Hundreds of Opposition Figures Arrested in Pakistan
Posted in wordpress, News Media, Pakistan, Law, Justice, Foreign Affairs on November 4th, 2007 by Stanford Matthews By VOA News
04 November 2007
Pakistan’s government has arrested hundreds of opposition members and says a national election due in January may be delayed under a state of emergency.
Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz told a news conference Sunday that after Parliament ends its term on November 15th, the government could take up to a year to hold a new election.
Among the opposition members arrested Sunday was Javed Hashmi the acting president of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif’s party. Mr. Aziz told the news conference that up to 45 people were arrested in Islamabad and up to 500 in all of Pakistan.
On Saturday, Pakistan’s president and army chief Pervez Musharraf suspended the country’s constitution, shut down independent broadcasters and removed the country’s top judge. He said the state of emergency is necessary because of rising violence from Islamic militants, and asserted that judicial decisions are demoralizing law enforcement officials, setting known terrorists free, and undermining his efforts to move the country toward democracy.
General Musharraf’s critics say the state of emergency was imposed because the Supreme Court had been scheduled to rule in a few days on the validity of the president’s re-election last month by Parliament.
Saturday, troops entered the Supreme Court in Islamabad and took away Chief Justice Itikhar Chaudhry, whose suspension earlier this year triggered nationwide protests.
Others detained or held under house arrest include the attorney leading the legal challenge to General Musharraf’s re-election, and Imran Khan, the internationally known former cricketer who leads a small opposition party.
General Musharraf appeared on national television Saturday to defend the state of emergency, hours after security forces blocked off key streets around government buildings and imposed tough curbs on the media.
While he may have done himself some good after the brief spat with Clinton, Barack Obama is not making any friends internationally. For a candidate who initially stated he would talk with countries considered state sponsors of terrorism without conditions, his focus on Pakistan and aggressive military stance is causing problems. This is one of the same people who claim we need to repair the US image abroad.
Nixon’s legacy included the milestone of opening dialogue with China and historic visits by the West to the mysterious and isolated region of the world. Carter’s often criticized administration had what appeared as a Middle East peace effort that came closer than any other at resolving the conflicts. Reagan convinced the Soviet Union to ‘tear down this wall’. Much about President Bush these days points to the near obsession of American Presidents to push for their legacy in the fading hours of their Presidency. Beyond victory in the war in Iraq, President Bush’s latest call for Middle East peace talks presents among other things, his search for a legacy.
Understandably, some in the Middle East are wary or even suspicious of Tony Blair’s involvement. Of all the people on the planet likely to have a role to play in the search for Middle East peace, Tony Blair probably has the best chance of providing a sense of genuine sincerity and honesty to the task at hand. But the baggage of his history with President Bush and some indications he bears his own separate agenda on solving this never ending crisis may sabotage his ability to assist before it really begins.
Abbas may be viewed as a wild card in this entire scenario. His power or influence over any part of the conflict may be suspect and the call for elections just one more attempt by a weak player to muster languishing support.
And no one should overlook the complications provided by the most suspected opposition to any peace in the region, none other than the President of Iran. A meeting between Iran, Syria and Hamas is nothing more than a strategy session of those opposing peace efforts in the Middle East.
The classic mixture of opposing agendas by all involved in Middle East ‘relations’ are no more an optimistic forecast for resolving problems now than at any time in the past. No one should be hopeful this early in the recent moves to hold talks on peace in the Middle East or anywhere else on the planet.
Sometimes it almost seems more prudent for all the major countries of the world to simply withdraw from any interactions with the Middle East and similar zones of insanity. Y’all wanna kill each other, fine. You want to keep blaming each other for the problems you face and not help each other out, fine. From the major powers on the planet to all lesser influences and organizations like the UN, most of the violence and problems faced by the Middle East only seem to be exacerbated by the rest of the world’s involvement. At one time or another all countries in the Middle East seem to be ‘playing’ other countries in the world to get what they want. And the arrangements keep rotating around the region shifting advantage from country to country. All the while the richest nations in the world are pouring billions into the mix and only a few ranking members of failing governments appear to receive the benefit.
The first reference in this post is from June 17th and outlines the fact that Americans are certainly not pleased with Congress. Based on polling data over many months, the President, the House and the Senate have record or near record low approval ratings from the public. Of course polls don’t tell the whole story and not all decisions should be made as a result of polling numbers. The importance of the polls here is a trend that applies to a long period of time. The statistical information can be significant as an indicator that all is not well. In addition to the midterm elections and the deluge of comments and demands communicated to the White House and Congress this year and last, one should be able to expect more appropriate response from elected officials. Not that they should be expected to find a perfect solution to satisfy all people but they should at least display the professionalism and intelligence in working together to solve issues.
Although the next reference is considerably older than the rest it is still valid. The point made closer to the beginning of this post indicated those favoring surrender in Iraq refused to accept the fact that everyone involved in the decision to go to war share the responsibility with the President and he alone should not bare the burden. If you glanced ahead you understand the point. The flawed intel everyone likes to mention was neglected by Congress in their assessment of a vote on authorizing the US to go to war. So why then does the surrender crowd continue to disregard this fact? Could it be they view it as harmful to their interest in bashing the President? Could the bashing be mostly political? Does the surrender crowd have an understanding of how damaging their surrender speech is? There are many questions and not much in the way of answers from those favoring surrender.
The articles referenced below are just a reminder of how central to all things MSM is the war in Iraq. The Dems have continued to make it a central theme of their campaigns. It is mentioned in nearly every speech, press release and news conference.
Over the years the two major political parties have been known to refer to themselves as all-inclusive parties. Apparently that notion also applies to fund raising. Ray Jinnah, a native of Pakistan and California businessman wanted to be a political power broker. The FBI determined he had violated the law with his fund raising and campaign contributions but the Democrats had no such problem with Jinnah.
Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barbara Boxer had no problem taking money from this man. You can hear the excuses already. Something like we don’t handle the money. Or maybe the excuse will be we had no way of knowing this. Most people would probably agree that US Senators should be smart enough to have mechanisms in place to determine who they should take money from and who they should not.
The proclamations of Speaker Nancy Pelosi after the midterms indicated she intended to ‘drain the swamp’ in Congress due to the GOP ‘culture of corruption’. Again, most people were aware that corruption is not an exclusive domain to either party. All the probes and hearings initiated by the Dems through Henry Waxman since the 110th Congress convened mysteriously overlooked allegations against Senator Dianne Feinstein and her involvement with MILCON. Now there is the Jefferson indictment as well as fund raising irregularities with Clinton and Boxer.
