the only path to progress for a civilized society. That is why I am saddened and I have said many times that negativism should be curtailed and positivism encouraged. That doesn't mean that we hinder the media. It should be independent, of course. But with responsibility towards the State and for the sake of the nation. And so, I am saddened by the situation in some channels.

I would like to ask the whole nation. Why? Why this state of affairs? In my opinion, it is the judicial activism - which is a pillar of states in clash with the other two pillars, the executive and the legislative. The judiciary has interfered with the other two. And now every one is suffering and is paralyzed in every manner and in every department.

Thats the basic issue.

In my view, this began from March 9th of this year when I filed a reference on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, against the Chief Justice to the Supreme Judicial Council. This was completely in accordance with constitutional and legal requirements. I was not personally motivated in this. I thought there were grave and serious accusations in the reference and I took a completely constitutional step - and nothing else. We can leave that aside but the situation that emerged after that was very bad. There was a complete breakdown of law and order to a tragic extent. And political opportunists entered into the matter and made it worse. I don't want to go into details here but will just state that if any member of the law enforcement community did anything wrong, then it doesn't mean that whole country should be destabilized. And secondly, this reference which contained grave complaints, which I sent to the Supreme Judicial Council ... all that happened and the judgement came. And whether I agree or disagree with the judgement, it did not even address the grave complaints contained within the reference. I accepted the judgement fully, with good grace and good intentions. Because, it was the decision of the Supreme Court. I accepted it. With a conciliatory attitude, to stop the conflict - for the benefit of Pakistan, I rose above the personal to work for the stability of the institution. Unfortunately, the matter was not solved. Even though, I tried my best, gave full cooperation with good intentions, but still the matter was not settled.

That was the reference and the judicial and legal issue.

Now. We saw the event of Lal Masjid in Islamabad where extremists took law into their own hands. In the heart of Pakistan - capital city - and to the great embarrassment of the nation around the world. Only I know how much shame that brought on us. We, who are such a great power, cannot control our own capital - where people are able to form a state within a state. Our image suffered tremendously. Our stature. Our standing was affected. These people - what didn't they do? - these extremists. They martyred police. They took police hostage. They burned shops. The Chinese, who are such great friends of ours - they took the Chinese hostage and tortured them. Because of this, I was personally embarrassed. I had to go apologize to the Chinese leaders, "I am ashamed that you are such great friends and this happened to you". And then they burned down the ministry's building and torched their cars. What are we to do in this condition? We were publicly humiliated for months and people kept saying we were not taking action. But I was not taking action because I wanted to save lives not take lives. So then, as a last resort, when we did take action, I commend all of the law enforcement agencies that they acted against this humiliation, this embarrassment against us and finished it. Many of our were martyred. I pray for their salvation. May Allah bless them all Paradise. They acted for this nation and this country, not themselves, and sacrificed their lives.

After that, unfortunately, came the decision of the Supreme Court. The trials kept going. Now the situation is that, the 61 terrorists which had been declared "Black" by the Intelligence agencies, which means "confirmed terrorists" were released by the Court. They are roaming free. No one knows whether the Rawalpindi bomb blasts or the Karachi ones or the Sargodha ones were done by one of those 61. They are at-large. Who knows what they will do next? And how much harm will come to us.

Then, the madrasas which were engaged in extremism were ordered re-opened by the Court. We want to build madrasas. The government has a plan to construct 'Model' madrasas where the poorest children can go study, live with the finest standards. It is not the case that government is against madrasas. We want them in finest locations, with great education and living quarters. That is our plan being set in motion. But those madrasas where extremists are operating - those were reopened by the Court. And now the security situation in Lal Masjid is back to the same people who were in charge earlier. A mosque does not need security. And who knows, if those guarding Lal Masjid will take the rifles back inside and we return to the same place where we started. The same elements who were challenging the state before - their relatives - are now challenging the state. Whatever actions are taken by law enforcement agencies in Swat, is declared wrong by these elements and their relationships with terrorists across Pakistan is affirmed publicly from Islamabad.

So that is the other situation before us.

Then came the Presidential elections a month ago. The procedure was adopted according to the Constitution and the Law. The Election Commissioner gave the schedule within the constitutionally mandated time frame. Chief Election Commissioner examined all the nomination papers from all candidates - including myself - and accepted them. But some references were filed, especially against myself, in the Supreme Court. That is no problem. It is fine. A matter of Law. But then a 7 member bench was formed. Then after a while it was turned into a 9 member bench and then it was turned into a 11 member bench and the case keeps on dragging interminably without a decision. Then the Presidential elections happened in which I was fortunate enough that the assemblies gave me 57% of the vote. I am thankful to all from Provincial assemblies, Senate and National assemblies who voted for me. But the case is still dangling. The vote was counted. The unofficial result was announced but we cannot notify because the case is there. Now the case is going. No decision is forthcoming. It inches along. Now one gentleman wants to go to his daughter's wedding. So lets delay it even more. As if the entire nation, stuck in a strange state of hopelessness and uncertainty, can just keep hanging on indefinitely.

Even the Prime Minister examined this grave situation and sent me a written analysis that there is a great deal of difficulty for the government to function in this situation.

My brothers and sisters, what is happening in Pakistan? What is happening to us? What is happening to this country? In which direction are we headed? Which way? This country lives in my heart. This country lives in my blood. And it lives in my soul. I cannot watch it decline.

So the time has come to take action. What are we going to do? I have analyzed everything - the whole situation. How will we stop this decline. In my view, these three pillars of state - the judiciary, the executive and the legislative - must be harmonious. We will bring harmony to them , and then we will have good governance and we will be able to fight terrorism and extremism with our full capabilities. That is the only way to get the government back on track. Before we completely fall apart.

After examining this situation, I consulted with the military, bureaucratic, political and private leaders, friends, overseas Pakistanis - and after taking in their council, I made my decision. And this decision is to get back to that Third Stage of democratic transition that I discussed earlier and finish it - God Willing. The hurdles on the path to democracy must be removed. And my original intentions, my current intentions, are to complete Stage Three. God Willing, I will do so.

To do it, I have declared Emergency. I have issued a Provisional Constitutional Order which was being televised earlier - you must have seen it. I must state that there will be no changes in the government. The Prime Minister, the Governors, the Chief Ministers all remain on their posts. All the assemblies will continue - Senate, National Assembly, Provincial Assembly will all function as before. This is my decision. In my view, this is the easiest way to get Pakistan back on track and protect the economic development and finish the final transition to democracy.

Now to take advantage of this opportunity, I want to say something in English.

(In English)
I have just spoken to the people of Pakistan in Urdu and I want to speak now to you in general, particularly to our friends in United States, European Union and the Commonwealth. I would ask you to kindly understand the criticality of the environment inside Pakistan and around Pakistan. Pakistan is on the verge of destabilization, if not arrested in time. Now without losing any further time or delaying the issue. The saddest part of everything which saddens me the most ... that after all we have achieved in the past 7 years I see in front of my eyes, Pakistan's upsurge taking a downward trend.

I personally, with all my conviction and with all the facts available to me, consider that inaction at this moment is suicide for Pakistan. I cannot allow this country to commit suicide.

Therefore, I had to take this action in order to preserve the democratic transition which I initiated 8 years back. I would like to repeat that - I said it in Urdu - I started with a three stage transition. The first stage from 1999 to 2002 where I remained in control. The second stage from 2002 to 2007 - 5 years of democratic rule, all assemblies functioning, local governments functioning - I oversaw it as the Chief of Army Staff and President combined and now I am launching the third phase which was to be completed in only a few months where complete democracy, return to civilian rule, myself being only a civilian President - if elected. It is this third stage that is being subverted today. And it is this third stage which I want to complete with all my conviction and if we don't take action, I don't think we are going to this third stage. I don't know what chaos and confusion will follow.

So therefore, I request you all to bear with us. To the critics and idealists against this action, I say please do not accept or demand your level of democracy which you learned over a number of centuries. We are also trying to learn, and we are doing well. Please give us time. Please also do not demand and expect your level of civil rights, human rights, civil liberties which you learned over the centuries. We are trying to learn. And we are doing well also. Please give us time.

I would, at this time, venture to read out an excerpt of President Abraham Lincoln, specially to all my listeners in United States. As an idealist, Abraham Lincoln had one consuming passion during that time of supreme crisis and that was to preserve the Union - because the Union was in danger. Towards that end, he broke laws, he violated the Constitution, he usurped arbitrary powers, he trampled individual liberties, his justification was necessity. Explaining his sweeping violations of Constitutional limits, he wrote in a letter in 1864, and I quote,
"My oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensabale means, that government -- that nation -- of which that constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it."

End quote. We are also learning democracy. We are going through a difficult stage. It is the nation which is important. And for me, for every Pakistani, Pakistan comes first. And everyone else's consideration after that. I look at it from this point of view. So whatever I do, is for Pakistan. And whatever anyone else thinks, comes after Pakistan. With all my sincerity, whatever I am doing is in the interest of Pakistan. And therefore I am doing it with full conviction and my full heart and soul and mind in it.

--In Urdu

My brothers and sisters, I hope that all of you will recognize the seriousness of this situation. In my view, everything that I have done now, there was no alternative. If I have to sacrifice my life for the country, then it is available. I will not surrender to circumstances. I fight circumstances. I never surrender. I fight. And now I will fight. Not for myself. For this nation. For this country. For the life of my country men, for their progress. If I have your companionship, I have no doubt, God Willing, Pakistan will be back to the forefront and this derailed train will be, God Willing, back on track. I have no doubts that the nation wants progress, it wants to go forward. The common people are concerned with prices, concerned with unemployment and poverty. They are tired of this uncertainty in the name of democracy. The people are tired of these terrorists who in the name of Islam kill Muslims. The people are tired of this.

I want to tell my brothers and sisters, lets fight this together and take Pakistan forward. May God be by your, and by Pakistan's, side. Pakistan Hamisha Paindabad.

Read more on this article...

Live-Blogging the Emergency: Military Morale

Islamabad -- A major reason for the declaration of emergency is the catastrophic loss of morale among the Pakistani army and police. Musharraf referred to this in his speech, saying that the judiciary had demoralized the security forces. The Emergency Declaration also mentions the low morale of the police. But is the army, his own institution that concerns Musharraf above all.

At a recent dinner in the region, a senior Pakistani diplomat confirmed that President Musharraf's top priority was and always will be the institutional integrity of the Pakistan armed forces. A contact from the intelligence community who has worked on the ground with the Pakistan Army referred me to this article in the Times of India, which he says captures the rock-bottom morale in the army, which has seen hundreds of desertions by soldiers in the field. Musharraf is well aware of assessments such as this from the Indian "security establishment":

The Pakistani Army is "bleeding", and quite profusely at that, in its ongoing bloody skirmishes with extremists in the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan, with a "high" casualty rate as well as "unprecedented" levels of desertions, suicides and discharge applications.

Syed Shoaib Hasan of the BBC reports:

But just as much as the political imbroglio, it was the growing loss of morale in Pakistan's armed forces which was a source of concern. Pakistan's army, deployed throughout the country's tribal regions to combat pro-Taleban militants, was losing ground to them. The last straw, in this regard, came when at least 300 army troops surrendered to militants in South Waziristan. Since then, the government and its security troops have all but lost control to the militants in the tribal areas. The emboldened militants have subsequently moved forward into settled regions - Pakistani territory where normal law applies. The most recent of these is the growing insurgency in the Swat valley.

Some U.S. analysts have already given up on the Pakistan Army as an effective ally in counter-insurgency or counter-terrorism. As the Indian security establishment signals its perception of the Pakistan Army's weakness, it is no wonder that Musharraf has declared the Emergency. He spoke last night about the need for the three pillars of the state -- executive, legislative, and judicial -- to work together in harmony. But the architect and master builder responsible for harmonizing these pillars in his scheme of things is the Army. And right now that central institution is revealing a terrible weakness at its heart, despite its nuclear weapons. Read more on this article...

Live From Islamabad: President Musharraf

I'm watching Musharraf speaking in Urdu on television. I can't understand everything he is saying, but the gist of it seems to be that as a responsible president he has been caught between two extremist forces: Islamic militants and the judiciary. Apparently the rise of Islamic militancy in Pakistan is due to the irresponsibility of the judiciary, which has demoralized the armed forces and the forces of law and order.

Judging from my brief unscientific survey, this argument is not likely to play well (or at all) with the public. Musharraf has shut down cable TV and international news channels. But this is Pakistan's first post-mobile phone and post-internet coup. Musharraf may be in for a surprise.

Now he is speaking in English, telling us foreigners that Pakistan is on the verge of destabilization. Somehow people have been doing this behind the back of the president. He is taking this action to prevent Pakistan from committing suicide and to preserve the democratic transition. He says that the third and final stage of his democratic transition (election of new legislatures, his serving as a civilian president if elected) is being subverted.

To us critics and idealists he says, don't demand the level of democracy that you learned over centuries. Please don't demand or respect your level of civil rights and human rights. We are trying to learn. Please give us time. Now he is reading from Abraham Lincoln, whose supreme passion was maintaining the Union. He is portraying Lincoln as a ruthless dictator who broke all laws for the sake of the state. "Was it possible to lose the nation and yet preserve the constitution?" A limb may be amputated to save a life, but a life should not be given to save a limb. He is making the argument from necessity to preserve the nation.

"For me and every Pakistani, Pakistan comes first," he says. He claims that with all sincerity he is acting for Pakistan. But the Pakistanis with whom I have been speaking generally believe he is doing it for Pervez Musharraf.

The text messages and emails will start in the morning, as Benazir Bhutto returns to the scene from Dubai. Read more on this article...

Pakistan: The Emergency Plus Edition

The wag will say that the nation has never left the state of emergency, but that is just being silly.

We now have a legal State of Emergency in Pakistan. Actually, it is officially being called "Emergency Plus" - more than "Emergency" but less than "Martial Law". Just right.

The move is hardly surprising considering the chaos engulfing Pakistan at the moment - from political (Supreme Court deliberations on the fate of the "election") to military (the tribal/militant conflict has spread to Swat and Peshawar) to ideological (Baluchistan) to international (Rice has decided she wants democracy).

According to the Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) declaring emergency, the steps were taken because of the recent terrorist attacks, the release of terror-suspects by the judiciary, the lack of oversight of the judiciary and the low morale of police and army in the nation. See the text here [pdf].

The emergency law, Article 232 of the Constitution: (summarized) The Proclamation of emergency is issued by the President if he deems that the country is threatened by internal or external violence or disturbance. The Federals can take over the Provinces, the High Court. It has to be affirmed by joint Assemblies within two months or it will automatically end. All the supreme courts in the country will have to re-take their oaths to the state and they will be barred from issuing any orders against the army or the state.

Musharraf has suspended the tv broadcasts - and prohibited any "print or electronic media discussion or analysis that hurts the national interests".

The Supreme Court, which was expected to rule on Musharraf in a few days, is currently boarded up. Cities like Sarghoda, Lahore, Karachi, Islamabad have mobilized against suicide attacks.

Emergency Rule, maybe Martial Law, the replacement of Klashnikovs with Suicide Belts, the Vanished ... Pakistan needed our help a year ago. It needed a genuine push for democratic processes back in March. We left unchecked, and unhindered, a megalomaniac "enlightened moderator". We keep insisting on our own interests ahead of the interests of the people of Pakistan. We remain steadfast in our belief that those people are not as developed nor as functional as we would like them to be. Pakistan needs a strong dictator. The fallacy ... the gross oversight ... has always been that he was never in control. He did not control Baluchistan where a genuine call for accountability and justice was quashed by horrific military violence - including missile assassinations. Baluchistan should have been afforded our attention in 2005 - but we were too busy in Iraq. It became, contiguous with Waziristan, the outpost and then the center of Taliban/extremist insurgents over the next two years. We insisted on supporting the one person who had no legitimate power to negotiate or fight for over 40% of territorial Pakistan. Can you imagine that?

Next up? Martial Law. More bombings. And the eventual drain of all that capital that had accumulated in the country in the past 8 years. Zimbabwe, here we come. Unless, US and China can come to their senses and do some actual diplomacy. The status is bleak. Let us say that Musharraf resigns and leaves. The Supreme Court declares an election date, the new government solves the Baluchistan issue, th US redeploys significant troops to Afghanistan (and keeps them there), the Pakistani military combats within cities and mountains of Pakistan. War. Chaos. Uncertainty. And this, my gentle readers, would be the best case scenario. A more likely option is a military state somewhere between Mugabe's Zimbabwe circa 2005 and Gandhi's India circa 1976. I must be proven wrong.

For now, we have a new Chief Justice of Pakistan Supreme Court. But in an unprecedented move, only 4 judges have signed on to re-take the oath under PCO. This is big, big news. See this backgrounder for the significance.

Musharraf is to speak on “Meray Azeez Hum Watano” at 11:00 PST.

I also recommend following Democracy and Freedom Blog for video clips. Read more on this article...