LoyaltyisaCurse

By Asma Jahangir
Friday, November 9, 2007; Page A21

LAHORE, Pakistan -- It was close to midnight last Saturday when Gen. Pervez Musharraf finally appeared on state-run television. That's when police vans surrounded my house. I was warned not to leave, and hours later I learned I would be detained for 90 days.
At least I have the luxury of staying at home, though I cannot see anyone.
But I can only watch, helpless, as this horror unfolds.


TheMusharraf government has eclared martial law to settle scores with lawyers and judges. Hundreds of innocent Pakistanis have been rounded up. Human rights activists, including women and senior citizens, have been beaten by police. Judges have been arrested and lawyers battered in their offices and the streets.
These citizens are our true assets: young, progressive and full of spirit. Many of them were trained to uphold the rule of law. They are being brutalized for seeking justice.

Musharraf justified his draconian measures by saying he needed to be able to use all his might to fight the terrorists infecting our country. Yet the day after he declared an emergency, the Dawn newspaper reported that scores of terrorists were released by the government. While tyranny was being unleashed on peaceful citizens, the notorious militant Fazalullah (also known as Maulana Radio) had seized the beautiful town of Madyan, according to the Daily Times, and hoisted his "Islamic" flag over buildings while the security forces surrendered.

Musharraf has implied that militancy increased in Pakistan because of judicial interference in governance. But until this past March, the judiciary had yielded to all executive demands. Five years ago, the general dismissed the then-chief justice and his colleagues, charging that they were obstructing his process of democratization. What is democratic about a judiciary that's not independent?

In recent days police have raided the home of the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association -- his wife has gone into hiding -- and the law chambers of two former presidents of the bar. Their clerks have been harassed. Military intelligence officers are interrogating leading attorneys. Meanwhile, unknown lawyers are being elevated to the bench.


Since Saturday, police officers have barged into my house twice after receiving (false) warnings that I had escaped. On seeing me, they sheepishly admitted they were misled.

I have tried to make them understand the difference between people such as myself and terrorists. "If I did run away, how far would I go?" I asked them. "In any event, I am not likely to blow myself up around the corner." One police officer said that he agreed but that his job was at greater risk if I got away than if a terrorist escaped the law. Terrorists, he pointed out, outnumber rights activists in our country.

The officer argued that lawyers and judges hamper law enforcement. "How can we bring law and order if we cannot torture criminals? We must be given a free hand to deal with terrorists, and the chief justice has no business to ask us to produce them in courts. We are itching to lay our hands on all those judges who humiliated us for carrying out our duties," he told me. When I asked how he knew who the terrorists were, he insisted that the intelligence was infallible.

Yet he didn't know I hadn't escaped from my house.
The international community is alarmed at Musharraf's actions, but Pakistanis expected this. The Bush administration had built up the general as moderate and benign, but the true face of this regime has been exposed.

A balanced picture of Pakistan had begun to emerge in recent weeks. Thousands turned out to greet Benazir Bhutto upon her return last month; Pakistanis were progressive-minded enough to elect a female political leader years ago. Hundreds of progressive-minded lawyers have rallied for democratic values. I welcome Bhutto's call for the Pakistan People's Party to join the demonstrations.

But Pakistan is threatened by Islamist militants, and our civil society suffers the worst of this creeping Talibanization. Woefully, the Musharraf regime is neither inclined to reverse this trend nor capable of doing so. No one has exact solutions, but there is virtual unanimity that Pakistan's political leadership must take charge and that the military must cooperate with an elected civilian government.

Musharraf's promises to hold elections by Feb. 15 or to resign from the army are a red herring. He has pledged before to give up his uniform and failed to follow through. Any election held under these circumstances will not be free and will only put the crisis on hold. Furthermore, militarization will kill the spirit of the progressive forces while boosting the terrorists' morale.

A transition to democracy is crucial, but unless freedom of the press and the judiciary's independence are restored, any changes will remain toothless. It will be difficult to put Pakistan on the path to democracy, but we must begin now, before it is too late.


Asma Jahangir, a Pakistani lawyer under house arrest in Lahore, chairs the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan. She is a member of the international board of the Open Society Institute.

__________________
Goin' "Double Maverick!"

lvgentleman

The problem (from a real-politik standpoint) is that in this case, we don't want a democracy in Pakistan, probably because the people would elect someone who is hostile to the US (and why not - they would have every reason to) - witness Gaza & the West Bank. Thus, we need to give lip service to democracy, but in reality, not actually doing it.

Or, as Harry Truman once said: "He's a bastard, but he's our bastard."

Me thinks there is a vicious cycle going on over there - the radicals need the tyranny to strengthen their cause, and the tyranny needs the radicals to strengthen it's cause. Regardless, this administration won't do anything about it because he's our boy.

__________________
LET'S DO THIS!

Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.

LoyaltyisaCurse

By Thomas R. Pickering, Carla Hills and Morton Abramowitz
Tuesday, November 13, 2007; Page A19

Every day that Gen. Pervez Musharraf refuses to reverse his imposition of martial law and restore Pakistan's constitution brings another round of disturbing reports -- lawyers beaten, journalists arrested, mass protests for democracy crushed -- and another day of embarrassment for the military government's foreign backers. The Bush administration's aims of securing support for the "war on terror" and stability for a nuclear power will continue to be right, but as a nation of 160 million people rapidly frays under repression, it will only become more obvious that military dictatorship is not the answer.

This realization is already settling in. Many in the Bush administration and Congress have been sending clear messages of disapproval to Musharraf. The Pentagon, however, has been more ambiguous, and it is unclear whether military aid will continue as if nothing happened on Nov. 3.


» Links to this article
The United States must go beyond verbal condemnations and show with actions that it believes Musharraf is on the wrong track.

If there is a recent analogy to what is happening in Pakistan, it is the Philippines of Ferdinand Marcos in late 1985 (though the stakes are much higher today). During President Ronald Reagan's second term, the administration came to recognize that, despite his and earlier administrations' acceptance of the dictator, Marcos's desire to maintain political power at all costs was destroying democracy and prospects for stability in his country.

His personal ambition was casting the Philippine armed forces in the role of popular repressor rather than national protector, tainting their legitimacy in the eyes of the people. More than anything else, that fact had undermined the Philippines' battle against militant Islamist and communist rebels.

Today, the alternative to Musharraf's military rule is not a mob of radical Islamists -- this is not Iran in the 1970s. The alternative, as in the Philippines, is a moderate, secular political opposition organized into political parties. Both the Pakistan People's Party under Benazir Bhutto and the Pakistan Muslim League under Nawaz Sharif are opposed to the jihadi movements. They have publicly committed themselves to combating not only al-Qaeda but also the political and military leadership of the Taliban living in Pakistan, a point on which Musharraf has been notably reluctant to act.

Poll after poll has found that if fair and free elections were held under constitutional protections and monitored by national and international observers, the result would be a moderate, pro-Western, anti-extremist government in Pakistan. A September survey by the International Republican Institute forecast the two moderate opposition parties winning 64 percent of the vote. The conservative Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid would get 16 percent, it found. All the religious parties combined would get barely 15 percent of the vote.

Musharraf has relied on an alliance with the religious parties, some of which have clear ties to jihadi groups that are themselves linked to Taliban terrorists. After the 1999 military coup installing Musharraf, they achieved their parliamentary majority only through a rigged election in 2002. In a free vote, extremists don't stand a chance. It is only Musharraf who props them up -- out of fear of what a democratic election would bring.

Indeed, the same Republican Institute poll showed that 74 percent oppose Musharraf's reelection.

In the 1980s, Congress began pressing for a halt to military aid to the Philippines, and in the face of massive popular opposition to Marcos, Reagan finally told Marcos that neither the United States nor his own people could continue to accept his efforts to stay in power. Today, the United States must make it clear to Pakistan that our relationship -- including military cooperation, training, support for the F-16s Washington allowed Pakistan to purchase and other aid not directly linked to counterterrorism -- will fundamentally change unless there is a return to democracy.

This means revoking the declaration of martial law; restoring the constitution, the judiciary and fundamental freedoms; and the release of all political detainees. Musharraf must give up his post of army chief and abide by any Supreme Court decision on his eligibility for the presidency. A neutral caretaker government should be formed, in consultation with all opposition parties, to oversee the polls, and the Election Commission of Pakistan should be reconstituted. Free, fair and transparent elections can then be held -- something that is impossible under martial law.
The Bush administration and Congress urgently need to make clear that the United States will not support a repressive military regime that inevitably will threaten Pakistan's stability as well as U.S. security.


Thomas R. Pickering, co-chairman of the International Crisis Group board of trustees, was undersecretary of state for political affairs from 1997 to 2001. Carla Hills, a member of the Crisis Group board, is a former U.S. trade representative. Morton Abramowitz, a member of the Crisis Group board, has served as ambassador to Turkey and Thailand.

__________________
Goin' "Double Maverick!"