Bush Greeted in Pakistan by Demonstrations, Nation-wide Strike
Bush arrived in Islamabad to find it eerily quiet. The Islamic Action Council, which includes a group that helped train the Taliban, had called for a nation-wide strike to protest the visit. Streets of many cities were said to be strangely quiet, while in the northern Pushtun city of Peshawar, thousands marched in protest.
Bush has all along made the mistake of playing to Muslim leaders rather than to Muslim publics. Yet he has at the same time undermined authoritarian leaders with his talk of spreading democracy. So a military dictator like Pervez Musharraf, who intervened to corrupt the 2002 Pakistani parliamentary elections, lacks legitimacy according to Bush's rhetoric even as Bush pals around with him and makes him as an individual the cornerstone of US policy in that part of the world.
Meantime, Bush has had a predator missile fired on a Pakistani village, and has been complaisant toward US torture of Muslim prisoners at Bagram and in Iraq.
The PR disaster of the Pakistan trip is a decisive and sad reflection on the complete failure of Bush at public diplomacy in the Muslim world, at a time when nothing is more important to US security and goals abroad.
posted by Juan Cole @ 3/04/2006 12:32:00 AM
Click to join Infoco
17 Comments:
It probably doesn't help matters any that Bush is arriving from India, Pakistan's often bitter arch rival, where he essentially opened up the nuclear candy store to allow India to proliferate nukes to their heart's desire.
In fact, how does Musharraf reconcile that act with Bush's expectations that Musharraf and Pakistan remain critical assets in Bush's "war on terror"? It seems to be a pretty severe slap in the face to Pakistan, which nearly came to nuclear blows with India just a few years ago.
Kind of makes one wonder how Bush will make it out of Pakistan alive after "sleeping with the enemy". Kind of like slipping right from the mistress's bed into the wife's bed and expecting the lovemaking to be just as sweet as ever. Something tells me the wife in this case may have a severe headache!!
If you could take over his brain, what would you do as public diplomacy in the Muslim world?
Don't forget the discussion of numero uno terrorist...
I think that Bush really has no idea what to do anymore. He was always so self-assured, despite his incompetence and failures. It's starting to catch up with him, and the loss of his popularity must also be taking a toll on him.
On 3rd March, 2006, Colleen McEdwards read a news article on CNN saying that Pakistan had been paralyzed due a strike called against President Bush's visit to Pakistan; she was WRONG! The strike was NOT against Bush, it was against the Cartoons of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon Him) published in some papers. Also, there was not a lot of mention of the protests in India and the 3 people who died in Lucknow (India) while protesting against Bush's visit; people also protested in Hyderabad, India. The little coverage about that was positively spinned. While footage of protests in Indian Kashmir were shown to be that of Pakistan. Isn't that wrong reporting! CNN should not do that. and TIME should't either. Also, there was a huge focus on the security measures in Pakistan. The same kind of security operations were in place in India!
Also read this article (link below) and you will know what I am talking about:
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/southasia/article_1134462.php/Demos_amid_Bushs_democracy_plea_to_world_power_India
Pakistanis welcome President Bush's visit. We want the relationship between our countries to be long lasting. It should be a freindship between the US and Pakistan, not just the US and President Musharraf. It should focus on economics and education in addition to the war on terror. There is more to Pakistan then the war on Terror. We are a nation of 160 million people, and we want a economic relationship with the U.S. I am surprised that the Nuclear Civilian Treaty with India was was signed so quickly and easily even tough it was so extensive and controversial. But the Billateral Investment treaty, which is not that big a deal, has not been signed during the trip. This is quite surprising; Pakistan wants an economic partnership with the U.S.
Should a president NOT have ordered predator strikes against a suspected al Qaeda gathering? Please explain what tools and rules of engagement would work.
A 2001 Gallup poll indicated huge support for Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. 82% considered him a Mujahid, not a terrorist. People attributed 9/11 to the Jews. See:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/60II/main520768.shtml
and
http://www.gallup.com.pk/archives/sept19_2001.html
This was BEFORE the botched occupation of Iraq or the revelations of abuse of detainees. Only 9% of Pakistani respondents said they would support military strikes even if there were proof of complicity. In this context, what could Bush, Kerry, Dean, or even Nader have done?
Meanwhile, a 2005 Pew survey suggested a decline in Muslim sympathies for al Qaeda. See:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/14/AR2005071401030.html
Could the rise and decline of sympathies have more to do with shows of power than amicability? Would the masses still cheer for OBL, if only he could pull off another big strike? Meanwhile, of course, the terrorists have found it more useful to kill Muslims and bomb mosques, then blame the occupiers.
A National strike in Pakistan for W's visit? Evidently, the fundamentalists wanted to do Bush and Pervez Musharraf a favor. It's sort of like voluntary martial law. Makes everything peaceful, as though everyone were off to cricket matches.
Honestly, though, Bush is a bit intrepid to visit Pakistan. He is able to say things in reply to blustery fanatics that moderate Pakistani Muslims cannot. And, considering the predecessors and alternatives, doesn't Pervez Musharraf come out looking rather decent?
It is painful to watch recent changes in the US/UK diplomacy. Starting from 12 month assignments, it looks like determined demolition of the whole system.
Looking backwards, this devastation started from Powell's IWMD testimony in the UN.
Julian Borger, Ewen MacAskill, Jonathan Watts. New diplomatic priorities offer snapshot of changing world order
Last month, an American diplomat who had struggled through five months of Polish language training, just about long enough to get to grips with the irregular verbs, received an unsettling phone call from the state department. Drop the course, he was told. He would not need Polish in El Salvador, his new posting.
Exemplifying the new American thinking, George Bush this week travelled to three countries at the heart of the new strategy. First stop was Afghanistan... Then India... And finally to Pakistan...
Old Europe too is repositioning, mainly in response to the rise in Islamic fundamentalism, which potentially poses a bigger problem for this continent than the US. Britain, France and Germany are also focused on China, but less as a military threat than as a commercial rival.
The three ambassadors to Baghdad since the invasion each signed on for a year, the period the Foreign Office regards as the maximum anyone should remain under that kind of pressure.
Meanwhile, Pakistan is regarded as so dangerous by the US that its diplomats are banned from taking their families with them. As with Britain, some of the new posts are considered so tough that diplomats are not expected to be in them for more than 12 months...
It's amazing that Bush had the nerve to even go to Pakistan. And then he calls it an "Arab" country. He's only hurting America's image more with these propoganda trips.
www.lcoliberal.blogspot.com
www.sunstateactivist.org
I have posted to you before but am moved to repeat:
I love your work and thank you. You truly inform me. I enjoy reading your posts daily.
Thanks for all of your work.
Bush's little attempt at playing cricket could not be more painfully emblematic of his approach to Pakistan (and to governing in general) - pre-selected friendly kids ferried to the US embassy grounds, feeding him soft balls, while the cricketer-politician who represents the uncomfortable realities of Musharraf's repressive regime is locked away.
Bush takes a swing at cricket in Pakistan
Reuters
Saturday, March 04, 2006
Islamabad, March 4: US President George W Bush, an avid baseball fan, on Saturday tried his hand at a sport hugely popular in parts of the old British empire--cricket--and was pronounced 'not bad' for a first-timer.
Bush bowled and batted several times on a practice cricket pitch set up on the grounds of the US Embassy in the capital of cricket-mad Pakistan, as students from the Islamabad College for Boys and the private school Schola Nova, who included girls, looked on and encouraged him.
He got a quick lesson on how to hold the bat from Shaharyar Khan, chairman of the Pakistan Cricket Board.
"He's telling me the difference between baseball and cricket," said Bush, a former owner of a Texas baseball team.
Then the President was coached while batting at the wicket by Salman Butt, a member of Pakistan's cricket team, with Inzamam-ul-Haq, the team captain, nearby to also lend his expertise.
Bush, in a blue shirt with sleeves rolled up, played with tennis balls, which are much softer than stone-hard cricket balls.
One student, Asif Raza, said he hoped Bush's foray onto a cricket pitch would promote the sport in America.
The President's first couple of hits went off to the side, but the Pakistani players were charitable.
"Not bad for a first time," one boy said.
But his last hit was better and the ball flew off into some trees. One ball hit him on the back.
He then tried his hand at bowling. "Very nice, very nice," one girl said.
Bush, in Pakistan on the last leg of a tour of South Asia, was modest about his first-time performance.
"Haven't quite got the skills yet," he said.
Pakistan's most famous-ever cricketer, former captain-turned-politician Imran Khan, spent Saturday confined to his home where authorities detained him to thwart his plan to lead a march to protest against Bush's visit.
On much of the MSM they are spinning the protests in Pakistan during Bush's visit, as being related to the Cartoons of Muhammed.
Incredibly people will buy it, even though the US was not (noticeably) involved in any of that.
None of it will help Musharraf who is becoming more unpopular by the day. Another leader bending over for the Bushler, hardly a ticket to credibility.
I think Bushie is trying to gain acceptance with other countries because we don't want the little turd here anymore. It's almost like Michelle Jackson (I mean Micheal my bad) even Dubai doesn't want that freak anymore.
Bush has to turn to other countries for friends noone here thinks much of the little turd. It is almost like that dubai Michael Jackson thing but even they are getting tired of Michael.
At 2:07 PM, John Koch said...
Should a president NOT have ordered predator strikes against a suspected al Qaeda gathering?
No, he shouldn't have, and was it actually ordered by Bush himself? I don't know. Mr. Koch's key word is "suspected." Oh well, just more collateral damage on the ways to hearts and minds, or is that mines?
An aside: Anchoring a report of that drone attack that murdered civilians, Bob Woodruff ended it with a very inane comment, which I wrote down: "Doing it all from the air."
Sadly, that wasn't the case a couple of weeks later for the ABC News team.
I shudder to think that we have 3 more years of Bush.
I fear that as the USA withdraws from Iraq, Iraq will erupt in flames and the atrocities that will result from the forces Bush has unleashed in Iraq will make Saddam's look miniscule in contrast.
I'm not sure that a "solution" is even possible any more. Prof. Cole is hoping for a UN force. But Iraq has become such a killing field, what nations will sign on to sending their forces to Iraq even w/i the context of a UN intervention?
At 2:07 PM, John Koch said...
Should a president NOT have ordered predator strikes against a suspected al Qaeda gathering?
Civilized, law abiding nations should not undertake assassination attempts in sovereign nations. It is illegal under international law, and it is morally wrong, of course. In this case, women and children were murdered which shows to the Pakastani people that we are no different than our enemies. It is hard for me to understand people approving these high-tech mafia, hit-squad tactics, especially knowing that innocent civilians are often killed. I believe it must be pure racism that explains the coldhearted and uncaring attitiude many Westerners display in not worrying about or acknowledging "collateral damage." In my worldview, the lives of Middle Eastern Muslim people have as much value as U.S. citizens. I grieve for the innocent that were felled in this evil act, and I offer condolences to their families.
At 2:07 PM, John Koch said...
Should a president NOT have ordered predator strikes against a suspected al Qaeda gathering?
Civilized, law abiding nations should not undertake assassination attempts in sovereign nations. It is illegal under international law, and it is morally wrong, of course. In this case, women and children were murdered which shows to the Pakistani people that we are no different than our enemies. It is hard for me to understand people approving these high-tech mafia, hit-squad tactics, especially knowing that innocent civilians are often killed. I believe it must be pure racism that explains the coldhearted and uncaring attitiude many Westerners display in not worrying about or acknowledging U.S. inflicted "collateral damage." In my worldview, the lives of Middle Eastern Muslim people have as much value as U.S. citizens. I grieve for the innocent that were felled in this evil act, and I offer condolences to their families.
Post a Comment
<< Home