US Hypocrisy, and Worse, on Pakistan Democracy (2 articles)

Forwarded message

US Hypocrisy, and Worse, on Pakistan Democracy (2 articles)

o US Hypocrisy, and Worse, on Pakistan Democracy

by Ira Chernus (CommonDreams - Nov. 06, 2007)

o Ousted Chief Justice in Pakistan Urges Defiance

(New York Times - Nov. 06, 2007)

US Hypocrisy, and Worse, on Pakistan Democracy

By Ira Chernus

CommonDreams

Tuesday, November 6, 2007

Sometimes you get the real news only by reading between the

headlines. Consider the New York Times front page, November

5. Top story: 'Pakistan Rounds Up Musharraf's Political

Foes.' Below it: 'U.S. Is Likely To Continue Aid to

Pakistan.'

The headline that told the most important news jumped out

from between those two printed headlines. Although it

remained unwritten, you could see it in bold letters: 'Bush

Administration Supports Dictator, Betrays Commitment to

Democracy.' In case you missed the point, between the two

headlines the Times put a haunting photo of two Musharraf

foes caged behind bars.

Remember the president's stirring inaugural address of

2005: 'It is the policy of the United States to seek and

support the growth of democratic movements and institutions

in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of

ending tyranny in our world... All who live in tyranny and

hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore

your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand

for your liberty, we will stand with you.'

Nice words. But go tell it to the Pakistanis, whose

democracy movement will now be suppressed with weapons sent

and paid for by us, the American taxpayers. While you're at

it, go tell it to the Egyptians, or the Uzbeks, or the

Palestinians, or the Nigerians, or the Saudis, or the

inhabitants of all the other countries where the

administration has betrayed its promise to promote

democracy.

To be fair, we were warned. The day after inauguration day,

2005, administration officials called journalists in to

assure them that Bush's words should not be taken

literally. There would be no rush to support democracy when

a 'realistic' need to protect U.S. interests was at stake.

The president was talking about a long-range goal, they

said, not an actual policy we should expect him to follow.

Now the White House doesn't have to call in the press. They

got the message. So the mainstream media don't ask the

president or his aides to justify a policy diametrically

opposed to the one he promised less than three years ago.

Journalists and pundits take it as a given that we have no

choice. We 'must' support Musharraf because he is a

'necessary (or loyal, or indispensable, or whatever

adjective you like) ally in the war on terrorism.'

These journalists and pundits are not all Republicans. The

message is bipartisan. Democratic candidates Clinton,

Obama, and Edwards all denounce the Bush administration

(quite rightly) for handling Pakistan ineptly. But all have

named Pakistan as a key U.S. ally in the war against

terrorism. None are calling for a cut-off of U.S. military

aid.

In this regard the Democratic candidates are following

their party's tradition. Franklin D. Roosevelt justified a

U.S. alliance with Stalin by citing a favorite saying: 'You

can cross a bridge with the devil-until you reach the other

side.' When the Democrats turned Stalin into the enemy,

they followed FDR's dictum, except that they made right-

wing rather than communist totalitarians the devils they

would walk with hand in hand. Republicans merely followed

the path the Democrats had laid out.

Now 'terrorists' have replaced 'communists.' But the

principle remains the same. Democracy is the American

ideal. Yet when America's enemies threaten, democracy goes

onto the back burner. Sorry, all you judges, lawyers,

journalists, and other middle-class professionals who are

being bloodied by Musharraf's thug police. You'll just have

to wait. America's 'national security' comes first - yes,

'national security,' that favorite catch-all codeword for

the interests of the American empire. And if you are being

tortured - well, the pain probably doesn't reach the

threshold of organ failure or impending death, so legally

speaking the U.S. does not call it torture.

Before we denounce the obvious hypocrisy, though, let's get

some historical context. Why does the praise of democracy

spring so readily and constantly to our leaders' lips? Why

did Jefferson and Madison praise it even more eloquently?

Historically, democracy was born as the Siamese twin of

capitalism. The idea of democracy allowed the newly

emerging capitalist bourgeoisie to seize power from the

kings and landed aristocracy.

The ascendant bourgeoisie soon discovered that extending

basic democratic rights to the masses made a lot of sense.

Democracy gave those masses a stake in the stability of the

state and its capitalist economy. People who can vote,

speak freely, and have basic rights guaranteed are far less

likely to revolt. And they are more likely to work hard

within the prevailing system. As long as the moneyed

interests still held most of the levers of power, what harm

could democracy do? In a simple cost-benefit analysis,

representative republican democracy was clearly the

political system that worked best for capitalism.

It still is. So the U.S. political elite, the guardians of

the global corporate capitalist system, can be quite

sincere when they promise their fidelity to the ideal of

democracy. Eventually they probably would like to see

democracy prevail everywhere - as long as it is American-

style democracy, where the victor in every election is the

best candidate money can buy.

Now, in places that harbor no real threat to the reign of

corporate capitalism, democracy is a useful tool to advance

its global march. So the elite seriously promote it. And

they use the word democracy as a convenient shorthand for

whatever government they want to support, for any reason.

That's why Republicans and Democrats alike tell us that

Musharraf really intends to move Pakistan toward democracy,

even if there is now a slight delay in the proceedings.

But wherever there is a significant threat to the forces of

globalization, they tell us democracy is a luxury that we

just can't afford right now. I mean, let's be 'realistic.'

The greatest outrage here is not the hypocrisy of the

administration, though hypocrisy aplenty there is. The

greatest outrage is the way the bipartisan elite treat

democracy as merely a useful weapon in the long-term battle

to perpetuate the pax Americana. When democracy works to

that end, fine. When it doesn't, we'll turn to dictatorship

and send more guns to batter democracy down. Democracy and

dictatorship become just two different kinds of weapons in

the battle to suppress the genuine will and needs of the

people.

A commitment to democracy binds the elite to nothing in

particular. The freedom they seem to prize above all is the

freedom to promote virtually any policy in the name of

democracy. Whenever the banner of democracy is unfurled,

only one thing is for certain. There will always be a

dangerous 'enemy' in sight, a threat to our 'national

security.' Then the 'realistic' concern for our national

interest takes precedence, and democracy will just have to

wait.

[ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the

University of Colorado at Boulder and author of Monsters To

Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin.]

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/06/5039/

Ousted Chief Justice in Pakistan Urges Defiance

By David Rohde and Jane Perlez

The New York Times

Tuesday, November 6, 2007

Islamabad, Pakistan - In a telephone address to lawyers in

Pakistan's capital, the ousted chief justice of the Supreme

Court urged them today to continue to defy the state of

emergency imposed by the president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

"The lawyers should convey my message to the people to rise

up and restore the Constitution," the chief justice,

Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, told dozens of lawyers on

speakerphone at a meeting of the Islamabad Bar Association

before his cellphone line was cut. "I am under arrest now,

but soon I will also join you in your struggle."

Today, the second day of protests, the police arrested 50

lawyers in the eastern city of Lahore and clashes broke out

between hundreds of lawyers and Pakistani police officers

in Multan, about 200 miles to the southwest. On Monday, in

Lahore and other cities, thousands of lawyers protested,

with many beaten by baton-wielding police officers and then

thrown into police wagons. By the end of that day, about

2,000 people had been rounded up by the authorities, among

them 500 to 700 lawyers, according to lawyers and political

officials.

It was unclear how Chief Justice Chaudhry, who was fired on

Saturday and is under house arrest, was able to gain access

to a cellphone. He and other lawyers said they hoped to re-

create the protest campaign they carried out this spring

when the lawyers mounted big rallies in major cities after

General Musharraf had removed Chief Justice Chaudhry from

the Supreme Court bench. General Musharraf's popularity

plummeted during the protests, and Mr. Chaudhry was

reinstated after four months, invigorating the Supreme

Court and the general's opponents.

On Saturday, citing a need to limit terrorist attacks and

"preserve the democratic transition," General Musharraf

suspended the Constitution, dissolved the Supreme Court and

the four provincial High Courts, and silenced privately

owned television news channels. Many of the Supreme Court

judges are, like Mr. Chaudhry, under house arrest.

But the general stopped short of taking some steps

characteristic of martial law, like shutting down

Parliament, analysts noted.

How long the lawyers can keep up their revolt now without

the support of opposition political parties, which so far

have been lying low, remains in question. But the leader of

the biggest opposition political party, Benazir Bhutto, has

pledged to lead a major protest rally on Friday in

Rawalpindi, the garrison city adjacent to Islamabad.

President Bush and other Western officials urged General

Musharraf on Monday to immediately end emergency rule and

prepare for elections as planned in January.

Aides to General Musharraf gave conflicting signals about

the election timetable. On Monday, some said the voting

would proceed on schedule, but today, others said there

would be delays.

"It will take some time," said Sheikh Rashid Ahmad, a

cabinet member who is close to General Musharraf, The

Associated Press reported.

Mr. Ahmad said General Musharraf wanted to hold the

election in January, but "some elements want them to be

delayed for a year."

Anne W. Patterson, the American ambassador to Pakistan,

visited the country's election commission today and urged

the election commissioner to announce elections for Jan.

15, as had been planned. In the first practical sign of

displeasure at General Musharraf's move, the United States

said Monday that it had suspended annual defense talks with

Pakistan.

Eric S. Edelman, an under secretary of defense, was to lead

a delegation to the talks beginning on Tuesday. But the

meetings will be delayed until conditions are "more

conducive to achieving the important objectives of all

those who value democracy and a constitutional role," said

Elizabeth Colton, a spokeswoman at the American Embassy.

Ms. Bhutto flew from her home city of Karachi to Islamabad

this evening, landing about 6 p.m. On Wednesday, she is to

meet with other civilian political leaders but she said she

will not meet or negotiate with General Musharraf.

The Musharraf government has tried to reconstitute the top

courts by swearing in new judges loyal to the government.

Only five judges have taken the oath for the 17-seat

Supreme Court, and there are many gaps in the other High

Courts.

In Multan today, the riot police prevented 1,000 lawyers

from leaving a court building to carry out a street rally,

according to Pakistani journalists. The lawyers and the

police then hurled stones at each other.

In a separate clash, police officers stormed Multan's High

Court and arrested at least six lawyers.

In Islamabad several dozen lawyers protested inside the

city's court complex after listening to Mr. Chaudhry's

telephone call. They made no attempt to break through

dozens of police who had gathered to prevent them from

carrying out street protests. After shouting anti-Musharraf

chants for 30 minutes, the demonstration ended peacefully.

In his call to lawyers, Chief Justice Chaudhry said, "Go to

every corner of Pakistan and give the message that this is

the time to sacrifice," The Associated Press reported.

"Don't be afraid. God will help us, and the day will come

when you'll see the Constitution supreme and no

dictatorship for a long time," he said.

Feisal Naqvi, a Lahore lawyer, and other lawyers said they

believed that the battle against the government could not

be won on the streets. Rather, they said, the fight should

focus on undermining the newly constituted courts from

inside the courthouses.

One goal of the lawyers, Mr. Naqvi said, was to paralyze

the new courts. "The fundamental point is not to allow the

Supreme Court and the High Courts to operate," he said. A

monitoring system was being considered under which lawyers

would patrol courts and urge their colleagues not to appear

before the new judges. "There should be no acceptance of

the new judges," he said.

Potential problems for General Musharraf emerged on another

front as well. On Monday, the Karachi Stock Exchange, the

country's largest stock market, declined by 4.6 percent -

its heaviest single-day loss, according to Pakistani news

reports. And Standard & Poor's, the credit rating agency,

revised its credit ratings outlook for Pakistan from stable

to negative.

The ratings agency blamed political upheaval caused by the

government's declaration of emergency "and its potential

impact on economic growth, fiscal performance, and external

vulnerability."

In random street interviews, average Pakistanis expressed

sweeping opposition to General Musharraf's emergency

declaration. The general's popularity, already low, appears

to have declined even further.

Some Pakistanis complained that business had dropped off

since the emergency declaration this weekend. Others called

the declaration an obvious attempt by General Musharraf to

maintain his personal power and flatly dismissed his claim

that the move was an effort to fight terrorism. All called

for an end to military rule and a return to democracy.

"There are weak points in the political parties," said

Yasir Mehmood, a 31-year-old cellphone store owner,

referring to corruption. "But one cannot deny that

political parties and democracy are better than martial

law."

One policemen, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said he

and many other officers believed General Musharraf was "not

acting according to the law." But he said officers would

not dare defy orders.

"It would be good if he leaves with dignity," the officer

said. "Nobody respects him anymore."

Salman Masood contributed reporting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/world/asia/07pakistan.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

End of forwarded message

Jai Maharaj

http://tinyurl.com/24fq83

http://www.mantra.com/jai

http://www.mantra.com/jyotish

Om Shanti

Hindu Holocaust Museum

http://www.mantra.com/holocaust

Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy

http://www.hindu.org

http://www.hindunet.org

The truth about Islam and Muslims

http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate

o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational

purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not

have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the

poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for

fair use of copyrighted works.

o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,

considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current

e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.

o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are

not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of

which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright

owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the

understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,

democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed

that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as

provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title

17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without

profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included

information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by

subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information

go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of

your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the

copyright owner.