Pakistan's President, General(retd) Pervez Musharraf resigned on Monday the 18th of August.Thus ends his rule which he started after seizing the reign of power in a military coup against Nawaz Sharif on 12th of October 1999.
He took this decesion after a series of political steps taken by the coalition government of PPPP and PML(N) made it clear that they would impeach him and also try him for breaking the constitution along with number of other charges.
It was also evident to him that the army, his long drawn source of power would not support him if he dismissed the government under the articled 58(2)B of the constitution. The US government had also distanced itself from their former War on Terror Ally. Also his political allies were most certain to ditch him when the real impeachment proceedings started in the parliament.
Since the start of the impeachment drive two weeks earlier, the President had consulted his lawyers and well wishers, which included politicians, civilians of note, retired army men, important diplomats(including the US ambassador to Pakistan Anne W Patterson).
Recently Saudi Intelligence Chief Prince Muqrin visited Pakistan to try to convince him for resigning and securing a safe passage out the country which he had ruled unhindered for approximately eight and a half years.
Evidently the charges that were to be leveled against the one time powerful dictator were either constitutionally ratified(17th Amendment of the 1973 Constitution ) or had a legal cover (action taken by him on 3rd of of November 2007 were legalized by the Supreme Court ).
Other charges were of killing innocent people in Lal Masjid Operation. This action was taken by he Army and could have had serious implications if Army as an institution was implicated and was drawn in the court. So it can be ruled that it would have not been upheld by any court in Pakistan if a trial on that account was conducted.
In the end of his speech he said that Pakistan Ka Allah Hafiz which means Allah Will Guard Pakistan, and can be translated into the extreme emotional situation he was facing after serving the Pakistani people in numerous fields selflessly and then being labeled as a corrupt and unworthy of a leader.
Altough he dismissed the Chief Justice Choudry Iftikhar and those who didn’t take the PCO oath which cannot be justified any way, but we should not forget that CJ Ifthikar also took PCO oath after 12th October 1999 coup when fellow justices did not take oath under PCO.
For what he has done to the country to take it to a place of prestige among developing countries and also social, economical, political and educational betterment, atleast I as a sane fellow citizen of Pakistan would place him the greatest leader after Founder of Pakistan M.A. Jinnah and Khan Liaqat Ali Khan.
Atleast he knows how to address the nation and talk with international leaders unlike or current Prime Minister.
We all know the politics of PPPP and PML(N) which has gone round and round in circles but achieved nothing substantial for the country up till now except 2nd Rank in the Most Corrupt Country Of the World (Transparency International) in mid and late 90s.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Pervez Musharraf Calls it a Day; Resigns with Dignity Intact
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Emergency:Militants Might Gain More Ground
Musharraf's brutal suppression and arrests Monday of thousands of opposition protesters also could endanger U.S. congressional approval of a $750 million plan to help curb the insurgency, they said.
Senior U.S. officials indicated that security aid will continue to flow to Pakistan despite the crackdown, underscoring the Bush administration's fears over the potentially serious consequences of Musharraf's moves for the U.S. war on terror.
"We are reviewing all of our assistance programs (to Pakistan ), although we are mindful not to do anything that would undermine ongoing counterterrorism efforts," Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said during a news conference in Beijing .
Musharraf, who is also the army chief of staff, took power in a 1999 coup and became a key ally in fighting terrorism after the 9/11 attacks, sending his army into the tribal areas and arresting several senior al Qaida operatives.
In imposing the state of emergency on Saturday, Musharraf said he intended to crush Islamic militants, who have extended their deadly assaults beyond the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan and staged a growing number of suicide bombings in urban centers.
But the insurgency isn't the only crisis Musharraf faces. The others are a loss of political support for his grip on power and court challenges to the legality of his dual role as president and chief of staff. His declaration of emergency rule came ahead of a Pakistan Supreme Court ruling that might have de-legitimized his recent re-election as president.
Musharraf's "focus will be on stabilizing his power base, which means dealing with dissidents, opposition parties and law and order in general," said Seth Jones , an expert on Pakistan with the RAND Corp. , a think tank that advises the U.S. government.
All of that will leave Musharraf little energy or time to conduct counterinsurgency operations against the extremists, who have imposed harsh Islamic rule in parts of the so-called Federally Administered Tribal Areas, or FATA, bordering Afghanistan . As a result, militants could have more freedom to carry out their operations and recruit.
"It's going to be difficult to see how Musharraf can take new initiatives up in the tribal areas," said a State Department official, who requested anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly on the issue.
Musharraf also will have to keep close tabs on the army for signs of a mutiny.
The officer corps is angered by hundreds of casualties that the army has sustained in operations against the militants launched under pressure from the United States . It's also upset over the tarnishing of the military's image caused by Musharraf's rule, experts said.
Musharraf has kept the army in its barracks since the crackdown, relying mostly on police and paramilitary units, because many officers and troops would be unwilling to use force against fellow Pakistanis, said several U.S. officials and experts.
The Bush administration has been pressing Musharraf to step up military operations in the FATA, since U.S. intelligence agencies reported earlier this year that a rejuvenated al Qaida has established a sanctuary, complete with training bases, in the region.
The State Department official said that there are concerns that the Democratic-controlled Congress could react to Musharraf's crackdown by withholding approval of a new $750 million plan designed to help Pakistan contain the insurgency.
Sen. Patrick Leahy , D-Vt., the chairman of a Senate subcommittee that oversees aid to Pakistan , appeared to justify those concerns.
"U.S. aid to the Musharraf government should stop until constitutional order, civil liberties and judicial independence are restored, until political prisoners are released, and until free and fair elections are allowed," he said.
The money that would be dispersed under the plan would be used to provide new equipment and training for Pakistani security forces and to create jobs in the destitute tribal region through the construction of roads, hospitals and schools.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
General Musharraf's Grip on Power At Crossroads
If and when the army feels it is being damaged by its association with General Musharraf, and his insistence on retaining the dual posts of president and chief of army staff, they will act to safeguard the reputation of the army, they say.
Historians and columnists have been outlining the precedents, recalling how Pakistan’s three previous military rulers exited from power. None of the departures came in happy circumstances, and none bode well for General Musharraf, who took power in a bloodless coup in 1999.
The longest ruling general, Mohammad Zia ul-Haq, who seized power in 1977, died in 1988 in a plane crash, the cause of which still remains a mystery.
The strongest possibility is that the plane was brought down using a bomb. But according to one theory, the plane crashed after the crew was disabled by knockout gas hidden inside crates of mangoes — a gift that was put on board the presidential plane at the last minute. This being the mango season, the old story has gained a lot of currency lately. “He either goes the mango-crate way or he goes gracefully,” one military officer said.
Pakistan’s other two military dictators in its turbulent 60 years since independence were forced out by fellow officers. Gen. Mohammad Ayub Khan, who ruled from 1958 to 1969, was isolated, unpopular and sick by the end, and after months of popular unrest was replaced by another military man, Gen. Yahya Khan.
General Yahya Khan promised a return to democracy and held probably the fairest elections Pakistan has ever seen. But after war and the breakup of Pakistan in 1971, when Bangladesh gained independence, his fellow officers forced him to resign and hand over rule of what remained of Pakistan to the civilian political leader, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.
General Musharraf, the fourth military ruler of Pakistan, has already survived several attempts on his life, and with suicide bombing on the rise, and Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the hills, the possibility of assassination remains — even if he should step down.
But the general is showing no readiness to give up either of his posts, president or chief of army staff, though the terms for both jobs expire toward the end of the year. In a recent interview, he said that after a life in the army, his uniform was like a second skin to him.
But if his stubbornness is met with more demonstrations, challenges in the courts and possibly civil unrest, the army command will grow increasingly concerned.
Well aware of the importance of backing within the army, General Musharraf called a meeting of his corps commanders and principal military staff recently, apparently to ensure their support. The military public relations service issued an unusually long news release in that vein.
“The Corps Commanders and Principal Staff Officers of the Pakistan Army affirmed to stand committed for the security of their country under the leadership and guidance of the President and the COAS,” it read, referring to the chief of army staff.
Issuing such a statement is unusual and brings to mind the vote of confidence that often presages the end for a cabinet officer or, in sports, a manager or coach. In effect, several former members of the army said, such assurances only underscore the general’s insecurity.
The military officer said he had not seen a commander calling for such a statement of support in more than 30 years in the army. “The statement was a mistake,” he said.
“The army is not a political party,” he said. “People do not have to swear support for their leader.” An army officer takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, not his commander, he added.
A veteran opposition politician, Enver Baig, was more definitive. “The military backing he had, has definitely eroded,” he said, speaking of General Musharraf. The discontent with General Musharraf is seeping into the lower ranks as well. “The midlevel officers are becoming restless,” said Ayesha Siddiqa, a military analyst and author of a recent book on the military’s enormous economic clout that has angered the military leadership.
In the North-West Frontier Province there is growing frustration among military and intelligence officials over the rising lawlessness of Taliban militants, and the president’s apparent lack of concern and direction, senior officials say.
The National Security Council, which considered the problem in early June, promised more police officers and resources. Meanwhile, military officers no longer feel comfortable going around Peshawar in uniform, said one former officer from the province.
Even in the capital, army officers say they can feel the changing mood. The military officer described driving in Islamabad and seeing someone holding up a placard showing a big army boot stamping on a map of Pakistan. “That is a very poor reflection,” he said. “It is hatred that is building in the civilian level against the army.”
Faced with such discontent, the mood in the military is not for another general to take over, but for the country to restore civilian rule, he and several former members of the military said.
But who will tell the general to go? After nearly eight years in power, General Musharraf has personally picked all the top military and intelligence leaders. He will remain secure as long as he retains the support of four or five of the nine corps commanders, Ms. Siddiqa said.
Military officers, especially senior ones coming up for promotion or retirement and eager to keep the privileges they have earned, will not speak out of line to the chief of army staff, the officer said.
The officer said he could sense growing dissatisfaction among fellow officers, but discipline was such that no one was voicing it. “They don’t say it,” he said. “From their eyes you can see it.”
Asked if the corps commanders might tell the general he had to go, he answered, “We may be coming to that stage.”
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Dick Cheney Pushing For Strike On Iran
WASHINGTON, June 15 — A year after President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced a new strategy toward Iran, a behind-the-scenes debate has broken out within the administration over whether the approach has any hope of reining in Iran’s nuclear program, according to senior administration officials.
The debate has pitted Ms. Rice and her deputies, who appear to be winning so far, against the few remaining hawks inside the administration, especially those in Vice President Dick Cheney’s office who, according to some people familiar with the discussions, are pressing for greater consideration of military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities.
In the year since Ms. Rice announced the new strategy for the United States to join forces with Europe, Russia and China to press Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment activities, Iran has installed more than a thousand centrifuges to enrich uranium. The International Atomic Energy Agency predicts that 8,000 or so could be spinning by the end of the year, if Iran surmounts its technical problems.
Those hard numbers are at the core of the debate within the administration over whether Mr. Bush should warn Iran’s leaders that he will not allow them to get beyond some yet-undefined milestones, leaving the implication that a military strike on the country’s facilities is still an option.
Even beyond its nuclear program, Iran is emerging as an increasing source of trouble for the Bush administration by inflaming the insurgencies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and in Gaza, where it has provided military and financial support to the militant Islamic group Hamas, which now controls the Gaza Strip.
Even so, friends and associates of Ms. Rice who have talked with her recently say she has increasingly moved toward the European position that the diplomatic path she has laid out is the only real option for Mr. Bush, even though it has so far failed to deter Iran from enriching uranium, and that a military strike would be disastrous.
The accounts were provided by officials at the State Department, White House and the Pentagon who are on both sides of the debate, as well as people who have spoken with members of Mr. Cheney’s staff and with Ms. Rice. The officials said they were willing to explain the thinking behind their positions, but would do so only on condition of anonymity.
Mr. Bush has publicly vowed that he would never “tolerate” a nuclear Iran, and the question at the core of the debate within the administration is when and whether it makes sense to shift course.
The issue was raised at a closed-door White House meeting recently when the departing deputy national security adviser, J. D. Crouch, told senior officials that President Bush needed an assessment of how the stalemate over Iran’s nuclear program was likely to play out over the next 18 months, said officials briefed on the meeting.
In response, R. Nicholas Burns, an under secretary of state who is the chief American strategist on Iran, told the group that negotiations with Tehran could still be going on when Mr. Bush leaves office in January 2009. The hawks in the room reported later that they were deeply unhappy — but not surprised — by Mr. Burns’s assessment, which they interpreted as a tacit acknowledgment that the Bush administration had no “red line” beyond which Iran would not be permitted to step.
But conservatives inside the administration have continued in private to press for a tougher line, making arguments that their allies outside government are voicing publicly. “Regime change or the use of force are the only available options to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapons capability, if they want it,” said John R. Bolton, the former United States ambassador to the United Nations.
Only a few weeks ago, one of Mr. Cheney’s top aides, David Wurmser, told conservative research groups and consulting firms in Washington that Mr. Cheney believed that Ms. Rice’s diplomatic strategy was failing, and that by next spring Mr. Bush might have to decide whether to take military action.
The vice president’s office has declined to talk about Mr. Wurmser’s statements, and says Mr. Cheney is fully on board with the president’s strategy. In a June 1 article for Commentary magazine, the neoconservative editor Norman Podhoretz laid out what a headline described as “The Case for Bombing Iran.”
“In short, the plain and brutal truth is that if Iran is to be prevented from developing a nuclear arsenal, there is no alternative to the actual use of military force — any more than there was an alternative to force if Hitler was to be stopped in 1938,” Mr. Podhoretz wrote.
Mr. Burns and officials from the Treasury Department have been trying to use the mounting conservative calls for a military strike to press Europe and Russia to expand economic sanctions against Iran. Just last week, Israel’s transportation minister and former defense minister, Shaul Mofaz, visited Washington and told Ms. Rice that sanctions must be strong enough to get the Iranians to stop enriching uranium by the end of 2007.
While Mr. Mofaz did not threaten a military strike, Israeli officials said he told Ms. Rice that by the end of the year, Israel “would have to reassess where we are.”
The State Department and Treasury officials are pushing for a stronger set of United Nations Security Council sanctions against members of Iran’s government, including an extensive travel ban and further moves to restrict the ability of Iran’s financial institutions to do business outside of Iran. Beyond that, American officials have been trying to get European and Asian banks to take additional steps, outside of the Security Council, against Iran.
“We’re saying to them, ‘Look, you need to help us make the diplomacy succeed, and you guys need to stop business as usual with Iran,’ ” an administration official said. “We’re not just sitting here ignoring reality.”
But the fallout from the Iraq war has severely limited the Bush administration’s ability to maneuver on the Iran nuclear issue and has left many in the administration, and certainly America’s allies and critics in Europe, firmly against military strikes on Iran. On Thursday, Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the international nuclear watchdog agency, warned anew that military action against Iran would “be an act of madness.”
The debate over “red lines” is a familiar one inside the Bush White House that last arose in 2002 over North Korea. When the North Koreans threw out international inspectors on the last day of that year and soon declared that they planned to reprocess 8,000 rods of spent fuel into weapons-grade plutonium, President Bush had to decide whether to declare that if North Korea moved toward weapons, it could face a military strike on its facilities.
The Pentagon had drawn up an extensive plan for taking out those facilities, though with little enthusiasm, because it feared it could not control North Korea’s response, and the administration chose not to delivery any ultimatum. North Korea tested a nuclear weapon last October, and American intelligence officials estimate it now has the fuel for eight or more weapons.
Iran is far behind the North Koreans; it is believed to be three to eight years away from its first weapon, American intelligence officials have told Congress. Conservatives argue that if the administration fails to establish a line over which Iran must not step, the enrichment of uranium will go ahead, eventually giving the Iranians fuel that, with additional enrichment out of the sight of inspectors, it could use for weapons.
To date, however, the administration has been hesitant about saying that it will not permit Iran to produce more than a given amount of fuel, out of concern that Iran’s hard-liners would simply see that figure as a goal.
In the year since the United States made its last offer to Iran, the Iranians have gone from having a few dozen centrifuges in operation to building a facility that at last count, a month ago, had more than 1,300. “The pace of negotiations have lagged behind the pace of the Iranian nuclear program,” said Robert Joseph, the former under secretary of state for international security, who left his post partly over his opposition to the administration’s recent deal with North Korea.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
George Galloway on Altaf "Bhai" (Address to the House of Commons)
Address to the House of Commons of the UK Parliament - Monday, 11 June 2007 By GEORGE GALLOWAY I have an interest in Pakistan. I hold the highest civil award that the country can bestow, the Hilal-i-Quaid-i-Azam, given to me at the end of the 1980s for my work for the restoration of democracy in Pakistan at the end of an earlier bout of military dictatorship supported at the time by the then British Government. I also hold the second highest civil award in Pakistan, the Hilal-i-Pakistan, given to me for my work on behalf of the rights of the people of Kashmir. Until the military overthrow of democracy in Pakistan, I worked closely with all the democratic parties in the country. It is worth establishing a time line. General [Pervez] Musharraf, as we used to call him when he seized power in a military coup in 1999 - before we began to call him “President” Musharraf, an office to which he appointed himself - came to power having imprisoned and then exiled the democratic political leaders in the country. In 2002, he held a referendum, an extraordinary one even by the standards of eastern potentates, in which he ‘won’ 97 percent of the vote. The referendum was described by Transparency International as blatantly rigged, and the accompanying parliamentary elections in 2002 were described in the same way by all international and disinterested observers. At that time Musharraf made a promise that he would cease to be Chief of the Army general staff, a promise on which he has reneged. In September 2006, Amnesty International issued a detailed report on human rights abuses in Pakistan, alleging that the Musharraf Government were responsible for violating “a wide array of human rights.” The alleged violations included torture, unlawful detention, enforced disappearance, extrajudicial execution, unlawful transfer of persons to the United States and other countries, and arbitrary arrests. That date, September 2006, is important. Two months later, in November 2006 - just over six months ago - the British Prime Minister [Tony Blair] visited “President” Musharraf, and this is what he said. He paid tribute to General Musharraf for “symbolising the future for Muslim countries the world over.” I want the House to keep those words in its mind. The Prime Minister praised Musharraf, the military dictator of Pakistan, for “symbolising the future for Muslim countries the world over.” Let us see what has happened in Pakistan since the Prime Minister uttered those words. The [Pakistan Supreme Court] Chief Justice, Iftikhar [Muhammad] Chaudhry, insisted on hearing cases of “missing persons” and objecting to the privatisation of a steel mill. I think we know who may have taken over; perhaps new Labour’s biggest donor, Mr. [Lakshmi N.] Mittal, who has given millions of pounds to the Labour party. The Chief Justice would have none of it and was told by “President” Musharraf that he must resign. He refused to resign and, on 16 March, just three months after Prime Minister Blair held Musharraf as symbolising the future for Muslim countries, the Chief Justice was supported by demonstrations throughout the country by lawyers, civil society groups and Opposition parties, which were savagely assailed by General Musharraf’s armed forces. That included the first of many attacks on independent television stations. On 26 April, the Chief Justice made a 26-hour journey by car from Islamabad to Lahore and was welcomed by vast crowds along the way. On 12 May, the Government of Sindh, a coalition Government of Musharraf’s king’s party and the Muttahida Quami Movement [MQM], led from London by a British citizen, Altaf Hussain, to whom I shall return, laid siege to the city. The main thoroughfares were blocked, lawyers and their supporters were attacked outside the Karachi Bar with batons and the MQM militants fired bullets indiscriminately into the peaceful demonstrators. Eleven members of the Pakistan Peoples Party [PPP] were killed, 10 members of the Justice Movement [Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)] of Imran Khan, with whom I met today and who is meeting the Leader of the Opposition tomorrow - I am not sure whether the Minister will find time in his busy schedule to meet Imran Khan - were wounded, as were scores of others. Last week, just seven months after the Prime Minister said that Musharraf symbolised the future for Muslim countries around the world, all independent television stations were closed down and a draconian ordinance [Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) Ordinance] on the press was introduced. Human Rights Watch [HRW], an organisation often quoted approvingly by Her Majesty’s Government, says that “As President, Musharraf has arbitrarily amended the Pakistani Constitution to strengthen the power of the presidency, marginalized elected representatives and formalized the role of the Army in government” and claimed military impunity for abuses. It goes on: “These abuses include extrajudicial killings, torture, arbitrary arrests.” In The Guardian today, there is a story about how those independent television stations have been taken off the air and journalists fired upon. One television station, Aaj TV, was attacked for six hours in Karachi during the unrest accompanying the Chief Justice of Pakistan’s visit to the city [on Saturday, 12 May 2007]. The report states that a large demonstration was tear-gassed, bullets were fired, batons and rubber bullets were used, television stations were taken off the air and 52 bullets were fired into the television studio of Aaj TV. The U.S. State Department - I quote it because the United States Government often acts in synchronicity with our own - says that the MQM, which is the power in Karachi, “has been widely accused of human rights abuses since its foundation two decades ago” and it goes on: “In the mid-1990s, the MQM-A was heavily involved” - not alleged to be heavily involved - “in the widespread political violence that wracked Pakistan’s southern Sindh province.” Three Members of Congress, led by Joseph Biden, another man close to new Labour, wrote the following letter just a few days ago to Condoleezza Rice: “Dear Secretary Rice…we have witnessed the spiral of civil unrest and harshly-suppressed protest in Pakistan…We ask that you publicly call for an immediate end to the violence, and urge the government of Pakistan to commit to holding free and fair elections by the year’s end.” Nothing less will be acceptable from the Minister this evening. Joe Biden and his fellow Senators say that “President” Musharraf’s dismissal of the Chief Justice has sparked protests from tens of thousands, “spearheaded by bar associations, and supported by moderate political parties and civil society organizations.” They say: “The violence in Karachi appears to show disturbing signs of collusion between MQM and government forces” leading to the deaths and wounding of opposition party militants and other protestors - and they go on, and on. They say in the final paragraph: “The national interests of the United States and of Pakistan are both served by a speedy restoration of full democracy to Pakistan, and by an end to state-sponsored intimidation - often violent - of Pakistani citizens protesting government actions in a legal and peaceful manner. We urge you to make a public appeal to this end, and to raise these matters forcefully in your interactions with Pakistani government officials.” Again, nothing less will be acceptable from the Minister when he addresses the House this evening. Following my discussions today with Imran Khan, I want to emphasise that my primary concern, and that of most Pakistanis living in Britain, is this: Why is Altaf Hussain being allowed to conduct from a sofa in Edgware a terrorist campaign and a campaign of extortion of businesses and citizens in Sindh, and why was he given British citizenship? I would like the Minister to answer the following question tonight, and if he does not have the answer to hand I would like him to write to me to inform me of it: Was Altaf Hussain ever refused British citizenship, and if he was, what changed between that refusal and the granting of citizenship to him? It is extraordinary that in the middle of a so-called ‘war on terror’ there is such a bloody reign of terror in a major Pakistani city - and there are millions of Pakistanis who are citizens of our country. A terrorist cell is operating from Edgware in the form of the MQM. Every day, Altaf Hussain, a British citizen, addresses his puppets in Karachi, giving them instructions on how they should govern, including how they should handle peaceful demonstrations. The Minister smiles smugly. He might think that this is a small matter, but if this man, instead of being a stooge of General - sorry, “President” - Musharraf and of a Government allied to his own, were a hook-handed, glass-eyed ranting mullah, he would at best already be in Belmarsh and at worst he would be on a plane being deported to the country from where he absconded from murder charges. This man is the godfather of Sindh - he is the godfather of Karachi - and he is living high on the hog from the extortion of the citizens of Karachi. I really do not know why the Minister finds this funny. It is a serious matter. The question that must be answered is this: How long will the British Government tolerate this situation that is occurring under their noses? Citizenship was given to [Altaf] Hussain under this Government in 1999, and it is my belief that he was refused citizenship under the previous Administration. I want to know why he was given citizenship, and why he is being allowed to operate with impunity. Far from symbolising the future for the Muslim countries around the world, General Musharraf crystallises the problem which Western governments have in those countries. We tell people that we are invading countries in order to defend democracy and liberty, but we support dictators who crush democracy and liberty as long as they do so in concordance with Western policy on other matters. The slogan, “My enemy’s enemy is my friend” is a deeply flawed one, but the Government do not seem to have learned that. They did not read the novel “Frankenstein” to the end. Dr. Frankenstein created a monster, but he lost control of it because we cannot control monsters. Across the border in Afghanistan, we helped to create the monster of jihadism and Islamist fundamentalism that became bin Laden and became the Taliban, on the principle that my enemy’s enemy is my friend. However, Madam Deputy Speaker, as we are finding in Iraq and to some extent in Palestine, our enemy’s enemy is not always our friend. Sometimes, our enemy’s enemy is worse than our enemy, and by allying ourselves with the former, making him our friend, we become complicit in the crimes that he commits. Nobody in the Muslim World can believe that this Government are really interested in democracy and liberty in the Muslim World, so long as they are kissing Colonel [Muammar Abu Minyar] Gaddafi in the tent at Sirte - the same Colonel Gaddafi who brought down the Lockerbie airliner, we were told, with the deaths of hundreds of people; the same Colonel Gaddafi whom we said funded the IRA’s bombing campaign in Britain through the 1970s and 1980s; the same Colonel Gaddafi whom we said shot down an English policewoman in a London square. Nobody can believe that Colonel Gaddafi deserves the kisses of the British Prime Minister. Nobody believes that Colonel Gaddafi has changed - just that he has changed sides. Nobody believes that General Musharraf really is the President of Pakistan, and to treat him as if he is - is an insult to the hundreds of millions of Pakistanis living under the iron heel of his dictatorship, not to mention the Pakistanis living as citizens in Britain, many of whom have traditionally voted for the Minister’s party. So I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind when he answers this debate. General Musharraf is a tyrant who is about to fall. I urge this Minister not to do as the now Lord Owen did in backing the tyrant Shah of Persia until the last moments before he fell. It was because of Western support for tyrants such as the Shah [of Iran] until the last moments that the radicalisation of such as the Islamic revolution in Iran took place. My last words are these. Pakistan is a nuclear power. After Musharraf falls, no one knows who will replace him. Whose finger will be on the nuclear trigger in Pakistan once Musharraf falls? The Government would be doing Britain the favour that Biden and others are doing America by intervening now to distance themselves from this tyrant and to help the democratic forces come back to power in Pakistan. Mr. George Galloway is the Respect Member of UK Parliament for Bethnal Green and Bow. From: Saim's Blog
Social Bookmarking
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Musharraf's Second Term In Doubt
There are "significant doubts" now about President Pervez Musharraf's ability to secure a second term in the presidential election due in the second half of September, said the online news intelligence portal Stratfor.
Referring to the president's dressing down his team for not standing up for him in the ongoing domestic crisis, the Texas-based think tank said, "These comments.....show that the Musharraf regime is buckling under the weight of the crisis, which has created serious fissures within the civilian side of the hybrid Musharrafian political system."
"Infighting among his allies upon whom he depends to secure a second presidential term and the rapidly intensifying unrest in the country raise serious doubts about Musharraf's ability to win the next presidential election," the 'Daily Times' of Pakistan reported Stratfor as saying in its commentary.
"If the president cannot win re-election, he could try to impose an emergency rule of sorts, but that would only exacerbate matters," the online news intelligence portal said.
Sketching a post-Musharraf scenario, Stratfor says, "The military is unlikely to continue to directly run the country." "Moreover, because of the assertiveness of the judiciary and the media, and an increasingly vibrant civil society, the military will have to give the civilian setup more freedom than it did in 1988, when military rule came to an end after military-chief-cum-president Zia-ul-Haq died in a mysterious plane crash," it said.
From: Saim's Blog
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
US, Russia hail Pakistan’s move to combat nuclear terror
WASHINGTON: The United States welcomed Monday Pakistan’s decision to join a global program led by Washington and Moscow to combat nuclear terrorism.
Islambad on Saturday announced its intention to join the the “Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism” although its participation would reportedly not cover the country’s military nuclear program and installations.
About 50 countries are involved in the joint initiative launched by US President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin last July.
“The United States and Russia welcome the decision of the government of Pakistan to become a partner nation of the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism,” a statement from the US State Department said.
It added that at the most recent meeting of the group in Ankara, Turkey, in February, member states “emphasized the importance of increasing partnership and participation by nations committed to combating nuclear terrorism.”
Pakistan, like its nuclear archrival India, is not a member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).
Islamabad’s decision to join the global initiative comes amid concerns that a Pakistani nuclear smuggling network reportedly crippled three years ago could resume business amid strong demand for atomic technology from governments and terrorist groups.
Although the United States had declared that the network led by disgraced Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan had been rolled up, only a few of the 40 individuals identified as having worked with him are in prison, said a report last month by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS).
From: Saim’s Blog