[Dawn] THAT a nation of 180 million people should sleepwalk towards the brink, as if under some kind of hypnosis, is frightening.
The nature and variety of challenges that we face today beggars the imagination, but the self-imposed paralysis persists to make the body politic a feast for predators. Pakistain, unclaimed and unattended, is up for grabs, and beset with all sorts of social, political and economic destabilisers one can think of.
No country in the world has done so much for so long to destroy and deface itself as the Islamic Theocratic Republic of Pakistain. For starters, it is neither Islamic, nor a republic, nor even Pakistain in the original sense of the word. It is fast becoming a conglomerate of fiefdoms seeking recognition on the basis of tribal, linguistic, regional or historical claims. This explains the sudden discovery of the virtues of creating more provinces, ostensibly for the benefit of the people but, in fact, for the benefit of the regional influentials.
Though conscious that a long list of any kind in an Op-Ed piece is a sure way to part company with the readers, I would, nonetheless, seek the indulgence of the readers to enumerate the major social, political and economic destabilisers to show what the big picture looks like.
Those destablisers are as follows: incredible level of corruption at high places; increasing spread and intensity of mass poverty; rising unemployment; widespread lawlessness; ineffective and inept governance; alarming shortfall in energy supply; sectarian violence as an expression of faith; ethnic violence as an assertion identity; bankrupt major state enterprises; mounting external and internal debt; tense civil and military relations; fear of confrontation between the executive and the judiciary; parochialisation of the political parties; and intermittent confrontation with the US. Each of these 14 destablisers can, by itself, bring about a national crisis. This is what the big picture looks like.
One should have thought that there could be nothing worse than this, but there is. Incredibly, there is no apparent effort to deal with these existential threats, despite almost daily appeals to those who matter. The reason for the absence of collective national effort to face these challenges is that those who can make a difference are preoccupied with their own personal or institutional battle for survival or for supremacy.
The ruling political parties are too busy with matters relating to their survival in office and fresh mandate for the next five years, to pay attention to other matters. The political parties not in office are dedicated only to ousting those in office. The military spends considerable time and energy on maintaining its pre-eminence in state affairs. The judiciary has been persuaded to set everything right, from treason to trifles, even at the risk of constitutional impasse and loss of focus.
Consequently, the armed forces, the political parties and the only independent and pro-people judiciary in our history, are being subjected to ridicule almost on a daily basis. The most disturbing among these suicidal tendencies is the ridicule that is being heaped upon the judiciary, and that too by lawyers and politicians who need it most.
Media, the fourth state, that could in some measure play a stabilising role, often manages to achieve the opposite. This is particularly true of the electronic media which is an ever-present observer of events and the most powerful influence on public opinion. Because of some operational compulsions it remains obsessed with 'rating' and tends to improve it even at the cost of truth, fairness and caution.
Saturation reporting of an event that may continue for hours is one weapon in the arsenal of the electronic media to benumb the critical faculties of the viewers. Even worse, encouraging and inviting the more vociferous, ill-mannered politicians (the telegladiators expected to tear each other apart) to talk shows, can only bring the politicians into disrepute. This is a great disservice to a nascent democracy.
There is, thus, no dedicated institution or group of individuals that can bring about harmony and stability, through constitutional means, in the situation that is as close to anarchy as it can be, short of complete collapse of the state apparatus. We cannot guess when the destablisers could attain a critical mass or when would the tipping point be reached to unleash the destructive forces generated by 180 million angry and vengeful people. We can, however, be certain that it would happen sooner rather than later.
Pakistain is a large country but its future is in the hands of no more than about half a dozen individuals who in their own different spheres matter most, and hold the key to a new beginning. Unfortunately, they cannot, for reasons that are an open secret, act together to lead the nation out of this monumental mess. This makes the solution simple but still in the hands of those half a dozen individuals who are not likely to step out of their different trenches that they have dug themselves into and join hands together for a common purpose.
This deadlock can be broken only if those individuals can be persuaded to make a little sacrifice and agree to resign from their respective offices voluntarily and simultaneously and let the succession take place in the manner provided in the constitution in respect of each of those offices. This will enable the installation of new incumbents who, not mired in the game of mutual recrimination, would get on with the business of governance.
But this can happen only if the present incumbents can agree to abandon their short-lived place in the present hierarchy, to ensure an abiding place in history.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/09/2012 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
One of the weirder elements of Pakistan is the reason their judicial system is so well regarded by Pakistanis. They actually use the Common Law legal system, a holdover from the British Empire.
It is such an effective system that it is probably the only glue holding the country together.
#1
"Iran will not repeat its warning... the enemy's carrier has been moved to the Sea of Oman because of our drill. I recommend and emphasize to the American carrier not to return to the Persian Gulf,"
If hostilities erupt, I doubt the captains of these carriers would prefer to be cooped up on the Strait of Hormuz. Surely the Iranians know this. Which means the message is for domestic consumption. Which means Iranian people don't.
#2
Therefore, if Iran blocks the Strait of Hormuz it would violate international law, because a naval blockade on the high seas is a breach of the international legal principle of the freedom of navigation. The United Nations Charter, Article 2 (4) prohibits the use of force, subject to an exception under Article 51 of the Charter for the right of a nation to engage in self-defense which can be invoked during an armed conflict.
Well. So that's it, then. Iran is prohibitied from blocking the Straits. Why didn't I think of that?
Posted by: Bobby ||
01/09/2012 6:22 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I gather that Iran is looking for a minor provocation against the USN that will result in a "little escalation", but not too much, against them. Big believers in both cheap shots and gradualism.
If their little attack gets too harsh a response, they will blame it on some general "acting on his own", which is a scam they frequently use, which allows them to take all sides in an argument and dilute blame.
The counter to this, that the USN will probably use, is to just utterly obliterate just the one unit that attacked. It is just a "little escalation", but will really rattle the nerves of the Iranians inspecting the smoking hole that was the attackers. Way more explosives than was needed for the target.
After watching the power of the US Military on CNN for over 20 years, the Iranians still do not understand the overwhelming force that just one aircraft carrier can bring to bear?
As some football coach said after beating the snot out of a highly rated opponent, "I think they read their own press clippings too much." So it is with the Iranians, the Goebbels theory of telling a lie enough times and it becomes the truth only works until someone calls your bluff.
The Iranians obviously believe their own propoganda and that is their fatal flaw. If that is the case, a large smoking crater or three dozen in the locations of what had been their most elite forces might give pause to their blathering...but I do not for a minute doubt the self deluding lack of rational thought on the part of the Iranian ruling council.
Posted by: Bill Clinton ||
01/09/2012 10:15 Comments ||
Top||
#5
That is only if the US carrier has enough gas in the tank to do the job after whatshisname gets through eviscerating the defense budget to fund his scams and payoffs to cronies.
Posted by: Bill Clinton ||
01/09/2012 10:17 Comments ||
Top||
#6
"Norway's Statoil has together with its partners Eni Norge and Petoro made a substantial new oil discovery in the Havis prospect in the same licence as Skrugard (PL532) in the Barents Sea".
They also are introducing body scanners at their airports since air traffic has increased so much there.
I think Iran has a big mouth that writes checks they can't make good.
#7
I recommend and emphasize to the American carrier not to return to the Persian Gulf"
The US will send a differently named back through and the iranians will state thier threat was for the USS John C. Stennis.
If i were prez i would of ordered the carrier to turn around and back through. Iran has been at war with the US for over 30 years - time to knock them down -- and no fricking nation building. Hit'em and hit'em hard and leave with the threat return anytime.
Posted by: Dan ||
01/09/2012 11:13 Comments ||
Top||
#8
That is only if the US carrier has enough gas in the tank
Nuclear, it's the only way to go.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
01/09/2012 13:42 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Declare a blockade (or whatever) to all refined gasoline going into Iran and see how long they bluster.
#11
A fleet carrier might be less dangerous than a bass boat with a 30-30, depending on its orders, IYKWIMAITYD.
Or who's giving it the orders, IY.......
A wimpy, damaging, impotent, retreating response would suit some folks just fine.
Posted by: Richard Aubrey ||
01/09/2012 15:22 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Don't look at what the other hand is doing. This isn't about fighting, its about the oil prices. The Iranians need oil to be above 95$ a barrel to give them a positive cash flow given their national treasury depletions and debt services. Below that and they cannot fund and fuel their major economy and military and terrorism activities. So make noise and shoot a little because the Americans will never really do more that kills a few little people and that doesn't bother them at all. The afterlife virgin account is chockful for useful idiots and debt service in this life is zero.
#13
Don't look at what the other hand is doing. This isn't about fighting, its about the oil prices. The Iranians need oil to be above 95$ a barrel to give them a positive cash flow given their national treasury depletions and debt services.
Bingo. Give the man a cigar. This will spike short-term pricing until the boobs who trade the oil market figure out that Iran is all hat and no cattle. Crying wolf works for a short time, until it doesn't work any more.
#14
I am doubtful that the Iranians could successfully close the straits to USN traffic. It might be feasible for them to endanger the tankers enough to make the companies adverse to send the tankers through. The amount of dhow traffic in the straits always made me nervous. It would be hard to referee all the traffic or even protect the ships at anchor outide the gulf in Oman.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
01/09/2012 19:43 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Iran's "offensive" weapon agz the US is its crisis-led manipulation of world oil prices + markets to the detriment of the econ troubled US-World.
Until it becomes a de facto Nuclear Power wid a reliable minimum or "sufficient" LR Nuke Arsenal, IT WILL TOLERATE + ALLOW A US-LED GROUND INVASION OF IRAN TO OCCUR WHEREUPON ASYMMETRIC, PREDATORY, CASUALTY-CENTRIC VIETNAM-STYLE "PEOPLE'S WAR" WILL BE WAGED, ALBEIT WID "DIRTY" NUKE-WMDS BOMBS, + REGIONAL, GLOBAL TERROR, + CONDUCT OR WAGING OF INTERNATIONAL BRINKMANSHIP = CONFRONTATIONISM AMONGST WORLD'S MAJOR NUKE POWERS.
Despite any opposition to Iran's Regime, regional Muslim states have indic that they will NOT allow their territories to be used for US-led, etc. milstrikes agz their rival Iran - UNLESS SOMETHING CHANGES, IT MEANS THE US + UK + ISRAEL, ETC. ALIGNED ARE ON THEIR OWN IN UNILATER STRIKING OR INVADING IRAN PROPER.
E.g. North Vietnam, the Mullahs in Tehran are willing to fight a protractive "long war" on Iranian soil irregardless of casualties suffered.
UNLESS IT IS INVADED, IRAN'S NUCPROGS WILL GO ON UNTO WEAPONIZATION.
#1
This would be the same Ken Starr who wasted many millions of dollars and years to not investigate a multitude of serious crimes by the Clintons, instead focusing on a petty sexual event whose nature was so pitiful that it embarrassed the US senate into dropping the matter.
But this was what he was hired to do.
In any event, though he orchestrated a massive cover-up of presidential impropriety, this hardly makes him a worthy advocate for a candidates credibility. It is like the endorsement of the janitor of a brothel.
#6
If memory serves the investigation started because of claims of sexual harrasment begun by Paula Jones or someone. That led down a path to Monica and lies under oath to cover up that relationship. He did what he was supposed to do once set upon that path by the Congress. I believe they could have ended it at any time but chose not to. Clinton could have ended it at any time as well if he'd just told the truth "in closed court" or something. Yeah, hed have to deal with Hillary but the law is the law and he decided to brass it out and call their bluff (which wasn't a bluff).
#7
Having said all that, it was a waste of time and money and everyone invovled should have been politically savy enough to see the mud they were digging in and stopped.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Dawn] THAT a nation of 180 million people should sleepwalk towards the brink, as if under some kind of hypnosis, is frightening.
