Salmaan Taseer murdered

Just a few days ago I wrote about the tensions building in Pakistan over the proposals to amend the blasphemy laws. I mentioned in passing high profile Punjabi governor Salmaan Taseer who was an outspoken advocate of the reforms. He was the focus of much bile and criticism from the religious right. Today he was murdered. Shot by a member of his own security detail.

Pakistan is in crisis. Caught in a vice like grip between the West and the East, between democratic values of equality and tolerance and murderous religious fundamentalism.

The government is both violent, weak and split. The economy is in a poor state and much of the country is still suffering badly from flooding. These are not happy times.

Although Taseer and Shahrbano Rehman, the outstanding woman moving the amendment, are both members of the ruling party the government has been at pains to distance themselves from the proposals and, it seems, that numerous death threats against themselves and their supporters have been ignored by the authorities - leaving reformers exposed.

But while the government has taken no action against leading religious figures condemning Taseer and Rehman it seems that one man did react. After Taseer's guard shot his charge dead he handed himself in. "The police guard who killed him says he did this because Mr Taseer recently defended the proposed amendments to the blasphemy law. This is what he told the police after surrendering himself."

Just a few days ago Taseer had spoken at a rally commemorating the third anniversary of the death of Benazir Bhutto at the hands of an assassin. There are strong forces for progress in Pakistan, but they have a huge mountain to climb. Meanwhile, good and principled people like Taseer are dying.

Post script: “You live life once, you live it by your principles and you live it courageously — that’s what it’s about.”

• NY Times has more details on the assassination.
• Mosharraf Zaidi on the implications for Pakistan's politics.
• DNA India on political reactions.
• Hindustan Times on worker protests at the assassination.
  

Religious strikes rocks Pakistan

A one day strike rocked Pakistan yesterday against proposed changes in the blasphemy laws Currently those who 'insult Islam' can be sentenced to death and, according to the BBC, this has led to around thirty people being killed. Critics add that the law is used to persecute religious minorities or to pursue vendettas.

Reports indicate that the strike, called by the religious parties and supported by a number of industrialists, had a wide ranging support closing down most major cities and public transport.

The proposals are being brought by Shahrbano Rahman, right, a founder of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan who was present when Benazir Bhutto was assassinated. Rahman may be a member of the ruling party but she is a strong advocate for human rights and has previously brought the Women Empowerment Bill, the Anti-Honor Killings Bill, the Domestic Violence Prevention Bill, the Affirmative Action Bill and the Hudood Repeal Bill as well as the the Freedom of Information Bill and the Press Act that opposed the arbitrary arrest of journalists.

Her bill seeks to eliminate the death penalty, criminalize incitement, and penalize false accusations. The government has distanced itself from her proposals although the governor of the Punjab Salmaan Taseer has been an outspoken advocate of the reforms.

Protesters demanded the death of Aasia Bibi, right, the first woman to have been sentenced to death under the law (in November), who fell foul of the law for her Roman Catholic beliefs. One leading campaigner said he'd give 6,000 dollars to anyone who killed her.

Since the law was enacted in 1986 1,060 people have been charged under the blasphemy law including 133 Christians, 450 Muslims, 456 Ahmadis and 21 Hindus. While executions are not carried out around thirty people have been lynched due to these prosecutions and it is thought that seven "committed suicide" while in police custody.

Rehman said that it was necessary to “remove the teeth and infamous use of the blasphemy laws, but to understand the way forward for our society, as minorities remain the most exploited members of society... We need to seek out a way of removing these laws from the statute books”.

Politicians like Rehman, whose Parliamentary track record is excellent, are fighting a dangerous battle to try to push their society forwards. She'll be more than aware of the murderous track record of the religious forces and the military that are ranged against her - but yet she carries on anyway because of a deep commitment to human rights.

It's a shame that her struggle has not received more attention in the Western press, because Pakistan is a central political player on the global stage. Arguably anyway that Pakistan tips could see whole sections of the world follow. If they are moving forwards on women's rights, religious freedom and against corruption then it could potentially help those in other nations who are also engaged in those struggles.

Civil war in Pakistan's Piochar Valley

The Pakistan army has launched a renewed offensive in order to dislodge the hold of the Taliban in Swat's Piochar valley. The news is tucked away in the back pages of most papers but the scale of the offensive seems immense.

General Abbas was reported as saying “The troops have surrounded the terrorist camps and are closing in on the militants’ command centre... Our main strategy is to block the free movement of the militants and eliminate the entire leadership.”

As things stand over 750 militants have been killed and 800,000 civilians have been displaced. This figure is expected to rise to over a million. That's an extraordinary humanitarian crisis unfolding before our eyes, if the West was looking that is.

The offensive had also sparked riots in a number of areas across Pakistan and, I'll be honest, I'm pessimistic about this strategy which is likely to cause far more human suffering than it solves and does nothing to unite an all too divided region.

It's true that the areas controlled by the Taliban are not lands of milk and honey, quite the reverse, but how many times do we have to try bombing people into happiness before we realise it never works. Whether this can even succeed as a military strategy against an experienced guerrilla force also seems to be dubious.

The BBC have a useful interactive map to help understand some of the detail of the conflict.

Pakistan in crisis: selected reading

The recent attacks on the Sri Lankan cricket team have highlighted to the world what people in Pakistan were only too well aware of - that Pakistan is in crisis and terrorism has become a daily occurrence.

In a country where democracy has been overturned more than once in the last few decades and political leaders, like Benazir Bhutto, are assassinated it is unsurprising that there is a well of inequality and injustice in the country that has no democratic outlet. The government often lacks the legitimacy to tackle those who will use force to push their political agenda. This unrest is deepened whilst they verge on a regional cold war with India and are tied to the US conflict formally known as the war on terror.

I've tried to assemble a mini-reading list here of blog reactions, analysis and news reporting. If you know any other links that would be useful for people please feel free to let me know.

Media;

• Imran Khan: this is the result of weak government and the war on terror.
• The Daily Times (Pakistan) says the attacks point to the regional threats.
• India draws fantasies from misery, The Daily Mail (Islamabad).
  
• Al Jazeera has a useful Pakistan timeline.
• Reuters India looks at the contours of the current crisis.
  
• The Washington Post draws in Afghanistan and the tasks facing Obama.
  
• Reactions to the attack. BBC.
• The New York Times has a round up of responses online.
• Tariq Ali in the Malaysian Insider.
• The Wall Street Journal on the daily threat of terrorism in Pakistan.
• Kashmir Observer on Muslims of India since partition and here on Pakistan should clamp down on its past friends..
  
• The Hindu says these attacks are a threat to the entire world.
  

The Left;

• Dissident Voice looks at how the US is still training Pakistan special forces.
  
• OpEdNews provides a glossary and analysis.
• International Viewpoint looks at the "anarchy".
  

Blogs;

• Dave Osler calls on the left to be far clearer in its opposition to the attacks.
• Neil Robertson, Liberal Conspiracy, thinks the attacks were wrong and stupid.
• Shariq on Pickled Politics argues that nothing is sacred in Pakistan anymore.
• William Dalrymple in CiF thinks the US needs a good dose of the blame.
• Liam asks whether Pakistan is going to hell in a handcart.
• Instablogs has a quotes round up.

Sports writers / stories;

• Mike Selvey, in the Guardian.
  
• Mike Atherton, in the Times.
• Kapil Komireddi, on CiF.
  

Corruption: ours and theirs

In the Independent today there is an article on Britain's aid payouts which it claims are "open to corruption abroad". Abroad mark you, abroad. I'd like us to what exactly corruption is, and whether it's brown skinned foreigners who have a monopoly on that particular human failing.

It's a big topic so I'm going to concentrate on a particular talk I went to a couple of weeks ago and people can draw inferences if they so wish. Mark Ward is one of the top people in USAID which, as the name implies, is the US government's body for allocating aid. One of his jokes went something like "Here at USAID we're not an En-Gee-Oh - we're just a Gee-Oh." Well, I laughed.

Ward had just come back from Pakistan where he'd been running the operation, the second largest in the world (no, the biggest isn't Israel, as Ward pointed out "We just write them a cheque.") and he was very clear about what his objectives were when he first returned to Pakistan to head up the company.

He was in a difficult position because the Bush administration had, prior to 9/11, stopped all government aid to Pakistan. Realizing their mistake they were forced to go in anew. His objectives were that USAID was to deliver fast, visibly and without scandal – he’d also have to account to the US government as to whether their “aid” was money well spent. The implications of these priorities were, in my view, eye opening.

Now, Ward came across as a very able and interesting man. Someone it would be pleasant to share dinner or have a session on the Dreamcast with. However, the content of what he was saying, when you stripped away the benign smiles seem, well, unsatisfactory.

Firstly, the fast. How do you deliver fast? Keep to the urban areas and deal with the easiest problems. Now, that’s an interesting use of aid don’t you think? Are we talking about delivering lasting change in the infrastructure here? Is this a recipe for helping the most needy in society – like those who live in poverty in the most isolated communities? Nope – they don’t get a look in.

There was an exception to this in the case of Kashmir – as there is no way of delivering aid in a purely urban environment there. So he concentrated on convincing everyone that they could “build a private sector to attract foreign investment.” So if there's a profit in it today your kids will get an education otherwise - hard cheese.

Secondly, the visible. We can see immediately that if your priority is to be seen to be doing good things it means your concern is more about PR than it is about relief and assistance. But it also dictates who you work with. So, for instance, someone asked Mark about working with the government and already existing institutions in order to deliver quickly – by injecting cash into pre-existing structures. Sounds a reasonable idea if you want to improve local education with your bulging wallet, you go to the schools and colleges that already exist. Yes?

Sorry, no. If USAID assisted Pakistan's government to improve hospitals who takes the credit? The Pakistani government, even when people know that USAID was involved. That wont do. If your aim is to make people in Pakistan like you it isn’t enough to do nice things – you have to be *seen* to do nice things, even if that means holding back effective delivery.

Lastly no scandals. Ward focused on creating what he called “bomb proof projects” i.e. ones that would not collapse if the workers were murdered. He told us he’d feel pretty bad if he hired US workers, got them to come all the way to Pakistan, and then they got killed. So he hired local help instead. He “indigenized the programs” so that when aid workers were killed it wasn't Americans coming home in body bags and the other workers would be more likely to stay in place.

I'm genuinely not saying Mark Ward is a racist. I am saying that he values the lives of Americans more highly than those of local workers in terms of the objectives of his mission. I should also point out he thought locals would be less likely to be killed than US citizens - which is almost certainly true.

So the plan in Pakistan, in summary, was to make the US government look as good as possible whilst allowing the people of Pakistan to take all the risks. Where there was a choice between effective, long term delivery and the visibility of USAID it was style over substance every time – as policy.

This may or may not make for good US foreign policy, from the perspective of the White House, but I remain to be convinced that this makes for effective delivery of aid in the interests of the people of Pakistan.

Musharaff's limo 'ambushed' in London

President Musharraf's limousine was forced to halt in Park Lane, London, last night, when human rights campaigner, and Green candidate for Oxford East, Peter Tatchell ran in front of his car in protest at the Pakistan dictator's "suppression of democracy and human rights."

The ambush happened outside the Hilton Hotel Park Lane, as the President's motorcade drew close to the hotel, where he was scheduled to speak after attending the World Economic Forum in Davos.

"To avert police attention, I stood inconspicuously at a bus stop reading a newspaper, waiting for Musharraf's motorcade to arrive," recalled Mr Tatchell. "When the police motorcycle escorts drew level, I ran out into Park Lane and straight in front of the President's car. It screeched to a
halt.

"I unfurled a placard protesting against Musharraf's massacre of civilians in occupied Baluchistan. The placard read:

"Stop Pakistan Massacre of Baluch people. Musharraf could clearly see the placard. He did not look pleased. His driver tried to back up and drive around me, but I ran in front of the limousine again, forcing it to halt once more.

"I could see Musharraf shouting something at his driver. Perhaps he feared that I was an assassin or a suicide bomber. The limo reversed again and tried to swerve past me. I blocked it for the third time. Musharraf and his colleagues look very agitated. Eventually, police motorcycle escorts ran over and dragged me away from the bonnet of Musharraf's vehicle."

"They pulled me across the road to the central reservation in Park Lane, where I was pinned against the railing.

"Shortly afterwards, the police let me go and I joined the main anti-Musharraf demonstration outside the Hilton Hotel, organised by lawyers protesting against the arrest of fellow lawyers and supreme court judges in Pakistan.

"Although my placard specifically condemned Musharraf's human rights abuses in Baluchistan, I support all the people of Pakistan who are struggling against dictatorship and for democracy.

"It is shameful that the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, is entertaining Musharraf at Downing Street on Monday. He is siding with a dictator against the people of Pakistan. Musharraf is guilty of crimes against humanity, including the indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas in Baluchistan, using weaponry supplied by Britain and the US.

"Pakistani human rights groups say his regime practices detention without trial, torture and extra-judicial killings. Musharraf is a criminal. He should be arrested by the UK authorities
and put on trial in The Hague," said Mr Tatchell.

Tatchell wrote condemning the Musharraf regime here.

The Australian ABC News says that Musharaff thinks "Pakistan should not be judged by Western conditions with regard to civil liberties." But there seem to be an aweful lot of people on Pakistan who, using Pakistan's own standards, find he falls far short of where they want to be - on democracy, liberties and human rights.

Bhutto fact file

The appalling assassination of Benazir Bhutto comes just two weeks before elections in Pakistan. I certainly don't know enough to voice wise words on what the implications are going to be of these events, nor to deliver a properly informed obituary - so the logical thing to do when starting from such an ignorant position is to go and find out the facts - and then share with Daily Maybe-ites my reading list. I'd welcome suggested links in the comments box to help flesh out this "fact file".

There are obituaries at the BBC and in the Guardian (also).

From these we learn that she comes from a long standing political dynasty and her brothers (Shahnawaz and Murtaza) were both murdered and her father was executed after a military coup in the seventies. In the seventies she spent five years in prison for her political activities, the majority of which was spent in solitary confinement. Her husband (by arranged marriage) spent eight years in prison although has never been convicted of any crime.

She was twice Prime Minister of Pakistan from 1988 to 1990 and from 1993 to 1996. Both terms ended with her dismissal by the President on charges of "corruption" which were later dropped. Bhutto was in self imposed exile from 1999 until this year due to concerns for her safety and liberty.

There is a Wikipedia article which adds interesting personal information like the fact she studied at Harvard and Oxford and also has a decent outline of the detail of the corruption charges laid against her and her husband. It also lists a number of books by and about Bhutto and has a reasonably thorough article on the PPP. As always we must use caution when it comes to Wikipedia when it comes to accuracy, as we must with all sources.

You can also see her life in pictures here and here you can see pictures from the rally not long before her killing.

Unsurprisingly many analysts are saying that Benazir Bhutto's assassination spells dire trouble for the people of Pakistan well beyond the spate of rioting and serious unrest that it has sparked (pics). The Guardian describes troop movements in response. In particular Bhutto has been seen by the West as a potentially stabilising force in Pakistan who is willing to take a hard line on "Islamic extremism", the Huffington Post goes so far as to suggest, quite plausibly, that Pakistan is the most pressing situation in the world today.

Bhutto's death may indeed herald a new era of military rule (BBC) and is a massive set back for the West's agenda of bringing in a friendly liberal democracy in Pakistan. It's also likely that her death may lead to the coming elections being postponed, elections the PPP would almost certainly win despite the consistent harassment of their activists by the state (more of this in an excellent piece in the Guardian by Julian Borger).

The difficulties are increased because her death leaves a void at the head of the Pakistan People's Party (Independent), the largest party in Pakistan. The PPP is a social democratic variant affiliated to the same international grouping as the Labour Party whose creed is "Islam is our faith; democracy is our politics; socialism is our economy; all power to the people." However, her death is far more significant than such an assassination would be in most political parties in this country as the PPP is very much seen as Bhutto's party - in the same way that Berlusconi and Putin formed parties to promote their personal agenda, parties that would fall to pieces without these strong personalities at the helm.

Musharraf is being held to be complicit in the assassination by many. Nawaz Sharif, another former premier and leader of a rival opposition party said "Benazir Bhutto was also my sister, and I will be with you to take the revenge for her death," he said. "Don't feel alone. I am with you. We will take the revenge on the rulers" (my emphasis) and at the hospital where she died some supporters began chanting, "Killer, Killer, Musharraf." Whether or not Musharrif is directly responsible for the attack (which seems unlikely) there is no getting round the fact that Bhutto's supporters will hold him at the very least indirectly responsible for her death.

The doctrinal Marxist Alan Woods writes that "These elections would have reflected a big shift to the left in Pakistan. This prospect was causing alarm in the ruling clique. That is what was behind today's atrocity." A direct connection that may in fact be putting the case far too strongly. But Woods goes further. Although most commentators blame Islamic forces for the actual killing he states that "The dark forces of counterrevolution in countries like Pakistan habitually dress up in the garb of Islamic fundamentalism... The so-called Islamic fundamentalists and jihadis are only the puppets and hired assassins of reactionary forces that ere entrenched in the Pakistani ruling class and the state apparatus, lavishly funded by the Pakistan Intelligence Services (ISI), drug barons with connections with the Taliban, and the Saudi regime, always anxious to support and finance any counterrevolutionary activity in the world."

I'm certainly not in a position to gain say him, although orchestrating suicide bombings seems a little far fetched for state intelligence forces and I've never been one to warm to this kind of theory where the tendrils of the ruling class control every foul deed on the planet. It also would be a direct contradiction to many well informed analysts who saw Bhutto as more of a saviour to Musharrif's regime than threat to it.

However, there may well be a kernel of truth if we dig through the orthodoxy that Musharrif had no love for his more popular rival who threatened his dominant role in Pakistan. It is pretty much undisputed that Musharrif was going out of his way to make life difficult for his political rival, including, according to Bhutto's supporters, jeopardising security.

However whatever faults Woods may or may not have he does end on a incisive point that "There is nothing easier than to take the life of a man or a woman. We humans are frail creatures and easily killed. But you cannot murder an idea whose time has come!"

As you'd expect the bloggers have plenty to say on this. So far the best I've found have been Dave and Phil although I'm sure they'll be more to come.

Dave suggests that in the short term Musharrif's regime can survive but that the long term viability of the state itself is in question. He goes into some detail on the potential fissures that exist within Pakistan society.

Phil wants us to be clear that the support Bhutto has received from the US and UK governments has "nothing to do with her democratic or secular credentials" but rather her ability to provide a more democratic veneer to the current regime. This being the case her assassination may appear more fundamental than some suggest. This view, if correct, would be backed up by the piece by Dilip Hiro in CiF.

Lenin's Tomb also has an interesting piece which remarks that "at the moment, the one stable state in the Middle East is Iran," and uses these events to call for a détente with Iran.

Additional links and stories

• Sky News has some interesting reactions, including from Salma Yaqoob.
• Socialist Worker has an online article which has the rather dubious line "Her death is certain to further destabilise a country that is already being torn apart by the forces unleashed by George Bush's "war on terror"." However, other than that it's interesting and puts the assassination in the context of Pakistan's foundation.
• The Washington Post focuses on what really matters to it, the West, "elections could have a calming effect on Washington, on London, and on other international capitals."
• The Hindustan Times describes the events as Pakistan's darkest hour. "Far from turning Pakistan away from the politics of Islamist extremism, General Musharraf's policies of "enlightened moderation", a case of one step forward two steps back, have firmly entrenched the jihadis in the country's politics."
• The same publicaton mulls over the implications for US foreign policy. "US policy is going to go down the drain, just as their policy of betting on Bhutto giving Musharraf some legitimacy has fallen apart."
• The New York Times describes effects of Bhutto's tactics since returning to Pakistan in this way; "The political dance she has deftly performed since her return — one moment standing up to President Musharraf, the next seeming to accommodate him — stirred hope and distrust among Pakistanis."
• There is an interesting time line of Pakistan's 2007 here.
  
• There is a list of some of the reactions by Pakistani bloggers here.
• Breaking news here. Nawaz Sharif has announced his party will be boycotting the elections and has called on Musharrif to stand down immediately. "The holding of fair and free elections is not possible in the presence of Pervez Musharraf. After the killing of Benazir Bhutto, I announce that the Pakistan Muslim League-N will boycott the elections,"

More links

• Jon Rogers attempts to give the news some international context.
• Shiraz Socialist highlights a piece by Tariq Ali.
• Trevor talks about the socialist origins of the PPP
• I've just read a statement from George Galloway which, as one would expect, wastes no time in jumping to conclusions "The professionalism of the assassination, the way in which the killer managed to get within pistol range of the opposition leader, the decoy 'suicide bomb' story... all point to the intelligence apparatus of the dictatorship being involved in the crime."
• Jihad Watch focuses on Islam's role in politics in Pakistan.
• The Huffington Post has collated their posts on the assassination in one page, although it has to be said some of the posts are more about US politics than the assassination itself.
• Oliver Kamm berates the West for "indulgence of military rule in Pakistan under President Musharraf"
• Michael Fathers writes a frank but friendly obituary in the Independent.
• Whilst the same papers lead article on the story talks of hopes long past that "Mr Musharraf and Ms Bhutto might be able to bury their differences for the sake of a stable Pakistan and a rapid transition to democracy."
• Paul Cruikshank outlines Bhutto's long hostile relationship with al-Qaida.
• Al Jazeera has an interesting and detailed piece on its website. "For much of Pakistan's democratic history, politics has been dominated by the Bhutto factor: Benazir successfully carried on the legacy of her father where only two kinds of forces were arraigned in a political contest - those who loved Bhutto or the ones who loathed him."
• They also have an obituary that looks well worth a read.
  

Friday's updates

• The Hindu discusses Pakistan's uncertain future.
• Arif Rafiq calls for action. "President Pervez Musharraf must take immediate steps - most importantly, the formation of a national unity government - to prevent Pakistan from tearing apart at the seams." I suspect others may think this is an unlikely and possibly unwelcome development.
• Al Jazeera on the violent protests and deaths in the wake of the assassination.
• The Independent describes Bhutto's funeral where "Many mourners chanted slogans against Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf and the United States, which has long backed the former army general in the hope he can maintain stability in the nuclear-armed country racked by Islamist violence."
• In a rather creepy piece the BBC writes that the assassination has effected global markets.
• Simon Tisdall says that "The US, whose attempts to manipulate Pakistan's politics have failed so miserably, now finds itself in a quandary. Washington has spent the year gently pulling the rug from under the president. Now it is scrambling to advise and influence him."
• Joe Lauria asks "who benefits from Bhutto's killing?" His answer is a little disturbing frankly. "The answer in this case is Musharraf and the extremists. Bhutto was the enemy of both. Could they have worked together to eliminate her?" The answer is almost certainly no - the "extremists" have also tried to murder Musharraf and he has certainly had plenty of them killed - so they are unlikely bed fellows.
• Blogger Disillusioned Kid writes that "This is more complicated than the simplistic conflict between secularists and fundamentalists envisaged by many liberals, encompassing a wide range of interpretations, traditions and movements, but will shape in very important ways the world we live in over the coming years and decades."
• Hurroon Siddique muses on whether Bhutto's children may continue the political dynasty as she continued her father's work.
• Al Jazeera also has an interesting piece on what next for Pakistan?
• Rupa Huq on the role of women in Asian politics.
• Saturday's Independent has a series of articles. Robert Fisk on who the people blame, one on who government blames, on opposition leader Nawaz Sharif, and one on the violence.
• The excellent Juan Cole estimates the toll of the violence.
  

Saturday's selected updates

• Angry protests continue in Pakistan, fighters deny assassination link Al Jazeera
• Who killed Bhutto? on Cif
• A year of turmoil by A complex system of pipes
• Cause of death disputed BBC
• Unprecedented mass reaction by Dave Riley
• Bhutto, the hope for democracy at the Huff Post
• Intel Daily says that the situation risks US intervention, bizarrely
  
• David Ignatius says blaming Musharrif is a mistake
• The letters page of the Independent
• Norfolk Blogger talks about the Diana-isation of Bhutto

Sunday's selected updates

Today will be the last day I update this post. New develpments will now go into new posts. By the way, thanks to everyone who linked to this "fact file", much appreciated.

• From the BBC we have Pakistan 'likely' to delay vote, death draws rivals together and Bhutto party discusses successor
  
• Permanent Revolution have an article on Bhutto's life and its aftermath
• Joan Smith argues that Bhutto was murdered for being visible and modern
• The Independent takes a look at opposition leader Nawar Sharif
• The Observer looks at the contrasting claims over how Bhutto died.
• Lebanon's Daily Star looks at what Musharrif would have to do to keep a lid on the situation
  
• There is more on the context of the war on terror from Mohammad Omar Sharifi
• Mick Hall is unsympathetic to Bhutto's death.
• The New York Times looks at Al Qaeda in Pakistan and moves for unity from former opponents
  
• Whilst the Washington Post focuses on the current rioting and civil disturbance
• Open Democracy looks at the prospects for Paskistan and has a piece on the politics of assassination
• Al Jazeera reports that Bhutto's son, Bilawal, is to become the new head of the PPP.
  

Obama gets tough

If Barack Obama could see my face he would be looking into the eyes of an unimpressed person. Very unimpressed. Ms Clinton taunted him at their YouTube debate saying he wasn't tough enough (because he said he was willing to talk to people like Chavez and Castro) but he mis-heard and thought she said he wasn't deranged enough and so he's threaten to send troops into Pakistan whilst simultaneously poking them with a sticky stick. Gee, thanks so much "anti-war candidate".

Here's a snap shot of what he said "Let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again...If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President (Pervez) Musharraf won't act, we will... Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan."

As Philip Giraldi says at the Huffington Post "Democrats are invariably obsessed with demonstrating how tough they can be... Obama's new, tougher stance to teach the treacherous Pakis a lesson is already being used by the Pakistani media to flail Musharraf for his ties to the United States. Obama might be surprised to learn that no one particularly wants to be invaded by the world's sole remaining superpower, particularly as Iraq has proven to be such a success. Obama also seems unaware that his posturing for political gain could have real foreign policy consequences."

And as Peter Preston says "Can the Pakistan army occupy and subdue the vast tribal territories along the Afghan border? It has never managed to in 60 years. The army is basically Punjabi: the frontier land is alien. The best Islamabad has contrived in peaceful times is a kind of ad hoc devolution which lets the tribes govern themselves. But these aren't peaceful times. Guerrilla cum civil war is one more potential swirl in the growing chaos."

Obama is asking of the Pakistan government something the US government has not been able to achieve in any of the areas it has dominance over, and threatens military action if they do not comply. Charming. He obviously likes seeing marines come home in body bags.

Whilst the Hindustan Times and the Daily India seem curious rather than angry, the reaction in Pakistan is a little more, well, pensive at the prospect of US marines yomping over their northern border.

Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri demonstrated a mastery of understatement by saying “As the election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense.”

“Such statements are being made out of sheer ignorance,” Pakistan's Minister of State for Information Tariq Azeem said a little more robustly. “This seems to be a reaction to their own failure in Afghanistan to control the US casualties and instead of addressing the situation there, they are finding scapegoats and damaging their own cause.”

It's been left to George W. Bush to ring up Musharraf to reassure them that the US "respects Pakistani sovereignty". God, he's such a soft touch that bloke. He hasn't launched a war for ages and now he's trying to stop other people getting stuck in! Damn hippy.

Of course, this has been a week for US Presidential candidates to threaten unilateral military action in other people's countries. Republican hopeful Tom Tancredo made the interesting suggestion of using nuclear weapons against Mecca and Medina if "the terrorists" were to attack America. Nope, can't see any flaws in that plan. Foolproof.

US foreign policy, even when it's trying to be progressive, just can't get away from the logic of... well... imperialism. We can use that word these days can't we? It's not de rigeur is it? The fact these plans are being mooted should be no surprise from a governing class that seems to think to way to end all conflicts in the Middle East is by flooding the region with weapons. Remind me, how do you spell "yeee haaa"?