Launch of SupportPakistan.org

Dear friends,

Most of us agree that protests are a good way of raising awareness and getting our message across.  Street activism can be more effective, however, if it is part of a larger strategy that must include lobbying, advocacy groups, panel discussions with intelligentsia and other such activities.  Dilawar Syed, a well known name in the bay area Pakistani business community, has taken the initiative to organize an advocacy group, SupportPakistan.org.  Dilawar has vast experience in running successful business and not-for profit organizations. 

SupportPakistan.org is a non-partisan platform which is focusing its efforts on political advocacy and mobilization of public opinion in the US in support of the civil liberties and the democratic aspirations of the people of Pakistan.

For the time being you can access SupportPakistan.org at the following url -

http://supportpakistan.wordpress.com/

The site will soon be transfered to supportpakistan.org .

Let’s all do whatever we can to make this platform successful.

 

Comments on Ahmed Rashid’s Article in Washington Post

I just read Ahmed Rashid’s article in Washington Post quoted by Brent in his comments (thank you Brent for sharing it with us). I respect Mr. Rashid opinion, he always presents an insightful analysis of the political situation in Pakistan and the region in general (besides he attended my and my father, mother and brother’s alma mater – the great Government College Lahore).

Unfortunately, Afghanistan yet again has become the center stage of power struggle between Pakistan and Iran. To quote Mr. Rashid, “[CIA and Department of Defence] officers , many of whom have served in Islamabad or Kabul, understand the double game that Musharraf has played — helping the United States go after al-Qaeda while letting his intelligence services help the Taliban claw their way back in Afghanistan.” Since early 90s when Musharraf was a senior general in the army, Pakistan’s military intelligence has first openly and then covertly supported Taliban as an alternative to the so-called Northern Alliance. Ahmad Shah Masud who was the leader of the Northern Alliance was vehemently against the Taliban and Pakistan’s involvement in Afghanistan. He was supported by India (as India would support anyone and anybody against Pakistan – what a neighbor) and Iran (due to Shia ties). Hamid Karzai’s government in Afghanistan has Iran’s support and is against Pakistan. In order to ensure that the region does not become Iran’s satellite state, Pakistan is once against covertly supporting Taliban. This is a really dangerous game that Musharraf is playing. Taliban has a lot to gain from it. They have radicalized the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan – the only one of the four provinces where religious parties won overwhelming majority, also the province that has strong ethnic and cultural ties to Pashtuns in Afghanistan. British through the Durand Line essentially divided Pashtun families across national borders – similar to what happened to Kurdish people who now form minorities in Turkey, Iraq and Iran. The scenic Khyber Pass has always been a porous crossing. I visited Khyber Pass when I was really young. I still remember being struck by the natural beauty of the area – there was hardly any border security there. For years, Pashtuns have been going back and forth between Pakistan and Afghanistan, the area is also a widely used smuggling route – not just klashnikovs and rocket launchers but normal everyday items like clothes, expensive watches, all sorts of stuff. The area used to be relatively peaceful. I don’t remember having any reservations when I went with my mom to the beautiful Landi Kotal back in the eighties. Now it’s a hot bed of Islamic radicalization, Ahmad Rashid talks about it in his famous book, Taliban.

Coming back to Brent’s question. Currently, PTI is focussed on getting rid of Musharraf’s regime in Pakistan. As such the party has not had any support from the US state department or the White House due to the reasons outlined in Mr. Rashid’s essay. PTI is a secular party with a strong democratic agenda. Ahmad Rashid argues that US both as a matter of principle and national interest would be well advised to support democratic struggle in Pakistan. However, I don’t expect US to support PTI due to the fact that the party is fundamentally opposed to continued US involvement in Pakistan’s internal affairs especially the indiscriminate bombings of the various regions of Pakistan frequently carried out by US war planes and the (alleged) abduction of Pakistani citizens carried out by FBI within Pakistan. Imran Khan, PTI’s leader, has spoken up against such tactics. I do think that US think tanks will finally reach the conclusion that Musharraf’s is a sinking ship. At that point, I think they are more likely to support either Nawaz Sharif or Benezir Bhutto – both are tried and tested allies of the US. Between the two, I think Benezir Bhutto will be candidate of choice from US’ perspective as she is more secular in outlook, is more likely to win popular vote as her party has a very die hard vote bank, is a strong US ally, often looks upto the US for help and is known to compromise on everything to first come into power and then sustain herself in power (currently she is trying to reach an agreement with Musharraf’s regime so that she becomes the next Prime Minister with Musharraf as the president while the common man she claims to represent wants Musharraf out).

On a different note – political leaders who come to power through legitimate democratic means and enjoy vast support among the populace in their countries are less likely to depend on external powers to sustain themselves, after all why would they need outside powers to sustain themselves when their own people support them. Also any self-respecting nation, if given a chance, would not want an outside power running its affairs. True democracy in strategically important countries such as Pakistan can thus lead to a loss of control over the country’s critical policies for external powers such as the US. Therefore true democracy in any strategically important country is not in US’ national interest unless the majority of the people in that country are pro-US (even then they would not want to be controlled by an external power). Take Iraq for example. If there is true democracy there, given its civilization roots (remember Baghdad once was the center of Islamic civilization and literature), the country is more likely to become an important part of the Muslim world, certainly not a hub of pro-US westernization in the Middle East – note that Israel is westernized in its outlook not because of its democracy but because the majority of the Jewish populace there is composed of Ashkenazi Jews of European descent who migrated there from Europe and the former Soviet Union. Iraq given its Shia majority is more likely to form a strong alliance with Iran. Therefore it does not make sense for the US to support true democracy in Iraq. Don’t get me wrong, there will be elections in Iraq but mysteriously a pro-US puppet (like Karzai in Afghanistan) would keep on winning.

The problem with popularly elected leaders is that due to the massive support they enjoy among the populace, they either have a spine or tend to develop one over a period of time. Once that happens, they tend to stand up for their country and are eventually made horrible examples of – After India’s nuclear test in 1974, Pakistan embarked on a mission to become a nuclear power. When Z. A. Bhutto, the then Prime Minister of Pakistan (also a Cal Berkeley Alum) refused to back down from his policy of nuclear armament, Dr. Kissinger reportedly told him, “‘We’ll make a horrible example of you if you test. Okay?’ That was around August 1976. Later in 1978, Mr. Bhutto was hanged to death in the middle of the night after an expedited trial on charges of murder.

 

Replican Presidential Debate Videos

My good friend Moez sent the following videos, thanks mate.   I watched the debate live, personally I think Ron Paul made a lot of sense when he made those controversial comments.  He was, I would say, 75% right on the mark.  It’s not a black or white issue, I do think that there is a strong element of hatred among the fundamentalist assholes against the US purely for the values it stands for but it accounts only for about 25% of the whole thing, in my opinion.

 All my support for Guiliani is gone after the this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk334TbliaY
 
Ron Pual with Sean Hannity after the debate. Hannity shows how big an idiot he is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ4IW0Y_7WY
 
 Complete responses of Ron Paul in Republican debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTIRRThOTCQ

 

The Democratic Debate – perceptions from the first 14 minutes

As always the actual substance of their answers rarely matters, it’s the way they deliver each answer, the emotional stories they tell, the sincerity they exhibit, that’s what form people’s perceptions. Most of their answers were laced with the generic touchy feely stuff about how great America is, how sincere, hard working, peaceful, smart and patriotic Americans are. Well, here are my perceptions -

1. Clinton – appeared strong and decisive and quite an ease unlike any of the other candidates. Some of questions posed to her was just plain stupid – I mean why is she being asked about her opinion on hedge funds during a personal perceptions phase of the debate? She obviously had a non-committal generic diplomatic answer. In reply to the question that majority of the people had an unfavorable view of Mrs. Clinton, she gave a rather arrogant reply. When she said that it was a form of flattery, I realized she was talking about the republicans, it sounded she was insulting the intelligence of the public. This answer did not leave a good impression of her, prior to that she was winning the debate.

2. Obama – he seemed more focussed on recounting all of his achievements. I can understand the strategy, he was afterall the most inexperienced of the lot. In my opinion, however, he overdid it. Questions with emotional bent must be tackled with emotion not with a boring description of legislative achievements.

3. Edward – looked and sounded very insincere. I’m probably biased against Edwards as he has always sounded hypocritical to me, it just seems that he is not sincere to the cause of underprivileged Americans. It seems made up, sort of a thing that an actor would carefully orchestrate to maximize the probability of success. The whole story about his father walking out of a restaurant as he was not able to afford the items on the menu – it was out of place, seemed made up and really had nothing much to do with the question, the question was about the use of campaign funds for an expensive hair cut (for crying out loud)! His answer to the hedge fund question totally disgusted me, I mean common man, do you want us to believe that you were a consul to the hedge funds because through some incredibly twisted logic you could raise the standard of living of the poor in the US! What infuriated me was not his answer but his underlying belief that we, the audience, were so damn stupid as to believe him. I found his answer quiet insulting.

3. Richardson – he didn’t want Attorney General Gonzalez to resign because like him he was Hispanic! Wow, that should be it for him, his reply to that question was far less than satisfactory. I did like the fact that he at least had the courage to accept that he was racially biased. However, that realistically should end any chance he might have had at becoming the next president. But well, you never know.

4. Dodd – well, he was just too scripted, too boring, just a dud. When asked about him taking campaign contributions from lobbyists, he replied by going over his and his family’s years in public service. I mean common mate, does that entitle you to become a puppet in the hands of the Washington lobbyists!

5. Kucinich – well, the poor guys doesn’t have a chance. He did, however, was quite logical when asked about the war in Iraq, his comment about the debate not being an American Idol show was really funny, he knows his limitations. He won’t be elected no matter what he does because well, he doesn’t look like a president. Unfortunately, that is a deal breaker for a majority of voters. Furthermore the comb over killed any chance of a win in the primaries. Besides he didn’t have a smooth delivery. I liked the direct shot at Clinton for voting in favor of the war in Iraq.

6. Biden – I think this guy has already destroyed himself by his actions and statements and too much public exposure. He was run of the mill in this debate and I doubt if anybody was paying much attention to his answers. Nevertheless, I appreciated the nice evasive action on the tough question on his “uncontrolled verbosity”. That was funny

7. Gravel – no chance of getting elected, he is way way way on the left. I noticed that the candidates with extreme positions are not only the funniest ones but are also most passionate. Probably because they are most comfortable on the stage – well why won’t they be, they’ve got nothing to lose. I noticed that with Al Sharpton during the last presidential campaign. The green party guy was the most articulate ones last time around, I really missed a green candidate, they are generally well read, passionate and articulate.