Monday, November 12, 2007

Online Lectures by Barnett R. Rubin on Afghanistan

Electronic versions of the lecture I gave in Missoula, Montana, on September 11, 2007, are now available as a podcast or video. Entitled "What is at Stake in Afghanistan?" this was the Ezio Cappadocia Memorial Lecture on Politics and History, part of the President's Lecture Series at the University of Montana.
A webcast of a conference, "Le Canada face au défi afghan," held in Montreal on September 20, is also available online. My keynote speech (Conférence d’honneur académique) is available in video in what are labeled as French and English versions, but as far as I can tell the "English" version is also in French. Perhaps this is required by Quebec law.

You can also watch Canada's Foreign Minister, Maxime Bernier, being repeatedly interrupted and heckled by protesters as he gives his speech at the opening dinner. A ne pas manquer!

Other speakers include former U.N. Deputy Secretary-General Louise Frechette, Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary-General Chris Alexander (former ambassador of Canada to Afghanistan), and Omar Samad, ambassador of Afghanistan to Canada. Read more on this article...

Sunday, November 11, 2007

Sadegh Kharazi on US-Iran Relations

I am pasting below an interview done by Maziar Bahari of Newsweek with Sadegh Kharazi, Iran's former ambassador to France and the person reported to have penned the famous 2003 Iran offer to resolve outstanding issues with the United States.

I think the interview is a good window in understanding how Iranian officials (or at least a good number of them) have come to view the way the United States in general, and the Bush Administration in particular, has approached Iran and the problems associated with that approach. Kharazi is related by marriage to Ayatollah Khamenei but also has close ties to former president Khatami. In the Iranian press, as he does here, he has expressed his misgivings about Ahmadinejad's foreign policy (he was one of the first ambassadors to be removed from his job once Ahmadinejad became president).

But here he explains why U.S. policies have directly contributed the the rise of Ahmadinejad's government and his policies. He further lays out why the current U.S. policy of trying to create divisions among various Iranian factions will not work. Finally, he talks about the shared interests Iran and U.S. have in the region and gives as clear a hint as I have seen anywhere about who the United States should talk to if indeed it is interested in resolving the issues it has with Iran diplomatically.

The bottom line for Kharazi is that Iran is ready to negotiate about everything that is of concern to the United States so long as the U.S. is ready to take into account some of Iran's key concerns, which not surprisingly are all related to Iran's economic and political security.

‘A Wall of Mistrust’
A former Iranian diplomat discusses nukes, the Holocaust and how Washington can win Tehran's trust.
By Maziar Bahari
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 4:24 PM ET Nov 9, 2007


NEWSWEEK: In a press conference with French president Nicolas Sarkozy, President George Bush insisted on a diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear program. Why do you think he adopted a milder tone than before?

Sadegh Kharazi: Because of the disastrous results of American unilateralism in Iraq, they are looking for an international support of their initiatives vis-à-vis Iran. Everyone knows that an American military attack will not only damage Iran but also other countries in the region as well as American interests in the Middle East. It is interesting that Bush and Sarkozy insisted on a diplomatic solution, but we have to wait and see what they mean by diplomacy: new sanctions or new negotiations.

Do you think Iran-U.S. relations can ever improve?

The Americans say that Iran's nuclear program is a threat against the international community. But I think what they are really worried about is Iran's influence in Iraq and Afghanistan, where almost 200,000 American soldiers are stationed. By insisting on Iran's nuclear threat they portray Iran as a threat against their national interests. Unfortunately, it is not only the American government that is doing it but also some of the presidential candidates. I think this way of thinking will have tragic results. The United States has much more in common with Iran than any country in the region, or some European countries, including France. We have almost zero differences of opinion about the stability and the future of Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately, instead of working with Iran, America has allied itself with the dictatorships in the region. Americans say that they want to promote democracy in the region. Which one of America's allies in the Persian Gulf region is a democracy? Look at what is happening in Pakistan. After many years of supporting a pro-America dictator, most Pakistanis support Al Qaeda and the Taliban. This policy will inevitably have catastrophic results. Americans should change their view of the realities in the Middle East. The United States is under the illusion that it has a monopoly on truth. As long as it is an idealist and ideological view, they can't have the right policies.

How about Iran's ideological views and monopoly on truth?

We may have the same illusion. In either case it's wrong. Both sides should put aside the smear campaign against each other and populist slogans and adopt more pragmatic policies.

Do you think Americans know Iran?

Americans in general have misperceptions about Iran. The Americans' main source of information is the Iranian opposition in the United States. The opposition is mainly composed of people who haven't been to Iran for the past three decades. They present the facts for the American government with their own interests in mind and customize the information according to what Americans like to hear. There is also the Israeli lobby, which is very strong in the Congress. The third [source] is the Arab lobby, which regards any rapprochement between Iran and the U.S. as against the interests of Arab governments in the region. If Iran and the United States normalized their relations, that relationship would overshadow the one between Arab countries and the U.S.

So what is the way out?

There is a wall of mistrust between Iran and the United States. But until Americans designate a budget to change the government in Iran, we cannot have normal relations with the United States. Americans can take four steps to gain Iran's trust: 1) Recognize the Islamic Republic as the legitimate government of Iran and cancel all the programs for regime change. 2) Return frozen assets of Iran in the United States. 3) Stop its support for anti-Iranian terrorist organizations like the MKO cult based in Iraq, the Kurdish separatist group PJAK, and pro-Taliban Baluch separatists, Jondollah. 4) Annul previous sanctions against Iran and do not impose new sanctions.

But you can't seriously think that either the Bush administration or any of the presidential candidates will take these initiatives.

In diplomacy everything's possible and nothing is impossible. I think both countries should lay all the issues on the table and discuss their problems. There is no problem that cannot be solved. If both countries recognize each other's rights, then they can collaborate on many issues, including Iraq, Afghanistan and smuggling of narcotics. They can have differences of opinion, but there is no reason for the current hostility. America has its own differences with China, Russia and even Europe, but that doesn't mean that they cannot talk.

One of the main problems for foreigners is that they don't know who runs Iran and who they should talk to. Is it the foreign ministry? The president? Pragmatic politicians like former president [Ali Akbar Hashemi ] Rafsanjani? Or the supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei?

The government of Iran executes foreign policy decisions made by Iran's supreme leader. Americans should not try to circumvent the supreme leader and talk to other people in the government. Talking to the Iranian government means talking to the supreme leader. He is informed about every word exchanged in the negotiations. Iran's domestic politics may be decentralized, but the foreign policy is highly centralized. Americans shouldn't think that they can use the internal factionism to their advantage.

But Ayatollah Khamenei is vehemently anti-American.

Even though Iran is ready to defend its interests by any means necessary, the first priority of Iran's supreme leader and the government of Iran is stability of the region. They don't want war and tension. That is why Iran cooperated with the United States to topple the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq. Under the leadership of Ayatollah Khamenei Iran has normalized its relations with many countries who were our enemies in the past.

You were forced to resign from the foreign ministry by President Ahmadinejad. What do you think about his self-proclaimed aggressive foreign policy?

I belong to a generation of Iranian diplomats who believe in rapprochement and diplomacy. I may not like some of our current government policies and may think they are against our national interests, but this government and its policies are a result of wrong American policies.

What do you mean?

What our current government is doing is a reaction to years of Americans ignoring Iran's positive gestures. During the presidency of Mr. [Mohammad] Khatami, whenever we wanted to have a rapprochement with the United States they demanded more. We cooperated with them in Afghanistan and we were called a member of the Axis of Evil. On the eve of the invasion of Iraq we sent them a letter with a package of proposals, but they chose to ignore it. Extremism breeds extremism.

What do you think about Ahmadinejad's comments about wiping Israel off the map and denying the Jewish Holocaust?

I don't want to justify what President Ahmadinejad says, but Israel has been threatening Iran with military action for more than a decade. So it is Israel that has created the tense atmosphere—and as we say in Persian, you don't exchange terms of endearment in a brawl. Israelis are using the president's comments about the Holocaust in their smear campaign against Iran. We, Iranians, have to be more careful about what we say and be more sensitive to the grief of other nations. The Jewish Holocaust was a crime against humanity. But I also believe it was not the first crime against humanity and neither the last one.

Which presidential candidate in the United States would be able to improve Iran-U.S. relations?

Iran has been an issue in American presidential debates for the past three decades. We cannot cheer for one candidate against the other, because the foreign policy of the United States is made by different parts of the American government and not only the president. Some of the worst sanctions were imposed against Iran during Democratic administrations. But I think the current Democratic candidates are not warmongers like their Republican counterparts. A democratic presidential candidate would be more rational than a Republican one. But it's just a guess.

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/69268
Read more on this article...

Saturday, November 10, 2007

No island is an island

We live in an intimately inter-connected world as newspaper headlines, shifting investment flows and fluctuating gas prices readily remind us, but we also inhabit vastly different worlds due to natural accidents of geography and man-made maps of language, religion and culture. One only has to cross a land border or a body of water to appreciate how close yet how far neighbors can be.

Teaching in Japan, doing research in China, I often find myself pondering these things while shuttling back and forth on full capacity flights, the lack of elbow room itself a testament to the booming links between Asia's two economic giants, ranked two and three in the world respectively. Sometimes for a change of pace, I take the slow boat to China, one of the several ferries plying the waters between Japan and China. Moving back and forth between East Asia's two great historic rivals by boat serves to remind that liquid ties are among the most enduring.

As I will be posting from China in the next few weeks, I'd like to introduce a series of random essays on East Asia with "No island is an island", originally published in the International Herald Tribune.

I grew up on Long Island, which is an island and not an island, and I think something of the same applies to Japan.

...

Meanwhile: No island is an island

Philip J. Cunningham

Japan is often described, with just a hint of defensiveness, as an island country, as if that somehow underscores uniqueness or excuses exceptions to being a good neighbor. Yet sailing from Japan to China offers ample evidence that no island in today's world is truly an island; far-flung points of land are what they are today due to long-standing liquid links.
 
Taking the ferry from Kobe to Tianjin, a leisurely two-day, two-night journey through the peaceful but contested waters where Japan's Japan Sea, Korea's East Sea and China's Yellow Sea swirl and overlap is an eye-opener for the harried, jet-age traveler. There's a lot of time to think, with daily activity reduced to the simple, older rhythms of no-frills boat travel. Three meals a day and a book, plus walking the deck and staring at the sea is about all there is on the menu. No Internet, no satellite television, no news.
 
Albert Einstein was on board such a ship en route to Japan when he learned, very belatedly, the news of his Nobel Prize. Einstein commenced his long trip back to Europe by boarding a boat in Kobe and sailing to Shanghai, disembarking on the Bund. Making a voyage more than half a century later, it was not only possible to follow a similar sea route, but to disembark on the Bund and check into the crumbling but ornate Pujiang Hotel where a sign announced that Einstein was once a guest, back when it was called the Astor.
 
Nowadays, nobody takes the boat, at least nobody in the Washington or Hollywood sense of the word. The slow boat to China is as slow as ever, chugging along at an unhurried pace, but it's clean and comfortable, and the stretched out sense of time it engenders brings to mind a largely forgotten way of doing things.
 
And therein lies some of the charm, especially to anyone tired of the long lines, repeated security checks and tense, hermetically-sealed environments of modern airports. The ferry aficionado of today keeps company with fellow travelers content with simplicity - exchange students, retirees, war orphans and ethnic Chinese with Japan-acculturated kids, seeking an inexpensive holiday back in the motherland.
 
As the Yanjing pulls out of the port of Kobe, it sweeps past giant naval shipyards where a large submarine is being constructed in plain view, then traverses the Seto Inland Sea, hugging barren rocky outcroppings and islets that appear to be isolated but are tightly linked by magnificent bridges, rail infrastructure and soaring power lines, not to mention the invisible television and telecommunication links to Tokyo.
 
Physical and political isolation have been further reduced by the speed and scope of air travel, of course, but the older paradigm of linkage - that of seaborne traffic - continues to shore up age-old patterns of politics and trade, linked by a web of shipping lanes largely out of view to the landlocked.
 
Sea routes may not figure high in contemporary consciousness, but they are vital and pulsing with traffic; upon the entrance to critical narrow straits like Shimonoseki, giant electric signboards blink instructions as boats line up in single file like jets on a runway, rocking gently in the wake of the long line of boats passing as they plow in the opposite direction.
 
Once passing beyond the breath- taking natural gateway formed by the rock fortress extremities of Honshu and Kyushu, the ferry overtakes a number of the heavily laden cargo ships that dominate the waters off Japan. Off the south coast of Korea, numerous fishing boats work close to the coastline.
 
Standing on deck and watching the sea go by, one is reminded not only of the vastness of our planet's watery surface but its vulnerability. The restless waves are littered with paper, plastic bottles, and bobbing bits of Styrofoam, so much so that a skilled captain could probably navigate from port to port by following the undulating trail of rubbish.
 
The sheer volume and seemingly endless flow of traffic on this busy water road linking Asian neighbors offers a fresh perspective on the sporadic stream of anti-Japan protests on the streets of Shanghai or Seoul. It will take a lot more than childish displays of nationalism to sink the buoyant business of burgeoning trade.
 
There is something deeply reassuring about the sea doing what it always has done, offering dependable links from one shore to another, offering a sense of a shared fate on a shared planet, even as it appears to divide.
 
(Philip J. Cunningham is a professor of media studies at Doshisha University in Kyoto.) Read more on this article...

Islam Forbids Nuclear Weapons: Tehran Friday Prayer Leader

The USG Open Source Center translates a Friday sermon by Ayatollah Emami-Kashani asserting that nuclear weapons are forbidden in Islamic law and that Iran is not trying to get them.

'Iran: Tehran Friday Prayer Leader Says Islam Forbids Nuclear Weapons

Second sermon from the Friday prayers at Tehran University delivered by Experts Assembly member Ayatollah Mohammad Emami-Kashani, temporary Tehran Friday prayer leader, on 9 November -- recorded
Vision of the Islamic Republic of Iran Network 1
Friday, November 9, 2007
Document Type: OSC Translated Excerpt

The hegemonic powers are honing in on these three points (speaks in Arabic). These are three key issues and, where our country is concerned, the world arrogance is zooming in on precisely these three points. The enemy creates disturbances along the borders, plans domestic panic, wages psychological warfare by threatening military action, and imposes economic sanctions to hamper commerce. The enemy is concentrating its efforts on the very three things that the holy Koran says are the secret to security in a place. Of course, they make false accusations -- the hegemonic powers make unfounded accusations against Iran; claiming that it is seeking to produce nuclear weapons.

In Iran, the person who is a mufti, who has the right (to issue) fatwas, who is recognized as a jurist and is the leader of the community -- he who is the highest authority in the nation and is our eminent Leader [Ali Khamenei] -- has made it abundantly clear, as have others, that the destruction of nations, any nation, women and children, large or small -- the massacre of innocents is wrong. The same is true of the atomic bomb and atomic weapons. The very idea of an atom bomb is forbidden, the very deed is a sin.
The foremost authority in this country, one who is in a position to issue fatwas, in political affairs, and in decision-making processes has stated it explicitly.

Nevertheless, the enemy says you want to make atom bombs. It is like the other things they say -- they say things like you train terrorists and you make this and that place unsafe. They make such claims about an Iran that believes in security in all places, an Iran and an Islamic regime that believes that all places must be safe; because this is what the Koran tells us. The Koran tells us (passage omitted: in Arabic) God does not love those who sin on earth. The earth has primacy for an Islamic society. Any ground, anywhere, any religion, be it Judaism or Christianity, one and all, Islamic societies, Islamic thought and the holy Koran believes in security for all. It is so without a doubt. It is so for the Islamic regime and it is so for our constitution.

Religious minorities in this country believe it to be true -- that this is our view toward the world at large. The point of discussion is their (the enemy) crimes. We should be talking about them and how they are gobbling up the world and are willing to commit all manner of crime while professing themselves to be proponents of peace.

Iran is a country whose (citizens) young and old await the rapture and the coming of the promised Mehdi, may god hasten his return. We believe that the future holds peace for us, that the future will bring security. We have a messiah. He will come and peace will prevail in this world and upon this earth. Such a system does not desire to perpetuate the kinds of crimes and murders you commit.
I will finish here. I call on the pious including myself to worship but one god and have faith (passage omitted: prayer in Arabic). '

(Description of Source: Tehran Vision of the Islamic Republic of Iran Network 1 in Persian -- state-run television)

Read more on this article...

Wednesday, November 7, 2007

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...

Monday, November 5, 2007

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...

Sunday, November 4, 2007

Musharraf and Lincoln

Since many folks are noting the reference to Lincoln in the General's speech (translated below) ... I just wanted to point out that he has been making this reference since 2002 ... here he is talking to Ikram Sehgal, Managing Editor of Defense Journal of Pakistan (January 22, 2002):

When US President Abraham Lincoln’s name cropped up, he brought out an extract from Richard Nixon from his book "Leaders". He read, "Lincoln’s consuming passion during the time of crisis (the American Civil War 1861-65) was to preserve the Union. "Towards that end he trampled individual liberties. His justification was necessity. Explaining his sweeping violation of constitutional limits, Abraham Lincoln wrote in a letter in 1864: My oath to preserve the Constitution imposed on me the duty of preserving by every indispensable means that government, that nation, of which the 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" unquote. Pervez Musharraf laughingly hoped that this would not be misconstrued, "The period after Oct 12, 2002 is of great concern to me, not only to maintain the momentum of reforms enacted but to sustain continuity. I want to strike the right balance so that the system can not be manipulated by any individual’s discretion for his own selfish, personal motives. I am confident about taking bold decisions, "because I have no skeletons in my cupboard, I can look you in the eye!", unquote.


So, just to be crystal clear. It is Lincoln through Nixon.

From this undated interview on the General's website:
Q. Which book have you read recently and really enjoyed?
A. Leaders by Richard Nixon 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...

Saturday, November 3, 2007

AMERICA CANNOT BE SAID TO BE GOOD

BY PHILIP J CUNNINGHAM

George W. Bush may indeed be the worst president ever, and Dick Cheney the worst vice-president imaginable but that does not exonerate the American people because Americans have the constitutional right and responsibility to remove miscreants from office.

The Bush-Cheney administration has not just given freedom a hollow ring, they have not just made a mockery of American democracy and human rights in the present, and they have not just put future generations at risk with reckless deficit spending, environmental degradation and the burden of war without end, but they have effectively caused the past to be rewritten as well. America is beginning to understand what it’s like to be on the wrong side of history.

This point was driven home to me when I read that respected American historian Herbert Bix, author of “Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan” recently pointed out some striking similarities between Tojo’s Japan and Bush-Cheney’s America, particularly the willful disregard of international law, the pursuit of diplomacy by force and failure to account for war criminality.

Let’s consider for the moment that current US policy bears some eerie parallels to that of Tojo’s Japan. Is that a result of having judged militarist Japan unfairly, or has America gotten worse? Is that to say Japan's criminal past was not as bad as we used to say it was, or is it still every bit as bad, only now, we, the American interlocutors, are debased in such a way that the moral distance is less distant?

Scholars have long been familiar with US lapses in civilized behavior, even in the great and just war carried out by the "greatest generation." The enemy was understandably viewed with contempt for his actions, but improperly viewed with racist contempt. Indiscriminate killing took untold innocent life, nowhere more vividly than in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but with equal cold-blooded consequences in the fire-bombing of Tokyo, Nagoya and Osaka.

For decades now, scholars have been effectively challenging the Truman era myth that the atomic bombing was necessary and saved millions of lives. While reasonable interpretations differ, the twin atomic bombings remain a uniquely uncomfortable and awkward topic for Americans who subscribe to the otherwise generally positive national narrative that starts with the day of infamy, the day on which the peace-loving US was sneakily attacked at Pearl Harbor, and continues with a series of heroic battles for sea, sky and land control across the Pacific, followed by a generally enlightened occupation of Japan’s home islands.

Given the incessant mutual violence that the war extracted from both sides, epitomized by the brutal battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, it took decades for ordinary soldiers on both sides to be viewed with sympathetic respect --basically unfree men following orders as required by the tragedy of the time. Last year Clint Eastwood did a remarkably even-handed job of conveying the equivalency of the rank and file on both sides of the Pacific with the twin films “Flags of Our Fathers” and “Letters from Iwo Jima.”

The US occupation of Japan saw many a samurai’s sword turned into treasured souvenir, if not plowshare. It was none other than US war hero Douglas MacArthur who set the tone for sanitizing and containing Japan's war criminality at the elite level by letting the Emperor off the hook and selectively exonerating war criminals who were of utility to the US. But if it wasn't the people, and it wasn't the penultimate leader, then who takes the blame?

To blame everything on a few bad apples is bad history, incongruent with the complex, interactive way things usually happen, but it allows nagging, difficult-to-resolve issues to be buried or put on the back burner as happened at the Tokyo trials. The entirety of Japan’s war guilt was deftly shifted onto the shoulders of Tojo and a handful of "Class A War Criminals.

Scapegoating, even of the obviously odious, is not fair, but it is expedient because it staves off more damaging and nuanced reckonings. That's not to say scapegoated Class A war criminals are innocent in the same way their hapless victims were; the criminality of the Class A men is clearly documented. But they were unfairly singled out and unfairly apportioned more of the blame than even their cruel shoulders could bear. They were made caricatures of evil in contrast to the aloof, doddering emperor and the witless soldier in the field.

George W. Bush publicity handlers take note; better to spin your client as a dodderer playing with something less than a full deck than have him be held accountable. In today’s America, as in wartime Japan, there is plenty of blame to be passed around, but no takers. It's too hurtful to the American ego to even contemplate war criminality. US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says impeachment is not an option. The State Department has granted immunity to the criminally negligible including the thugs of Blackwater. Is this apparent benevolence not just another type of denial, that Americans don't torture, Americans don't commit crimes of war?

Eventually, narratives that blame no one have to round up a few suspects, and that's where the bad apples come in. But this sort of selective justice unduly burdens middling war criminals with more historical agency than they ever possessed.

Does making Tojo an example of evil incarnate exonerate Japanese war veterans, among them mean-spirited soldiers who violated the conventions of war by gratuitously killing, raping and torturing non-combatant Chinese? And what about Japanese civilians on the home front, making weapons, churning out propaganda, feeding the beast? Blame it on Tojo?

What about people like Akira Kurosawa who worked uninterrupted with ample state support during a war that wreaked murder and mayhem on Japan's neighbors under the guise of racial superiority? To hear Kurosawa tell it in his biography, his main beef with the Tojo authorities was over artistic control, not the insane politics of the time.

The bad apple school of thought thrives in national narratives because it aids and abets denial for proud individuals and powerful constituencies.

The problem with Japanese rightists, and America's problem understanding them, is not so much the seemingly futile attempt polish up the bad apples, the futile attempt to make the class A Criminals shine. It's not even the rightists' dubious campaign to re-configure war criminals as honorable Shinto spirits at Yasukuni Shrine. The problem with the rightists is they are bound to honor the penultimate leader at all costs, which short-circuits all other arguments and prevents blame from being fairly apportioned.

The result of this implacable cognitive dissonance is denial. Denial is the worst thing about the Japan's rightists, not their contrarian desire to challenge the America-centric narrative as articulated in the admittedly clumsy and compromised Tokyo War Crimes Trials.

Americans are starting to learn more about war crimes and denial they they ever dreamed of. The divisive words and belligerent actions of George W. Bush, the contempt for diplomacy, the lack of accountability, the tortured rhetoric and the rhetoric defending torture have caused America’s global prestige to drop to an unprecedented low. America is increasingly seen as the crux of the problem rather than a flawed but otherwise normal country, let alone a beacon of hope.

The horror of an unjust and unnecessary war is forcing Americans to confront the opacity of their own self-image, and in doing so, to seek lessons and parallels than now, in a way not possible even four years ago, make it possible to see Tojo and Japan's war criminality in slightly more sympathetic way. This is not to exonerate but rather to heave a heavy sigh of understanding, to acknowledge that even the most refined and civilized of nations can be disfigured and disabled by the politics of fear and denial.

America has been diminished to such an extent under the Bush-Cheney “unitary presidency” that a crime like torture -- once comfortably seen as beyond the pale because it was only associated with the most despicable of enemies-- suddenly resonates in an uncomfortably familiar way.

Just as it should be acknowledged that the people of Japan share a certain culpability in Tokyo’s terrible war, a war that ravaged Asia and eventually Japan itself, Americans have to own up to Iraq. But it can also be said in defense of the average Japanese in the days after Pearl Harbor that there was much they didn’t know and couldn’t talk about; --the media was completely censored and the Kempeitai dealt brutally with domestic opposition.

When the day of reckoning comes for ordinary Americans to assess their culpability in the debacle of Iraq, a hideous and heinous war fought in view of a free media and in the context of relatively unfettered freedom to protest, what will the excuse be?

If Bush is unjust, if he is, as they say, the worst ever, then the free people who support, tolerate and enable him cannot be said to be good.

PHILIP J CUNNINGHAM TEACHES AT DOSHISHA UNIVERSITY IN JAPAN 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...

Live Blogging State of Emergency in Pakistan

Islamabad-- I was giving a talk this afternoon at the Institute for Policy Studies here, which is affiliated to the Jamaat-i Islami. There were two American journalist friends there, both of whom left early. I figured they had another appointment. After my talk during the reception my hosts told me that a prominent Pakistani politician was calling -- someone I know (I'm not giving the name here). We were talking when my interlocutor mentioned that he (Musharraf) had amended the Army Act to apply to civilians. I asked if that meant he would do it if he declared emergency. Came the reply, He has declared emergency!

He did it during my talk. At lunch today another prominent political figure here was very concerned. This man is a leader of the president's own party, but he was in a minority -- he had told the President that declaring an Emergency would be a mistake. Today's Pakistan would not tolerate military rule.

One of my hosts is from Mardan in the Northwest Frontier Province. He reported that "militants" in the area had threatened to suicide-bomb the girls' school his cousin attends if they did not all wear burqas instead of their traditional parda (hijab). The poor families cannot even afford the burqa, but they are afraid. The local people do not know where these "Taliban" are coming from. They consider them extremists -- and these are people who voted for the Islamist parties in the elections five years ago....

So far it looks like the Army has kept the politicians out of Islamabad by arranging for PIA to go on strike on Friday, when they are all in their constituencies. So far it is calm. I'll report as I can. Read more on this article...