Tweet
KNUCKLING UNDER TO TURKEY WILL HAVE ONGOING REPERCUSSIONS IN PAKISTAN, THE MIDDLE EAST
Blogger News Network
Nov 12 2007
In an op-ed published by The New York Times, former Pakistan prime
minister Benazir Bhutto (1988 to 1990; 1993 to 1996) and head of the
Pakistan People's Party, writes:
Pakistan is a military dictatorship. Last Saturday, Gen. Pervez
Musharraf removed all pretense of a transition to democracy by
conducting what was in effect yet another extraconstitutional coup.
In doing so he endangered the viability of Pakistan as an independent
state. He presented the country's democratic forces with a tough
decision - acquiesce to the brutality of the dictatorship or take
over the streets and show the world where the people of Pakistan
really stand.
General Musharraf also presented the democratic world - and especially
the countries of the West - with a question. Will they back up their
democratic rhetoric with concrete action, or will they once again
back down in the face of his bluff? ...
It is dangerous to stand up to a military dictatorship, but more
dangerous not to. The moment has come for the Western democracies to
show us in their actions, and not just in their rhetoric, which side
they are on.
The Stiletto hates to break it to Bhutto, but the Bush Administration
favors cynical pragmatism over principle to hold together the iffy
coalition of Muslim countries helping the effort in Iraq - no matter
what.
For instance, Turkish and Saudi operatives have been caught red-handed
funneling insurgents or funds for their upkeep into Iraq, but the
U.S. looks the other way and provides massive economic and military
aid packages to both countries. Despite ritualistic hand-wringing
by various members of Congress, the U.S. will look the other way and
continue to pour money into Pakistan to support various military and
foreign policy objectives.
Here's WaPo columnist David Broder's description of what India -
Pakistan's next door neighbor geographically, but a world apart
politically - thinks of the tepid U.S. response to Musharraf declaring
martial law:
During a visit to New Delhi that happened to coincide with the
crisis, I found that Indians were both puzzled and dismayed that the
U.S. government seemed so ambivalent about Musharraf's actions. The
Indian press reported, along with U.S. journals, that the Bush
administration had sent urgent messages to Musharraf counseling him
against the crackdown.
But when he ignored their advice and declared martial law, President
Bush and the State Department offered only the mildest reprimands and
immediately signaled a willingness to continue to support Musharraf
and his regime.
To many here, that made it appear as if democracy was less important
to the U.S. government than whatever help Musharraf might supply in
fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
And consider how the Bush administration chose pragmatism over
principle by sending a parade of cabinet members to the House of
Representatives to parrot Turkey's Armenian Genocide denial and
derail a symbolic resolution acknowledging Ottoman Turkey's crime
against humanity.
If the Turks were able to bully Bush on the Armenian Genocide
Resolution - an internal U.S. matter - Musharraf can be assured that
the U.S. will do nothing to force him to hold parliamentary elections,
should he decide to renege on his promise to do so.
And you can be sure that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, too, understands that
the Turks have unmanned Bush. No amount of Viagra can counteract
U.S. impotence in the Middle East now.
http://www.bloggernews.net/111627
Blogger News Network
Nov 12 2007
In an op-ed published by The New York Times, former Pakistan prime
minister Benazir Bhutto (1988 to 1990; 1993 to 1996) and head of the
Pakistan People's Party, writes:
Pakistan is a military dictatorship. Last Saturday, Gen. Pervez
Musharraf removed all pretense of a transition to democracy by
conducting what was in effect yet another extraconstitutional coup.
In doing so he endangered the viability of Pakistan as an independent
state. He presented the country's democratic forces with a tough
decision - acquiesce to the brutality of the dictatorship or take
over the streets and show the world where the people of Pakistan
really stand.
General Musharraf also presented the democratic world - and especially
the countries of the West - with a question. Will they back up their
democratic rhetoric with concrete action, or will they once again
back down in the face of his bluff? ...
It is dangerous to stand up to a military dictatorship, but more
dangerous not to. The moment has come for the Western democracies to
show us in their actions, and not just in their rhetoric, which side
they are on.
The Stiletto hates to break it to Bhutto, but the Bush Administration
favors cynical pragmatism over principle to hold together the iffy
coalition of Muslim countries helping the effort in Iraq - no matter
what.
For instance, Turkish and Saudi operatives have been caught red-handed
funneling insurgents or funds for their upkeep into Iraq, but the
U.S. looks the other way and provides massive economic and military
aid packages to both countries. Despite ritualistic hand-wringing
by various members of Congress, the U.S. will look the other way and
continue to pour money into Pakistan to support various military and
foreign policy objectives.
Here's WaPo columnist David Broder's description of what India -
Pakistan's next door neighbor geographically, but a world apart
politically - thinks of the tepid U.S. response to Musharraf declaring
martial law:
During a visit to New Delhi that happened to coincide with the
crisis, I found that Indians were both puzzled and dismayed that the
U.S. government seemed so ambivalent about Musharraf's actions. The
Indian press reported, along with U.S. journals, that the Bush
administration had sent urgent messages to Musharraf counseling him
against the crackdown.
But when he ignored their advice and declared martial law, President
Bush and the State Department offered only the mildest reprimands and
immediately signaled a willingness to continue to support Musharraf
and his regime.
To many here, that made it appear as if democracy was less important
to the U.S. government than whatever help Musharraf might supply in
fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
And consider how the Bush administration chose pragmatism over
principle by sending a parade of cabinet members to the House of
Representatives to parrot Turkey's Armenian Genocide denial and
derail a symbolic resolution acknowledging Ottoman Turkey's crime
against humanity.
If the Turks were able to bully Bush on the Armenian Genocide
Resolution - an internal U.S. matter - Musharraf can be assured that
the U.S. will do nothing to force him to hold parliamentary elections,
should he decide to renege on his promise to do so.
And you can be sure that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, too, understands that
the Turks have unmanned Bush. No amount of Viagra can counteract
U.S. impotence in the Middle East now.
http://www.bloggernews.net/111627