| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| India-Pakistan | ||
| Usage of Democratic and constitutional means to solve issues: Musharraf | ||
| 2003-08-21 | ||
President Pervez Musharraf on Wednesday called for solving political issues by utilizing democratic and constitutional means. He was speaking during the question-answer session at the conference organized here by the Berlin-based anti-corruption organisation Transparency International (TI). The president said that political instability and sectarian and militant extremism were hindering Pakistan from realizing its full potential. Dismissing the notion that the country needed any aid to move ahead, Gen Musharraf said that the nation needed to "put the house in order," adding that Pakistan possessed necessary resources and was capable of making progress. Referring to the present political and governance scenario, the president eliminated the possibility of any political interference and called for generating momentum to achieve national objectives, saying that the government possessed a majority in the assemblies necessary to pass any legislative measure any time. He cautioned about assigning extra importance to what was happening in the assemblies, saying it would not stop the government from performing its role. "We want democracy to mature in Pakistan," President Musharraf said.
| ||
| Posted by:omer ishmail |
| #27 Aris,I have not cosidered France an ally since Regan was priesident.France is at best nothing more than a"Fair weather friend". |
| Posted by: raptor 2003-8-21 8:04:25 PM |
| #26 France has been of little import since 1914. Without Russia French foreign policy relies on magic and cheap shoes. Cut the Russ slack. Can and boil the frog. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2003-8-21 7:47:10 PM |
| #25 LH says that France is worse. Aris says that Russia is worse. I think they're both right! |
| Posted by: Steve White 2003-8-21 5:16:43 PM |
| #24 "1. Russia - opposed US policy on Iraq France - organized and led oposition to US policy on Iraq, including lobbying of small third world states, bullying east europeans" Hmm... I'd have put it somewhat like this: France- organized and led opposition to US policy on Iraq. Russia - sent officials to militarily help Saddam even days prior to the war. France - back in the 70s helped Iraq with a nuclear plant, Russia - *currently* helping Iran with nuclear plants... And ofcourse there's the whole war crimes in Chechenya, sliding back to autocracy thing. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-8-21 3:46:11 PM |
| #23 Russia vs France 1. Russia - opposed US policy on Iraq France - organized and led oposition to US policy on Iraq, including lobbying of small third world states, bullying east europeans,etc 2. Russia - was never really seen as our friend France - an "ally" sense of betrayal deeper, and more frustrating when war opponents said "our allies are against it" 3. Vlad the impaler seems to have a good personal relationship with Dubya, and helped him (albeit grudgingly) on missile defense issue. Point 1 is a very real and important international relations issue - we can look the other way when somebody opposes us (and should be mature enough to do so) but when somebody goes to that extent to lobby the world against our policies it behooves us to impose at least some consequnces, else we are a paper tiger. 2. Is less rational, but is very deep, and accounts for much of the gut reaction against France. 3. Is something that I personally have little patience with. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-8-21 2:37:16 PM |
| #22 Aris: Never trust dictators to *remain* benevolent. There's an important thought. Perv is not Saddam as LH points out. Perv might be a better guy who's trying to lead his country to the mid 17th century or so. Then again, he might be a scumbag who just can't get his evil thoughts on track. We can use such people to help meet our ends, but we should never trust them. The Cold War should have taught us that. Perv, Vlad, and the rest all need a gimlet eye kept upon them. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2003-8-21 2:01:08 PM |
| #21 That's a good list. I'd also like a Vlad-vs-Chirac checklist though, if I'm to understand why France is hated more than Russia... But I recognize that's a different discussion. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-8-21 1:43:25 PM |
| #20 net - net Saddam - worst tyrant on the planet. Glad we're rid of him. Perv - definitely a problem. Alliance of convenience may be necessary, but cant last long term, unless he changes Vlad - not our problem. Watch him though. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-8-21 1:17:35 PM |
| #19 Saddam vs Vlad the impaler Saddam - attacked Iran, Kuwait, Israel. Vlad - only war is in Chechnya, universally recognized as part of Russia Saddam - commited genocide against kurds, marsh arabs. Vlad - allowed his troops to commit war crimes in Chechnya - no evidence of deliberate genocide Saddam - no open political activity Vlad - won in free election Saddam - no free press - all opposition at risk of death Vlad - owners of major opposition TV networks subject to legal harrassment Saddam - developed WMD in violation of treaties and UN Vlad - has observed disarmament treaties. Quibbles about nature of support he gives to Iran, etc. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-8-21 1:15:50 PM |
| #18 Saddam vs Perv. Lets see. Saddam - hundreds of thousands if not millions killed. Many more imprisoned tortured, etc. Perv - a few opposition leaders threatened with imprisonment. Saddam - started and persisted for years in WMD programs. Perv - continued existing Paki nuclear program Saddam - started war with Iran, invaded and annexed Kuwait, attacked Israel. Perv -supported limited war in Kashmir, where Pak has genuine (if disputable) claims. Saddam - no opposition parties allowed. Perv - several opposition parties exist Saddam - no free press. Perv - free press Saddam - no open politics at all - any questioning of govt can result in death Perv - presidential election fraudulent. Parliamentary election resulted in victories of opposition parties, some limited fraud claimed, claim disputed. Saddam - used terror as means at home and abroad. Perv - turned Pakistan away from support for Taliban, has failed to completely turn ISI and military away from ties with terrorists. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-8-21 1:11:08 PM |
| #17 JFM> Rapes, murders, attacks on civilian cities with thousands of people killed... Nothing that *Putin's* forces haven't done in Chechenya, and yet the people here still seem to prefer him to Chirac, given the guffawing over American forces ditching that Paris air show in favour of the one in Moscow. Or some such thing. But I can concede that Saddam was a worst tyrant than Musharraf currently appears to be. I just don't know if this happens only because Saddam had a much tighter grip on power than Musharraf does. After all not all of Saddam's excesses were immediately apparent either. Nero himself seemed benevolent during the first few years of his reign. Never trust dictators to *remain* benevolent. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-8-21 12:09:36 PM |
| #16 Zhang, as long as you accept the the important thing about the Musharraf vs Saddam comparison is that Musharraf is "with you" and Saddam was not, that's okay. I'll agree. This of course give no reason whatsoever why the average Pakistani should like Musharraf or stop assasination attempts against him. People in America may consider it a plus for a foreign dictator to be on their side, but in the long terms it tends to simply anger the native population against America. "as opposed to friend, which he probably won't ever be" GW Bush disagrees. ``President Musharraf is a courageous leader and a friend of the United States. America has a strong relationship with Pakistan'' http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2003/06/25/stories/2003062509051200.htm "Whatever Musharraf's foibles, Pakistan is a more valuable ally than Greece, which is a neutral, if not hostile, country. " And why, Zhang Fei, should I care about how valuable an ally to America is a country of slaves? My values are more pan-human than that. Pakistan is a dictatorship with more than a hundred million people in it. Greece may be small and theoretically "hostile" to your ambitions, but atleast it's a country of free men. "The Greeks in particular are in the grip of an anti-American pathology that is daily reducing the power of the influential Greek lobby here in America." And Americans are in the grip of a war the enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend pathology that doesn't see how the dictatorships it's propping up today will turn around and bite it in the ass tomorrow. A war pathology that ignores that democracies like even France are ten times more trustworthy allies than dictatorships like Pakistan or quasi-dictatorships like Russia are. And that, no matter what you may say about democracies not being natural allies, that's just extreme foolishness. How many true democracies have you had to invade lately to protect yourselves? None. How many true democracies have militarily threatened other democracies? None. If you want security stop propping up dictators, "friendly" or not. Dictators care only about their own power and your former friends (and Dubya *called* Musharraf a friend) have a tendency of either turning into enemies when it suits them better or being overthrown and the popular hostility towards the US-supported dictator turning into popular hostility towards the US itself. Leading to either a hostile-to-the-US democracy (like Greece), or a hostile-to-the-US different-kind-of-tyranny (like Iran). |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-8-21 11:44:28 AM |
| #15 Dictators come in all sizes: some of them limit themselves to govern without elections while still tolerating some dissent, some others have the daughters of opponents raped by state rapers, put people into plastic shredders or drop gas on civilian cities. It seems the difference has escaped Mr Aris |
| Posted by: JFM 2003-8-21 11:22:20 AM |
| #14 Aris: You've said that Musharraf stood against Islamic fundies. So did Saddam. You've said that he won elections with overwhelming majority. So did Saddam. (None of these elections were free and fair of course). Saddam and Bush also get up and shave in the morning. They put on their pants one leg at a time. The fact that they share certain common characteristics does not make them the same. This is the kind of simplistic "analysis" that Aris comes up with all the time. The important thing about the Musharraf vs Saddam comparison is that Musharraf is with us, for now. Aris seems to think that all foreign ties should be unconditional love-fests. Our ties to Musharraf are not. This is why he got monetary aid but no F-16's. His reliability as an ally (as opposed to friend, which he probably won't ever be) remains to be seen - just before 9/11, he was sponsoring the Taliban. Whatever Musharraf's foibles, Pakistan is a more valuable ally than Greece, which is a neutral, if not hostile, country. What we are finding out is that democracies are not natural allies of other democracies. Each country has its particular foibles. The Greeks in particular are in the grip of an anti-American pathology that is daily reducing the power of the influential Greek lobby here in America. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2003-8-21 10:19:30 AM |
| #13 Aris the pathological liar: And "We like Musharraf but don't like Saddam" doesn't work, .com, as once upon a time "we" liked Saddam also. We never "liked" Saddam. From the moment of his coup, we cut off relations with Iraq - gradually improving them only after the Iranian hostage situation. We don't "like" Musharraf - the alternative to him is either the Pakistani version of the Taliban or at minimum a nuclear-armed hostile regime (kind of like a nuclear-armed Greece). The State Department keeps on pushing democracy as the solution to all our problems. The truth is that democracy only works if it is enforced by American power. Otherwise, you get situations like Algeria and Pakistan pre-Musharraf, where Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif were racing the mullahs to see how quickly they could impose Islamic theocracy. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2003-8-21 10:04:59 AM |
| #12 Aris, You make a good point, if it's your point that we should not get too cozy with Mushy. Equating him with Saddam, however, is bull%#$ and you know it. You're just being stubborn and dishonest when you say they are both dictators with WMD. That's pretty much par for the course for you when it comes to intellectual honesty. Blur all distinctions and erase all context. Never mention that Saddam was a declared enemy sworn to revenge. Forget everything you know about Saddam's history and 30-year record and personality cult. Mushy is a shady character but next to Saddam he's the Dali Llama. I hope that peaceful reform comes to Pakistan, sooner rather than later. And you can be sure that the U.S. will support it. But let's be realistic. The first step should be to reform or replace all those Wahabbi funded Madrassahs. |
| Posted by: Tokyo Taro 2003-8-21 9:44:57 AM |
| #11 Right Omar. And remember the Shah of Iran was an evil megalomanic dragging his country into the 20th century on the broken bodies of his people. Corrupt and vain. Things would only be better when he was ousted. Or so we were told. |
| Posted by: Don 2003-8-21 9:21:29 AM |
| #10 Aris: "We" never liked Saddam. That's a piece of antiwar mythology, and just as bogus as the claim that "the U.S. trained Bin Laden." During the 1980s, when we perceived Iran as the greater threat, the US did provide Iraq with very limited intelligence support. That was arguably a mistake, but an understandable one. Iraq's primary weapons supplier was the U.S.S.R. (that's where all the T-72s and AK-47s came from), with the French (Mirage III fighters) and Germans (Roland SAMs) in a supporting role. Besides, if it were true that the U.S. "liked Saddam" at one time, that would only strengthen the argument for removing him. After all, if "we" were responsible for putting him in power, then don't "we" have a moral duty to atone for the error and remove the source of the suffering "we" inflicted on the Iraqi people? |
| Posted by: Mike 2003-8-21 8:45:47 AM |
| #9 And, btw, it's *your* calls towards a nation to stop their assasination attempts against their tyrant, that I find to be either trolling or just morally obscene. "Stay subjugated, be happy!" Whatever. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-8-21 8:29:40 AM |
| #8 You've said that Musharraf stood against Islamic fundies. So did Saddam. You've said that he won elections with overwhelming majority. So did Saddam. (None of these elections were free and fair of course). What I do know is that they are both bloody dictators who've attempted destabilisation of nearby countries. And while Iraq used chemical WMDs, Pakistan has *nuclear* WMDs. I think it's your responsibility to indicate the ways that these people are *not* morally equivalent. And "We like Musharraf but don't like Saddam" doesn't work, .com, as once upon a time "we" liked Saddam also. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-8-21 8:24:12 AM |
| #7 Aris - well if that isn't a troll comment, I've never seen one. Musharraf = Hussein? What a classic troll statement - painting it black or white when it suits you, then playing with a million shades of gray what that suits you. I've seen you split hairs so small as to be indetectable to anyone else - and they made the mistake of engaging you - a waste of effort. Here you toss out a tree trunk and imply equivalence - that's just trolling. You're on-form, today. If you wanna play, get a mirror. Not interested. |
| Posted by: .com 2003-8-21 8:12:57 AM |
| #6 Most of your arguments in favour of Musharraf could just as easily have been used in favour of Saddam... "and stop the incessant assassination attacks" If you are talking about assasination attacks against Musharraf, then why the hell should they stop the assasination attacks against a bloody dictator? (and all dictators are bloody) Oh, yes, if not for Musharraf some Pakistani cleric would take the lead. And if not for Saddam some Iraqi cleric would have taken the lead. And indeed may still do. But indicating some dictator as progressive... Pfft. Yeah, about as "progressive" as Saddam or the house of Saud is. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-8-21 7:50:26 AM |
| #5 PM - Obviously you have a far better command of the details than I (to be honest, I can't keep up with the myriad of factions of factions...). So, while I don't doubt any of your statements, I still see Musharraf as "holding back the tide" in Pakistan. That was my point - he is the better side of the coin, so to speak, and was deserving of better than given. If Omer (assuming he's Pakistani) and his countrymen would like to go where Musharraf is leading, whether led by him or not, then they should clean up the other side - and stop the incessant assassination attacks. If not - and they really do treasure their role as the most throughly insane society on the planet - then they should stand up and wave their arms at the West, like the Black Hats of Iran, and we can stop trying to cooperate with Musharraf and put them down for carpet-nuking, I guess. MusharrafLand is a muddled muddle of murderous Muslims methinks. Say what? ;-) |
| Posted by: .com 2003-8-21 6:09:45 AM |
| #4 .com - yep, he did win by a huge margin, 97% in fact, even Musharaff was embarrased by such an obvious amount of rigging, so he declared that some of his followers were "over enthusiastic". What Omer is probably referring to when he disparages the Pakistani military, is that is directly responsible for many of Pakistan's present day ills. Although there highpoint was definitely when they killed 1 to 3 million Bangladeshis before surrending unconditionally to the Indians in 1971, arguably another of their great crimes is turning Pakistan into Jihad central. From the time of General Zia ul Haq in 1975, to General Pervez Musharaff in 2003, the Pakistani Army (and it's subsidiary - the ISI) has been in alliance with the most reactionary religious elements in the country. The extremist Deobandi Mullahs have been given free rein to recruit Jihadis and train them in ISI-run camps throughout Pakistan for the past 2 decades. First the Jihadis were used to fight in Afghanistan, and then after the Soviets pulled out, the Generals diverted this private armies to fight in Indian administered Kashmir. Just like in Afghanistan, the Jihadis were killing and dying for the strategic interests of Pakistan. Throughout the 90's, armed Jihadis operated in Pakistan with complete impunity, holding demonstrations where thousands would march down the street firing weapons in the air, and contributing to the total anarchy that existed in that country. But the ISI/Army always made sure that the police could not do anything to bring them into line, because if they arrested them it would 'demoralise' the cause of Jihad. This is where Musharaff comes in. For the past 4 years he has been the military dictator in charge of the country, and he continued the Army policy of supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the Jihadis in Kashmir. He ditched the Taliban after being given after 911, but he had the ISI organise the disparate Islamist groups into one alliance, and then gave them control over two Pakistani provinces. Of course he also released all the leaders of the terrorist Jihad groups from house arrest, and even put one of them in his government. The dark truth in Pakistan is that the Mullahs and the military are two sides of the same coin, they have been allies for 30 years, and it doesn't look like changing any time soon. Afterall, they share the same outlook - Pakistan is the citadel of Islam, Kashmir must be "liberated" into Pakistani control, Pakistani liberals are a fifth column, and the Pakistani army must maintain it's dominant position in the country. |
| Posted by: Paul Moloney 2003-8-21 4:22:20 AM |
| #3 Omer Ishmail - Interesting post, but why are you SCREAMING? Are a Pakistani? Are you IN Pakistan? If so, do you feel you need to scream? I guess I can sympathize. As for Musharraf, when he did allow elections he won by a huge margin and, except for the incredibly absurd asshat jackoff dipshit parasitic corrupt whore-mongering political party hacks and the totally fucking insane backward brutal barabaric Islamicist fuckwads, he's still very popular. This information came to me from Pakistanis I worked with in Saudi Arabia who went "home" regularly. They liked and trusted Musharraf - and indicated most people do / did. They said he was trying to bring Pakistan out of the 7th or 8th century into the present. Kicking and SCREAMING, it seems. But then even the cynics and irrational asshats were innocent open-minded people, once. I don't care for dictators, either... But if not Musharraf, given the mass insanity of Pakistan, it would probably be some Islamic "cleric" bent on eliminating internal party competition and, external to his "party", anyone different from himself. Perhaps you should be rather more glad of that fact than you seem. From any POV that actually involves rational thought, Musharraf the progressive dictator is certainly the lesser of those two evils - by a wide margin. If a miracle occurs and the Pakistani people suddenly throw off the yoke of the Islamicists, Sunni and Shia alike, and adopt tolerance and peace and a thirst for knowledge as a way of life, then you will be able to have a discussion about military dictators - and your comments will actually matter, since they won't be swept away in a sea of religious violence and mayhem. But that hasn't happened, yet, has it? No, I didn't think so. Have a nice day, anyway. |
| Posted by: .com 2003-8-21 3:29:47 AM |
| #2 BUT THEN EVERY PROSTITUTE WAS A VIRGIN ONCE... |
| Posted by: OMER ISHMAIL 2003-8-21 1:43:07 AM |
| #1 WHAT A PARADOX,THE WORLD IS FALLING APART DICTATORS TALKING ABOUT DEMOCRATIC AND CONSTITUITIONAL MEANS- WHEN HE AND HIS FELLOW ARMY MEN HAVE VIOLATED THEM BOTH - REPEATEDLY 25 OUT 51 YEARS AND NO ELECTED GOVERNMENT HAS EVER COMPLETED ITS TENURE OF OFFICE IN THAT COUNTRY .... |
| Posted by: OMER ISHMAIL 2003-8-21 1:41:23 AM |