Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Sunday, September 07, 2008

Zardari President;
65 Killed in Bombings, Clashes

For the nine years before 2005, Asaf Ali Zardari, widower of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, was in prison facing corruption charges. On Saturday Zardari was elected president of Pakistan.

Ironically, given Bush's neoconservative agenda of democratizing the Muslim world, the most significant steps toward genuine parliamentary governance and rule of law, in Pakistan during the past year, have been taken by the Pakistani people and their elected leaders in the teeth of fierce opposition from Bush and Cheney. McCain, too, was a steadfast supporter of military dictator Pervez Musharraf and distinctly unenthusiastic about letting the Pakistani people choose their own government.

Zardari demonstrated that his Pakistan People's Party is capable of mustering a supermajority in parliament even absent its former coalition partner, the Pakistan Muslim League (N) led by former prime minister Nawaz Sharif. The PMLN pulled out of its coalition with the PPP to protest Zardari's unwillingness to reinstate the Supreme Court justices dismissed by Gen. Pervez Musharraf last fall (the dictator was making a bid, which ultimately failed, to secure the presidency despite his ineligibility for the office. The constitution requires that presidential candidates be civilians.) That the PPP can rule with the support of some smaller parties and that the government is in no danger of falling is a positive.

Sharif wanted the original court reinstated and the justices appointed by Musharraf to be fired. A few days ago three of the former justices were reinstated by the court itself though since the number of slots for justices has been increased, their return did not require any resignations. The return of the chief justice, Ifikhar Chaudhry, however, would be more difficult, since there cannot be two chief justices and Zardari is unwilling to have Chaudhry leading the court again because the former chief justice is thought to view the corruption charges against Zardari, for the moment dropped, as plausible.

I watched on ARY digital as Justice Syed Zahid Hussain declared that Zardari's election had restored the wholeness of parliament. I presume he meant that it had restored the sovereignty of parliament and that now all the leadership posts in that body are filled by persons elected to their positions (in contrast to Musharraf, who just grabbed power). Zardari himself declared that "parliament is sovereign," suggesting that he will stand by his pledge to reduce the powers of the presidency, which were expanded by the generals when they were in control.

Zardari is in many ways a throwback to an earlier era of Pakistani politics. He is from a rural, landed Sindhi clan, and is what they call in Pakistan a "feudal." He came by his current position through marrying into the landed Bhutto clan, which dominated Pakistani politics in much of the 1970s and 1990s via Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and his daughter Benazir. In contrast, Zardari's rival Nawaz Sharif is a steel magnate, a representative of the rising Pakistani business classes. Likewise, Gen. Musharraf championed the white collar urban middle classes in the main, though since they value the rule of law, in the end there was a severe contradiction between his methods of rule and his class base.

As hundreds of thousands of urban lawyers, professionals and young people protested Musharraf's tyranny this past year, they could not have imagined that they would end up having the general dumped only to see him replaced by a "feudal" from a familiar political dynasty. He returns the disdain, and even called the protesting attorneys "quaint."

The new president faces many challenges in establishing his legitamacy among the people as opposed to among the country's parliamentarians. He must demonstrate to a skeptical electorate that he has turned over a new leaf and will no longer merit the nickname "Mr. Ten Percent," which he earned, it is said, because he demanded a ten percent cut of the value of foreign contracts when Benazir was in power.

Zardari has to find a way to overturn Musharraf's unconstitutional dismissal of the supreme court. He must also follow through on his pledges to work to reduce the dictatorial powers of the presidency, which flow from martial law amendments to the constitution rather than from popular sovereignty.

He also faces a big problem in the form of the Tehrik-i Taliban in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) that lie between the North-West Frontier Province and Afghanistan.

On Saturday, a suicide bomber hit a checkpoint on the outskirts of Peshawar, killing at least 35 and wounding dozens. The bad news is that the massive explosion was probably not intended for a small checkpoint, and the payload may have been aimed at Peshawar, the capital of the North-West Frontier Province, which recently voted in the main to install secular-leaning Pushtun nationalists in the provincial government, ending the rule of the fundamentalist Jama'at-i Islami and its allies, most of whom boycotted last February's elections. The Muslim radicals have several times attacked the Awami National League politicians, who have no sympathy for fundamentalism or vigilanteism.

Pushtun villagers sometimes wage battles against the fundamentalist guerrillas; such a battle on Friday and Saturday left 24 villagers dead.

The attacks by the US inside the Pakistani border on the Tehrik-i Taliban and on Arab al-Qaeda members have left Pakistani civilians dead this week, raising a public outcry.

It is interesting that when Sen. Barack Obama began pushing for US attacks inside Pakistan on Arab al-Qaeda, he was slammed as impractical by John McCain. In fact, Obama looks closer to the thinking of the US officer corps in Afghanistan than does McCain.

The aerial drone attack on Saturday on a village not far from Miranshah did appear to kill Arab al-Qaeda, but also killed two women and a child. Zardari and other Pakistani politicians have joined in the condemnation, and the government of Pakistan is now stopping the US from using the overland Khyber pass route to provision US troops. Still, it is a little unlikely that the US is able to launch such attacks without the tacit cooperation of the Pakistani government.

Still, Zardari will need to find a way to deal with this crisis, since he cannot survive if the US undermines him with the Pakistani public by openly and repeatedly infringing on Pakistani sovereignty.

9 Comments:

At 10:29 AM, Anonymous John Francis Lee said...

It is interesting that when Sen. Barack Obama began pushing for US attacks inside Pakistan on Arab al-Qaeda, he was slammed as impractical by John McCain. In fact, Obama looks closer to the thinking of the US officer corps in Afghanistan than does McCain.

That's supposed to be a good thing, is it, that Barck Obama is more of an American Imperialist then John McCain? Anyone who bothered to track his official pronouncements knew that, of course. But the willfully ignorant folks among us who bought Obama's "change without changing" line are now surprised. At least you're not registering surprise, Juan Cole. But with your unwavering support for Barack Obama, I can't see that that is a good thing either.

Still, Zardari will need to find a way to deal with this crisis, since he cannot survive if the US undermines him with the Pakistani public by openly and repeatedly infringing on Pakistani sovereignty.

Mister 10% must be getting 20% from the Neocons for this. And that's all he's ever cared about. The US is once again allied with and made the enemy of the Pakistani people the ruler of Pakistan. All war all the time. McCain, Obama... makes no difference. Voting for either one will make you an accomplice to their war crimes. Don't say you don't know what's going on. We all do. We read Juan Cole and get it here first.

 
At 11:53 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.juancole.com/2008/09/zardari-president-65-killed-in-bombings.html

September 7, 2008

The attacks by the US inside the Pakistani border on the Tehrik-i Taliban and on Arab al-Qaeda members have left Pakistani civilians dead this week, raising a public outcry.

It is interesting that when Sen. Barack Obama began pushing for US attacks inside Pakistan on Arab al-Qaeda, he was slammed as impractical by John McCain. In fact, Obama looks closer to the thinking of the US officer corps in Afghanistan than does McCain.

-- Juan Cole

[Obama is for war, McCain is for peace; I get it.]

 
At 11:56 AM, Blogger Terri said...

Suddenly, because Barack Obama is for a forever war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, I am supposed to be for such a war. This is supposed to be a reason to vote for Obama? So much for an American peace movement. After 6 years of war, we are supposed to want more because Obama wants more.

 
At 4:07 PM, Blogger sherm said...

I guess the only hope is, that if Obama gets elected, he won't surround himself with war loving neocons. Of course not all neocons wear the ball cap and t-shirt to identify themselves.

In fact, judging by the past elections and the reticence of liberals to talk earnestly about peace, I'd say War-Loving-Neocons"R"Us.

Now if McCain announced that Dennis Kucinich or Naom Chomsky is his new lead foreign policy advisor, he'd have my vote. (Never underestimate the "maverick".)

 
At 6:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I want us out of Afghanistan and Pakistan, I realize that will not be happening with Obama as Obama has made clear for months, and that is deeply saddening.

 
At 6:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please note this link does not work:

"The attacks by the US inside the Pakistani border on the Tehrik-i Taliban and on Arab al-Qaeda members have left Pakistani civilians dead this week, raising a public outcry."

 
At 9:37 PM, Anonymous JHM said...

Mostly for ‘sherm’:

The Illinois Senatorino may not have spent twenty years polishing up his maverick act like some folks, but when it comes to foreign and invasion policy, he was likely to be at least as unreliable as Commanderissimo McCain. Cook County is a long way from salt water, and it is plain that BHO does not much care personally about exotic stuff like ‘Iraq’ one way or the other.

The principle of Obamatan mavericity would, however, have been different from the Commanderissimo’s. As I guess it, BHO would have just unimaginatively opted for whatever seeming randomness worked best for him politically, whereas J. Sidney McCain is bound to do almost the exact opposite, being a dumb Mugwump forever out to draw everybody’s attention to his own Courageous Profile™. [*]

Actually ‘maverick’ is the wrong word for both of ’em. BHO would have become predictable as soon as he had established a track record to predict from. JSM is not altogether impossible to anticipate once you grasp which game it is that he is playin’.

If "talk earnestly about peace" be the sole criterion, probably there was not a dime’s worth of difference. B. Hussein would not have done that because there are no re-election votes in it, on balance. J. Sidney will not do it because it would be entirely the wrong kind of ego trip.

The best general recommendation in connection with "talk earnestly about peace" is to go with the donkeys. They are not going to give you much of what you want, but at least they won’t look at you quite so funny when you talk earnestly about wanting it.

Happy days.


[*] One of the minor advantages of not being a militant extremist Republican is that you can be sure Cap’n M’Cain will never stab you in the back.

 
At 8:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fukuyama and other State Department Neocons have "unipolarism" as one of their pillars. Last week, Russian leader, Medvedev cited "multipolarism" as one of 5 pillars of the Russian Federation's foreign policy. Funny but at least 35% of Georgians oppose Soros, cum Bush, unipolarism. The Turkish PM sees an essential unity among his country and 4 other regional states; 3 of which have resorted to war.
http://www.panarmenian.net/library/eng/?nid=197

Frankly, with Saakashvili out of the way, there would be a rough peace in the Caucasus. Unfortunately, peace doesn't fit the Neocon agenda.

 
At 5:10 AM, Blogger noor said...

Pakistan always claimed itself as allied to Bush in a fight against terrorism. But it cann't control the borders of its own country. Shame to Pakistan Army. A reporter can interview leader of terrorist but army cann't arrest him. I think Pakistan government which claims itself to be government of people and following the saying of slan Benazir, playing a double role. They didn't restored the chief justice, they didn't brought the prices down and so on. A lot of slogans but nothing done. Because president has his own interest and we the people are suffering and paying for it. How long we are going to have feudal lords as ruler.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home