Who is responsible for State of Emergency?
Nabeel Ahmed Sheikh

PRESIDENT Gen. Pervez Musharraf s proclamation of state of emergency by holding the constitution in abeyance and the consequent issuance of the Provisional Constitutional Order though regrettable was inevitable act. It is also saddening that the measure which somehow disturbed the continuity of the system and scuttled the democratization process for a while had to be taken just before the start of the third phase of transition envisioned by -none other than the president himself. Unfortunately the nation had to suffer a political setback when the march towards the ultimate empowerment of people through full civilian rule from a hybrid of civil-military dispensation was around the comer. After the presidential elections, the parliamentary elections preceded by the doffing of the Gen Musharraf s uniform as per his undertaking to the Supreme Court were in sight. Nonetheless, as Gen. Musharraf in his midnight address submitted to the nation that in’ view of the prevailing circumstances he was left with no other choice but to resort to some painstaking constitutional surgery.
As a matter of fact, worsening national security situation whereby the suicide attacks and blasts had become a routine matter and deepening political instability and ambivalence emanating from the judicial over-activism necessitated this unsavoury step. Since the judiciary, executive and the legislature were at loggerheads, the terrorist taking the benefit from the state of disarray of these state pillars were all out to erode the writ of the state, deteriorate the law and order situation by mounting acts of terrorism. The most dismal picture of state’ authority was seen in tribal areas especially North and South Waziristan and Swat where extremists and terrorists were running amuck, carrying sophisticated weapons, masquerading cities, towns and villages. The nation indeed witnessed the flagrant violation of the principle of the tri-chotomy of powers envisaged in the constitution in the past few months.
The tug of war between judiciary and other two state organs rather cut across the very roots, creating disgusting situation for the country. Judges were found humiliating the police and bureaucracy, dissipating their will to take decisions, hence creating a state of uncertainty in the country. Taking undue advantage of the universally recognized facts of the undisputed rule of law and independence of the judiciary, Pakistan’s judiciary had started over stretching itself by interfering in as petty routine administrative matters as road traffic, through suo motu actions. Some of the suo motu cases bore an impression of partisan judiciary with selective approach to the concept of dispensation of justice. Why was the judiciary not taking suo motu notice of incidents like blackening of the face of a prominent lawyer Ahmad Raza Kasuri and that too right within the premises of the apex court? Another noted lawyer Naeem Bokhari was badly thrashed in district courts Rawalpindi by some lawyers but no action was taken. Justice should have been for all as judiciary belongs to all but thrashing of Minster of state for information senator Tariq Azeem and beating of MQM leader Dr Farooq Satta went unnoticed by the judiciary. Contrary to this, it took seriously the roughing up of some violent journalists and lawyers on the same day and place by the police by suspending some of its top officers. As the matter of fact the roots of current political turmoil can be traced back in March this year when a judicial reference against the chief justice was filed, only to be overwhelmingly dismissed by the apex court. The president Pervaiz Musharraf, however, accepted the verdict reinstating the chief justice who unfortunately failed to reciprocate subsequently with the gesture of magnanimity and persisted with narrow minded vengeance.
The factors ostensibly responsible for the imposition of the emergency on the country may best be attributed to as judicial over activism which Gen. Musharraf terms as the judicial interference into administrative matters, the consequent worsening law and order situation and somewhat jaundiced media which not only projected terrorists and dwarfed the security operatives but also tried to destabilize the polity by blacking out government’s economic and political achievements.
Nevertheless, the underlying cause of this political upheaval is the bankruptcy of Pakistan’s political lot, be it incumbent or opposition. Never has there been one single occasion during the current crisis or for that matter for the last sixty years of Pakistan’s history that Pakistan’s political leaders have raised to the occasion. For around eight months into the present political crisis, the inability of the politicians to play an affective role to defuse the situation paved the way for fringe groups like lawyers’ bodies, NGOs etc to jump into the fray to steal the show, w, which in turn led the events to the point of emergency.
In the country like Pakistan where people who are unaware of the concept of democracy are being used by the politicians for their personal gains .this tendency is not only harmful for promotion of democracy but also for the country as well as its progress and prosperity which have direct bearing on the economic conditions of the people get choked. It is a strange phenomenon of our country that those politicians whose track record is blemished, convicted for carrying out heinous criminal and financial crimes by are get favourable coverage in media. It is more deplorable that people of Pakistan impatiently waiting to welcome them and once again prepared to become their slave. This is indeed unfortunate which depicts a grim picture of our society.
Today all the opposition parties and alliances, APDM, ARD, MMA etc stand disarrayed and discredited, unable to steer country out of dire straits by playing positive role in national politics. PPP’s life-long chairperson Benazir Bhutto apart from being the most corrupt lady politician of the world has lost her political and moral grounds in the current political scenario by employing undemocratic methods to regain power viznobhobbing with the government for the removal of her and her husband’s corruption cases and willing to compromise national interest for the sake of US pat. Her of late badly flopped attempt to show her political strength in Islamabad/Rawalpindi in the face of restriction speaks volumes about her earlier ‘three million march’ in Karachi.
Law and order related restrictions notwithstanding, the credit goes to the president who even after the proclamation of emergency tried to somewhat maintain the continuity of the system and policies by envisaging, a mixture of civil-military rule. Though the constitution has unfortunately been held in abeyance, the president has made it sure the system’s adherence to 1973 Constitution as nearer as possible. In keeping with his promise to put the nation back on right political track, he has not only reiterated his commitment to quit the military office soon after the Supreme Court verdict but also announced general elections as early as the first week of January next year. Now the president has once again put the ball in politicians’ court as’, it would be interesting to see how the politicians cope with this situation in coming days up to the election. However, to say the least, one expects them to get their acts together and realize their collective responsibility in view of current domestic and regional conditions.



Why NATO facing the backlash?
Furzana Shaheen


SEVEN years after entering into Afghanistan, NATO’s mission appears to be failing due to the paucity of troops available for combat operations in Afghanistan, the indigenous sources of Taliban-led militarism in the country and the growing Afghan perceptions about NATO as an “occupation force” with an expansionist regional agenda. Ever since NATO assumed the charge of combat operations against Afghanistan, the Taliban attacks against NATO troops mostly in the shape of suicide and roadside bombings have intensified, causing much more physical destruction to NATO forces, as compared to pre NATO years. NATO’s mission in Afghanistan never kicked off with true enthusiasm. The task statement laid out the essential assignments of stabilizing and rebuilding the country; training the army, police and judiciary; supporting the Government in counter-narcotics efforts; developing a market infrastructure; and suppressing the dreaded Taliban. But the NATO countries have their own reasons for not honouring the desired level of commitments. Although the NATO allies initially agreed on ISAF’s(International Security Assistance Forces) mission in general, however most of these nations met with an unexpected domestic resistance.
People of these NATO countries highly dislike to see their soldiers laying down their lives to make the US invasion of Afghanistan a success. As a result, bickering started from the day one. Resultantly, Netherlands has decided to withdraw its 1500 troops from Afghanistan. While at the same time the withdrawal of Dutch troops from Uruzgan province of Afghanistan may raise concern in other NATO countries whose troops are battling the resurgent Taliban in Southern Afghanistan. Some NATO allies do not want their forces to engage in combating against Taliban on behalf of the United States. Some NATO states are shy of undertaking security operations against the Taliban in their Southern strongholds. The US, Canada, and Britain, which have done most of the fighting against Taliban have had tremendous difficulties in getting support from other NATO countries for anti -Taliban operations. So much so that major European countries such as France, Italy, Spain, and Germany have even refused to take part in operations that could involve fighting the Taliban. German Defence Minister Franz Josef Jung once again ruled out deployment of German troops in troubled Southern Afghanistan, from their bases in the relatively secure north of the country, due to the domestic resentment. NATO is struggling to persuade the member countries to provide more troops to the Afghan mission, particularly for the southern battlefields. But NATO countries are either hesitant to contribute more troops or bluntly refusing their combat use since they consider Afghanistan as a high-risk combat theatre. The rising death toll of NATO troops has caused public support to anti-war emotions in countries suffering from heaviest casualties, particularly Britain and Canada. Such losses are doing little to increase support for the war in other NATO member states where the long-term support for the NATO mission is seriously lacking.
NATO’s combat troops scarcity has two negative consequences for the ISAF mission in Afghanistan. Firstly, Southern and Southeastern Afghan provinces such as Helmand, Kandahar, and Uruzgan have particularly seen a significant rise in the power of Taliban. Secondly, NATO-led ISAF has not still developed a positive image of itself among the Afghans outside Kabul, as NATO forces seem to be far more concerned about their own security than the security of the Afghans to whom they are supposed to protect. NATO officials say the diversity of opinion within the coalition, over issues like NATO’s soldiers involvement in poppy eradication and modus operandi to treat Taliban and Al-Qaeda prisoners, masks a solid unity of purpose to stabilize and rebuild Afghanistan. A senior western diplomat said that, “What is unfortunate is that there is no commonality of approach by NATO member states on the military efforts they are willing to put into Afghanistan”. NATO’s internal conflicts are playing out against a background of increasing violence in Afghanistan. Senseless suicide attacks, relentless bombings and ubiquitous insurgency-related violence across Afghanistan claiming thousands of lives have made 2007 the most deadly year for a war-weary nation. According to Tom Koenigs, the UN envoy to Afghanistan, “The UN has documented 606 roadside bombings and 133 suicide attacks this year, a 50% increase from the 88 suicide attacks recorded at the same time last year and at least 12, 00 civilians have died in violent incidents since January 2007”.
This report sharply contrasts with the upbeat appraisals by Bush and Karzai, who somehow believe that Taliban are a “spent force” struggling for survival. Most experts ascribe the deteriorating state of affairs to Bush’s decision on shifting troops and resources to Iraq and his administration’s failure to capture top rebel leaders. The ongoing failure to achieve any significant success in Afghanistan has put a number of NATO allies in a state of despair. Fear of losing out completely in Afghanistan has set in among the NATO leaders. However, Pakistan is being blamed for making the situation harder in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, despite their own failings there has been a relentless and unremitting attacks in the Afghan and Western press, illogically accusing Pakistan government for providing sanctuary to the Taliban in the borderlands of Pakistan. It is rarely mentioned in the press that Pakistan has stationed 90,000 troops and established 110 check posts along the Pak-Afghan border to curb the movements of militants. The Western governments and their media has failed to acknowledge that Pakistan in its own right, is trying to control movement across Pak-Afghan border through selective fencing, removing refugee camps, and the biometric system despite a stiff resistance from local population and Afghan Government. NATO’s future now depends on its success in Afghanistan, a war-ravaged country of 22 million, largely displaced people.





How the vote can fool Venezuela
William Ratliff

ON DEC. 2, Venezuelans will be asked to vote on a whopping 69 constitutional amendments that would greatly reduce the country’s democratic governance, strip citizens of still more individual liberties and thus expand President Hugo Chavez’s power even beyond what it is today. The sad reality is that voters will probably approve the amendments, as Chavez’s opponents have been bumbling around, discredited, disorganized and intimidated. The vote will be bad not only for Venezuela, but for the rest of Latin America. Chavez-style demagogues — “Chavistas” — are taking control throughout the region, persuading frustrated voters to jettison their often unresponsive democratic governments for the promise of something better, even if that something is a populist dictatorship.
Chavez already has assumed some of the powers he wants legitimized in the upcoming referendum. Approving the changes will merely legalize what is already in place and further reduce the options and safeguards available to those who disagree with him and his vision of “21st-century socialism.” One of the most disturbing ballot items would allow Chavez to run for president as often as he wishes and make it more difficult for voters to recall a president. He could become, in effect, president for life. Other ballot items would give Chavez greatly expanded control over the country’s state and regional governments, its central bank and its international monetary reserves, and would extend his authority to expropriate private property.
Other ballot measures would increase presidential authority to declare and maintain a “state of emergency” for as long as the government deems necessary and significantly curtail the financial privileges of human rights groups, the media and other non-governmental watchdog organizations. Still another dangerous ballot item would transform Venezuela’s military from a conventional armed force intended to protect the people into a “patriotic and anti-imperialist” armed force intended to support the socialist revolution. Why would Venezuelans vote to curtail their own liberties? First, because the people remember that previous governments failed to serve popular interests, while Chavez promises them perks, such as six-hour workdays and redress of their grievances against domestic and foreign oppressors, including the United States. Self-destructive voting also can be understood in the context of the region’s centuries-old Indian-Iberian culture, which historically stresses a paternalistic relationship between rulers and people, even if this paternalism in reality serves the wishes of the few over the needs of the many.

—Arab News