Taking stock of the Zardari government’s [slack] response to the floods
Flood affectees evacuating in Dera Ismail Khan. PHOTO: EXPRESS
Al-Jazeera Report 11 August 2010
Asif Ali Zardari, the president of Pakistan, returned home on Tuesday after controversial visits to France and the UK. Zardari is facing rising anger in Pakistan from victims of what some are describing as the country’s biggest catastrophe since its creation 63 years ago.
While the government response to the devastating floods has been heavily criticised, Pakistan’s army and religious groups are earning praise from the public for their efforts. Al Jazeera’s Imran Khan reports from Islamabad, the Pakistani capital.
How the Floods Help the Taliban
It showed ordinary Pakistanis that the government isn’t there for them.
Source: Newsweek, 12 August 2010
In the eyes of most Pakistanis, flood victims and the urban middle class as well, Islamabadhas fallen way short in responding to one of the biggest crises in the nation’s history. And it could snowball into a political crisis for the government, led by President Asif Ali Zardari.
“To put it mildly, the government has not shown the energy and vigor that was called for in these serious circumstances,” says Ayaz Amir. Not only is Islamabad being seen largely as a no-show during the disaster, but Zardari went a step too far by leaving the country as the flooding began on a previously scheduled trip to France and the U.K.—even reportedly against the advice of senior leaders in his party. Many saw his flight to Europe, and his foolish side trip to visit his 16th-century chateau in Normandy, as the action of a detached and uncaring leader.
“He has really proved he is inept, out of his depth, and uncomprehending,” says Amir. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece this week, Zardari—defending his foreign junket—says he chose “substance over symbolism” in order to “mobilize foreign assistance” for flood victims. Few Pakistanis seem to believe that.
And so once again the lack of a strong government response to a national disaster has allowed Islamist groups to fill the vacuum. They are casting themselves as the most caring parties for the victims. As in the 2005 earthquake response, Islamist and jihadi groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba (which is believed to have been behind the November 2008 massacre in Mumbai), along with its several charity fronts, are the most visible providers of aid that is delivered with a militant message.
Even the Pakistani Taliban got into the act by exhorting the government not to accept Western assistance. “We urge the government not to take Western aid,” a Taliban spokesman told Reuters. He also accused government officials of accepting the foreign aid money not to help flood victims but to “make their bank accounts bigger.”
As libelous as that accusation is, it could resonate with desperate people who are living on the edge without adequate shelter, food, and water, and with little hope for the future—and arguably draw them closer to the militants. Ayaz Amir, however, dismisses the appeal of the militants. He says they may make some political gains in remote areas, but that the most important political game will be played out in the living rooms of urban Pakistanis. “Not long ago people were resigned to having to endure this thing [the Zardari government] until the next election [in three years],” says Amir. “That is now gone … It has been replaced by a feeling that we can’t go on like this.” In that sense, he adds, “the government has been dangerously undermined.”
Zardari just made his first trip to visit the flood victims today (in the southern province of Sindh, where Islamists are not as acute a threat to his credibility). If the government cannot soon establish strong leadership and vision in leading Pakistan out of this crisis—and if it continues steadily to lose moral authority—the militants can’t help but make political gains. That would deal a setback to what already seems to be a flagging campaign against extremism.
To be fair, here is another side of the story:
Criticism of Zardari in Pakistan hides a political game
By M Ilyas Khan
BBC News, Islamabad
Pakistan’s media repeated the point the military were helping in the crisis while the government was not
The Pakistani media’s criticism of President Asif Ali Zardari over his visit to the United Kingdom has been unprecedented.
Newspapers and television news have criticised him for being absent when Pakistan was struck by the worst floods in living memory.
While the president has been out of the country, more than 1,500 people have been killed and scores of villages have been swept away.
Over four million people have been displaced. They now face hunger and disease.
In the initial days of the disaster the government failed to provide any response, and now the politicians are being heavily criticised for it.
In contrast, the media repeatedly drove home the point that, while the army’s response was also inadequate given the scale of the disaster, at least the soldiers were out there.
The absent president has been criticised by the international media for his apparent indifference. But in Pakistan, the media’s scorn has a deeper meaning and motive.
It hints at tensions between the country’s civilian democracy and the powerful military establishment.
Personal motives
“President Zardari would have done nothing had he remained at home, but at least he could have spared the nation’s feelings,” popular columnist Ayaz Amir wrote on Friday.
Mr Zardari was in the UK partly to attend the launch of his son’s political career
In an editorial comment on Saturday, Pakistan’s Dawn newspaper said Mr Zardari had travelled to England “as a man possessed, who cares nothing for the torrents at home”.
So why did he embark on the tour in the first place?
There are two explanations.
Firstly, he had personal motives.
He wanted to shine in the limelight, enjoy European summer and launch the political career of his son, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari.
Secondly, he embarked on the trip to show his disregard for Pakistan’s military establishment.
Campaign
Mr Zardari’s supporters believe that cancelling the trip would not have helped him.
“He would have been remembered and criticised even if there were no floods in the country,” said Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani on Thursday.
And indeed, the current anti-Zardari campaign in the media started before the floods hit the headlines.
The criticism began after British Prime Minister David Cameron made remarks in India on 28 July where he accused some in Pakistan of “looking both ways”, exporting terror to neighbouring countries.
On 31 July, Pakistan’s Geo TV reported that the chief of the ISI intelligence service, Lt Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha, had cancelled a scheduled trip to the UK because of Mr Cameron’s remarks, but Mr Zardari was continuing with his planned trip.
Pakistan’s ubiquitous TV news presenters began questioning President Zardari’s patriotism and personal integrity.
The print media was not far behind.
While President Zardari’s European tour had been “reduced to a pleasure trip” after Mr Cameron’s remarks, “the army reacted in a timely and dignified manner” by cancelling the ISI chief’s UK visit, an editorial comment in the Pakistan Observer newspaper said.
The News newspaper called Mr Zardari’s visit a “pursuit of his own dynastic aggrandizement”.
The floods only intensified this initial criticism.
Unnamed sources
Two significant developments took place on Thursday.
Bilawal Bhutto Zardari denied he was planning to address a rally
Firstly, Bilawal Bhutto denied he was planning to address the Pakistan Peoples’ Party rally in Birmingham, one of the main reasons for Mr Zardari’s trip.
Secondly, Prime Minister Gilani informed journalists that the ISI chief had not, in fact, scheduled a visit to the UK in the first place.
Many quarters insist Bilawal Bhutto’s “cancellation” of an appearance at the Birmingham show may be the result of a rethink on the part of Mr Zardari’s advisers to minimise political damage.
But what about the confusion over the story about the ISI chief’s visit to the UK?
The initial report on Geo TV had come from mysterious, unnamed sources.
And even more mysteriously, the army’s media wing – which normally keeps a hawkish eye on the news, correcting reports at the first possible stage – had not stepped in to clarify the report.
Friendly journalists
The ties between the military and the media are strong.
Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote
If the media have a piece of information which they can use to puncture the balloon of unfriendly propaganda, they use it only when they are sure it will have maximum impact”
Senior Pakistani lawmaker
The military often use the media to protect its hold on the giant corporate empire which it has built.
In the 1980s the military did this through open censorship. Since the 1990s it has evolved subtler ways.
It controls almost all access to big stories, and has therefore been able to raise a corps of “friendly” journalists who now control most key jobs in Pakistani media due to their “contacts”.
President Zardari’s supporters suggest the media could have made up the story of the ISI cancelling its trip to the UK in order to spark an anti-Zardari campaign, which intensified as the scale of the flood damage became clear.
‘Maximum impact’
The government, which is already under attack from all quarters – the military, the judiciary and the political groups that support Islamic militants – finds itself on a difficult wicket while dealing with the media, says a senior member of the government, who requested anonymity.
“If the government has a piece of information which they can use to puncture the balloon of unfriendly propaganda, they use it only when they are sure it will have maximum impact,” he said.
Privately, politicians more or less subscribe to views expressed by Mr Cameron and say military officers are the ones “looking both ways” on the Taliban.
These politicians desperately need a normalisation of relations with India and Afghanistan because that is the only way they can create business and employment opportunities for their voters and stay popular.
But the military is afraid this will erode its huge business empire which provides thousands of corporate sector jobs to retiring officers every year.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10901583
The president’s recent visit to the UK and France has come under marked criticism. Most of the disapproval was based on sentiments. Firstly, media commentators made David Cameron’s derogatory remarks a major reason to call off the trip. Secondly, the flood crisis was another central point. President is the symbol of federation and no one can be more patriotic to this country than president but unfortunately our media continuously portrayed President’s office appallingly?The president’s office should not be portrayed as anesthetized towards state and citizen. There is a big question that either the visit of president was for his personal interests or it was for the national interests?. If the visit aimed on national interests and President discusses matters regarding country, why so big fuss on it?. Stereotypical analysis of media reformulates the opinion of the masses that can be ultimately harmful for the democratic process, therefore media must be positive and should be responsible regarding its role.
On a national level, President Zardari is constantly criticized through the various forms of media. He has been maligned to the extent that international publications have started taking pleasure in throwing dirt on him. What we need to realise is, that on a national level, we may be talking about Asif Ali Zardari but to the international audience, he is the President of Pakistan, the head of state. We must keep in mind to highlight national interest over growing frustration. The emotional instability that exists clearly overshadows the rational thinking required for the foundations to grow. Institutions form the government structure, not individuals. Asif Zardari and Yousaf Gilani, and COAS are temporary, but the structure they represent will last. We must respect the institution and heads of institutions for it is the respect of Pakistan .