Repeating History? – by Anas Muhammad
Posted By : Jarri Mirza
It was surprising to see the media and other segments of society’s enthusiasm over the decision of Supreme Court on the NRO, declaring it null and void. This kind of decision was expected but surprisingly the reason for people’s enthusiasm wasn’t that allegedly corrupt people will face the court of law, rather it was that President Zardari and Rehman Malik along with Hussain Haqqani will again face cases that were dismissed under the National Reconciliation Ordinance.
Out of the list of 8,000 beneficiaries only 34 were the politicians and out of them the main target was the President and the Co-Chairman of Pakistan Peoples Party Mr. Asif Ali Zardari. The debate on the majority of beneficiaries of NRO, the bureaucrats, didn’t even take place on the media. Instead the discussion directly started with the politicians and didn’t take too long to shift to the topic of Presidential immunity and resignation of President on ethical basis. Also being asked is the question of whether Mr. Zardari could have contested an election if those cases existed against him, or if there was a conviction against him in the past could he have become the President. They debate these issues and make assumptions on president and his election’s legitimacy while forgetting that according to the article 41(6) of the Constitution of Pakistan “The validity of the election of the President shall not be called in question by or before any court or other authority.” Creating a false scene of accomplishment, which is half hearted in its roots, and extremely politically biased against one person. Surprisingly to the historians and the followers of Pakistani politics, this is nothing new.
So the question remains that if corruption is the real issue, why target one personality and anyone close to him. The answer is not that simple, in fact there isn’t one answer to this question. It ranges from the fact that Pakistan Peoples Party’s head and people closer to him or liberal politicians of Pakistan that are anti-establishment and anti-taliban and extremism are always targeted by the rightist / pro-establishment media/press and the politicians along with the establishment itself.
Whether it be the Kerry Lugar bill or the 17th amendment, the Army and the establishment seems to have their reservations. In both instances the power of civilian control over military seemed to have upset the establishment. Which is why the targets are no one but the biggest advocates of civilian authority over military, as in Mr. Asif Ali Zardari, Rehman Malik, and Hussain Haqqani. If these “hawks” are replaced by someone who has a weaker stance on civil and parliament’s independence and control over military matters, it will be perfectly acceptable to the generals of Pakistan army.
If that happens the debate will end, the country will not be facing any “crisis” or turmoils, the democracy, the government, and most importantly Pakistan Peoples Party will be acceptable to everyone. This is how it has been laid out historically and this is how it is now. All we can do is wait and see if the people of Pakistan and their vote is victorious or the establishment gets to crush the democracy and the will of people yet one more time.
Berman says he consulted Pak military on aid bill Saturday, October 10, 2009
http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=24938
WASHINGTON: Pakistani critics are manufacturing a crisis over $7.5 billion in US aid for political reasons, one of the US authors of the assistance plan said on Thursday.
The US Congress last week approved the plan authorizing a tripling of developmental aid over five years. But fierce controversy in Pakistan about conditions in the bill could make it harder for US lawmakers to appropriate the money going forward, a necessary step before the aid goes to Islamabad. “This is a created crisis, by people who either haven’t read the bill or don’t want to describe it accurately, and whose goal is either to destabilize the (Pakistani) government, or challenge some of the Pakistani military’s priorities,” Democratic Representative Howard Berman, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told Reuters.
Berman is the House sponsor of the legislation that was drafted with Senate sponsors Democrat John Kerry and Republican Richard Lugar. It has no strings attached on development aid, but stipulates conditions for security aid, saying Pakistan must show commitment on fighting terrorism and dismantling nuclear networks. It also says the security forces of Pakistan should not subvert the political system. Pakistan’s powerful military, which has ruled the country for more than half its 62-year history, has voiced serious concern about the legislation, and opposition politicians said it undermined national sovereignty.
But Berman said that on security matters the bill outlined a joint strategy with Pakistan. He said members of Pakistan’s military had been familiar with provisions of the measure as it worked its way through the US House and Senate. “I’ve been in touch with them (the military) through this whole process,” Berman told Reuters. “I’ve spoken with (Pakistani army chief) General (Ashfaq) Kayani, other people. It’s a common strategy,” he said.
This joint strategy is “that we want to assist their efforts to take on the counterinsurgency, to disband terrorist groups within Pakistan, to protect their nuclear facilities from proliferation,” Berman said.
The controversy comes as the United States is pressing Pakistan’s army to expand its operations against Pakistani Taliban fighters to include Afghan Taliban and al-Qaeda militants in lawless border enclaves. Berman said that since April, both the government of Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and the military “have shown a strong willingness to take on at least key elements of the insurgency, and with some success.” Kerry’s office issued a statement debunking what he said were “myths” circulating about the bill, denying for example that it had any language about unmanned drone aircraft Washington has used to attack militant targets in Pakistan. Kerry is travelling to the region next week, an aide said.
US President Barack Obama had urged passage of the aid measure to promote stability in a nuclear-armed country that is key to the US war in Afghanistan. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said on Thursday that the president intended to sign it into law, because it was “important assistance for Pakistan.” State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said assistance bills for some other countries, like Egypt and Colombia, had similar kinds of conditions. “We’re not holding Pakistan up to any kind of different standard than we would any other country where the US taxpayer is making an investment,” Kelly said. But the storm of protest in Pakistan has raised some hackles in the US Congress, with House Republican Leader John Boehner asking whether the administration had done its homework before promoting the bill. Democratic Representative Gary Ackerman said he had no interest in a partnership characterized by “suspicion, resentment and political manipulation.”
Asadullah Ghalib finds similarity between two cursed dates: 16 December 1971 and 16 December 2009.
my question is that can these judes give back mr.zardari the years he has spent in jail without any conviction.is there any remedy 4 the torture, grief and pain he has suffered.is this the ”DAWN” we all have longed for. this decision indeed has shaken the very foundations of our democratic system.and what about nawaz sharif confession in an interview ,published in sohail warriach book,”GHADAAR KOON”.acc.2 mr.sharif he made the cases on benazir and zardari on pressure 4m military and isi and what saifur-rehman did was wrong.why didnt our honourable judes take suo moto actin on this statement which is never denied by mr. sharif.