Archive for the ‘Superpower’ Category

h1

Injustice In the Court of Law –

February 11, 2014

I would like to call myself a patriotic member of civil society of Pakistan. One who is currently witnessing the state of Pakistan being dismantled piece by piece with the help of a pillar of state called the “Judiciary”. The spearhead of this campaign against Pakistan was started by no one else but the former Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Chaudhry. He took oath under Provisional Constitutional Order, then used his influence illegally for corruption, when questioned by then President of Pakistan Pervez Musharraf – he went to coup the state by using the law society of Pakistan……The battle ended with his restoration.

images

The next episode of one sided battle started in court of law barely a month after Pervez Musharraf’s arrival in Pakistan, the former Chief Justice of Pakistan, Iftikhar Chaudhry, issued a challenge, daring people to step forward and bring up charges against Pervez Musharraf. Can you imagine any CJ of a country behaving in this manner? Iftikhar Chaudhry has been overly politicized and compromised for years and has always viewed Musharraf as his arch enemy. Clearly Chaudhry had nothing else but revenge in his agenda. For a long time the Chief Justice has been demanding the Federal Government to bring forth treason charges against Pervez Musharraf. When the government politely declined – such as for instance the Caretaker Government – the Supreme Court could not take no for an answer and maintained an argumentative behaviour with the Caretaker Government, insisting the latter bring forth treason charges against Pervez Musharraf, thereby allowing the ever so eager Supreme Court to proceed with the matter.

This is very interesting given the fact that in Pakistani law, the Supreme Court has absolutely no right to request – let alone demand – the Federal Government to bring forth charges against any individual or group. The Supreme Court cannot request, demand, pressurize and incite the Government to bring to its attention any case. Thus, by constantly pressurizing the Federal Government to proceed with the treason charges against Musharraf, the Supreme Court has violated the law of the land and exposing its utterly biased attitude.

Now coming to the the case of treason against Pervez Musharraf follows the bizarre logic: In November 2007, Pervez Musharraf imposed temporary Emergency Rule in Pakistan. As a result, some sections of the Pakistani Constitution were temporarily suspended, or held in abeyance. This is said to be treason against the State because Article 6 of the Constitution of Pakistan states that holding the Constitution in abeyance is an act of treason.

Responses

A. Article 232 of the Pakistani Constitution permits the President to impose Emergency Rule under certain situations. As long as the President is satisfied that a situation or a state of affairs exists which warrants Emergency rule, the latter can be imposed.

Article 232 (1)
If the President is satisfied that a grave emergency exists in which the security of Pakistan, or any part thereof, is threatened by war or external aggression, or by internal disturbance beyond the power of a Provincial Government to control, he may issue a Proclamation of Emergency.”
Therefore, imposing Emergency Rule is not akin to “treason” as it is permitted by the Pakistani Constitution. One may disagree with the reasons for imposing the Emergency, yet imposing it is not “treason” or a “punishable crime” even if the underlying reasons are deemed to be weak.

B. In 2007, Article 6 of the Constitution did not state that holding the Constitution in abeyance or suspending it was an act of “treason.” This is the 2007 version of the text of Article 6:
“(1) Any person who abrogates or attempts or conspires to abrogate, subverts or attempts or conspires to subvert the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.”
In 2010, however, through the 18th Amendment, the above text was altered as follows (italics added):
“(1)Any person who abrogates or subverts or suspends or holds in abeyance, or attempts or conspires to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance, the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by any other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.”
In 2007, suspending or holding the Constitution in abeyance was not an act of high treason. In 2010, however, suspending and holding the Constitution in abeyance became an act of high treason.
It is legally and rationally ridiculous to retroject this backwards to try Pervez Musharraf – or anyone else for that matter – for having allegedly committed “high treason.”

C. Those who have presumed Pervez Musharraf to be guilty of high treason convey the impression as if Pervez Musharraf was working in isolation, in a vacuum, making decisions on his own, with no other individual present in the scene. This scenario is highly unrealistic. The text of the Proclamation of Emergency Rule itself mentions the “prime minister, governors of all four provinces and with the chairman joint chiefs of staff committee, chiefs of the armed forces, vice chief of army staff and corps commanders of the Pakistan army” who deliberated upon the situation and then requested the President – Pervez Musharraf – to impose Emergency Rule in Pakistan. However, as far as I can tell, no one has been questioned. To successfully implement the Emergency rule, individuals (Civil Servants etc), judges and departments at all levels were required to play their part. None of them have been questioned. In fact, the Law Minister of that time – Zaid Hamid Khan – who played a pivotal role in designing and implementing the Emergency Rule in 2007 is presently a senior member of Nawaz Sharif’s party and was once again appointed as the Law Minister, only to be made to resign shortly thereafter due to the embarrassment caused on account of his role as the Law Minister in 2007!

This trial is nothing but blatant discrimination against Pervez Musharraf and a Violation of Article 25 & 6: By having a go at Musharraf by the Supreme Court and the Sharif Government itself. Article 25 is the equality clause – it calls for a lack of discrimination. Likewise, Article 6 is also not being adhered to. This trial can be an important turning point for Pakistan if one believes in the following quote by Martin Luther King.

injustice quotes

Two forms of blatant discrimination are being carried out:

Another important point in this matter that November 2007 imposition of temporary Emergency Rule is a comparatively minor matter – compared to the actual Military (counter) coup of 1999. The latter is the main issue, not the 2007 Emergency. Were it not for the fact that a Military (counter) coup transpired in 1999, the minor matter of the November 2007 Emergency would not have taken place. In light of the High Treason Act, the application of Article 6 cannot be limited to the 2007 Emergency. The 1999 Military (counter) coup needs to be considered. Even then, Article 6 cannot be restricted to the 1999 Military (counter) coup. The dark era of the Zia regime also needs to be considered, including all prior Military takeovers. According to the High Treason Act, from 1958 onwards, every military coup is to be considered and all involved – directly and indirectly – are to be tried and punished. Thus, by singling out Pervez Musharraf and by restricting the proceedings to the comparatively very minor matter of the imposition of temporary Emergency Rule in November 2007, the Supreme Court and the Sharif Government are violating both Articles 6 & 25 of the Constitution and are also ignoring the High Treason Act, which permits the trial of everyone involved in a coup – whether directly or indirectly – from 1958 onward.

Either all are tried or none are tried. Either all regimes are considered or none are considered. There must be across the board justice to ensure fairness and transparency. Picking and choosing should not be allowed
However, we all know that the reason for Ignoring the 1999 Military (counter) Coup is that Iftikhar Chaudhry was one of the judges who took oath under the PCO order.

Army Officers, Politicians, Judges, Bureaucrats, Journalists all need to be tried and punished if they played any part – directly or indirectly – in supporting, maintaining, defending, strengthening and legitimising a Military takeover/regime.

Oath taking ceremony of Iftikhar Chaudhry

Oath taking ceremony of Iftikhar Chaudhry

• Corrupt and biased Judges such as Iftikhar Chaudhry, who legitimized the Army’s rightful counter coup of 1999, must be taken to court for the matter and justice should be served upon them with full force

• The current two times failed Prime Minister should immediately resign – along with all of his colleagues who aided and abetted the dictator Zia. They must then be brought before the law for violating the Pakistani Constitution multiple times.

Finally, one should recall that Ch. Shujaat Hussain has already put himself forward to be tried in court for treason under Article 6 but the federal government is yet to include his name in the case.

As justice cannot be forced upon selectively –
Author: Asad Baig
Email : Ashbaig80@gmail.com

***Material pointing towards the different Articles of Constitution Pakistan has been researched by Usman Sheikh.***

h1

Obama, Oil & Pakistan

January 22, 2009
Region Of Concerns

Region Of Concerns

January 22, 2009 

America’s military policy is following its foreign policy which follows the smell of oil. Forget freedom and democracy. That’s for fools. Pakistanis are fooling themselves if they think President Obama will be able to change this. Let’s pray he does. The Karachi-Torkham-Afghanistan supply route and the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan pipeline means that U.S. will have to take effective control of Balochistan, Gwadar and Karachi. This will also help deny Iran and China any stake in their own pipelines across Pakistan. America can’t do this by going to war with a strong Pakistani military. Destabilization is part of the plan, with some margin for unintended consequences. Now you understand the game. By

Ahmed Quraishi | Wednesday, 21 January 2009.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—Publicly, America’s most immediate challenge after the government change is Afghanistan and Pakistan. Privately, in Washington’s power corridors, it is oil. Oil, and not al Qaeda, is threatening to knock America off global leadership. President Obama takes over a country whose global economic leadership is threatened by dwindling oil reserves and a dogfight over whatever remains. Oil is running out, fast. And the remaining oil, including new reserves, lie in other people’s lands, closer to Russia, China, Europe and other powers. America’s global supremacy rests on an economic system based on easy access to oil. If someone else gets that oil, America loses. Jon Thompson, an American oil veteran ExxonMobil Exploration Company’s former president, has written in June 2003 that by next decade the world will need 80% more oil than we have today to keep the world going. Luckily for President Obama, his predecessor, George W. Bush, has done an excellent job in: One, securing new oil, and, Two, warding off threat from other oil hungry powers. Under the guise of spreading freedom and democracy, Bush’s eight years saw the biggest expansion of American military bases across the world. And the trail follows the smell of oil. This riddle is as mysterious as the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden. America’s foreign policy was also adjusted to follow the footprint of oil, going where the oil is, be it Angola, Sudan/Darfur, Central Asia, Russia, Colombia, Georgia, Venezuela, and of course Iraq. Somalia is fast becoming the latest battlefield in this secretive global dogfight over oil and transport routes.

In the words of veteran American oil industry correspondent William Engdahl, ‘U.S. military and foreign policy was now about controlling every major existing and potential oil source and transport route on earth […] One superpower, the United States, would be in a position to decide who gets how much energy and at what price.’ The Taliban government was not an enemy of America. It sent delegations to United States and lobbied for U.S. State Department’s attention. Its removal was decided much before 9/11, according to Pakistan’s former top diplomat Niaz Naik, who was told so explicitly by U.S. officials in July 2001. Taliban fell out of favor because they put terms and conditions on the pipelines that American oil giants planned to construct on Afghan territory. Taliban were replaced by U.S. oil consultants Zalmay Khalilzad and Hamid Karzai. Pakistan was and continues to be the next target. U.S. diplomatic meddling has already disturbed the natural progression of the Pakistani government system, leading to instability and creating local players who look to America for support. U.S. military intervention is softening up the country through regular missile attacks and drone flights. The last time this method proved effective was in Iraq during the 1990s.

The chatter in the U.S. think tanks and media about Pakistan’s division along ethnic lines has never been this high. Pakistan has to be subdued in order for American energy and military transport lines to become secure. America needs to secure Pakistani transport routes from the sea to the Afghan border. Balochistan is an interesting case. Destabilizing this Pakistani province disturbs Iran’s plans to lay down pipelines to Pakistan and beyond. The instability also helps destroy China’s chances of using Gwadar, the new Pakistani port city overlooking oil-rich Gulf, to dock its commercial and naval ships. In fact, the entire area between Gwadar and the Sino-Pakistani border is up in insurgencies of all sorts, known and unknown. This is the same route that a future Chinese oil pipeline is supposed to take, linking China to oil supplies from Africa and the Gulf. This entire area was peaceful before 2005, until meddling by unknown actors began from the U.S.-controlled Afghan soil, exploiting Pakistani internal problems. The United States is playing a big role in ‘softening’ Pakistan. It is trying to pitch the country’s elected governments against the military to reduce the military’s ability to decide Pakistani interest on Afghanistan, China and India. Outside meddling is easy thanks to Pakistan’s weak political and government structure. Stopping American intervention in Pakistan, while continuing the cooperative relationship, is the biggest challenge facing President Obama. Will he do it? The facts on the ground are not encouraging. After gaining unprecedented access inside Pakistan – both diplomatically and militarily – it is doubtful that an Obama administration would scale back U.S. gains. Pakistan will have to tell the U.S. that it has legitimate security and strategic interests in the region and that it cannot allow the U.S. to decide those for Pakistan. This includes the shape of the future government in Kabul, the expansion of the Indian role in the region, and the relationship with China. Obama’s Washington has to understand, respect and work with Pakistani interests and concerns. Any other type of relationship won’t work. President Obama needs to wean his policy planners off the idea of reproducing the pliant regimes Baghdad and Kabul. Those things require war. And President Obama doesn’t want another war, does he?

This post is taken from the following:-

http://pakistankakhudahafiz.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/oil-obama-and-pakistan/

h1

“Gaza Strikes” , a disguise ?

January 2, 2009

question-markSince strike began on Gaza a thought has been going through my mind again and again. In fact, I have discussed it with few of my close friends and they are of the same view as I am. So I thought I would share it here on my blog and see what responses to I get….

I think Gaza strikes have started all of a sudden to create a distraction from the current Pakistan and India crisis. This can be for a few reasons:-

• An attempt to take away the attention from India (after the blunder of Indian Planned Mumbai carnage ).

• To distract Pakistan in order to effect its readiness towards any surgical strikes by India.
 
• May be, to give India time to come up with some fresh false allegation or may be one more Indian planned carnage on Indian soil.

• Finally, may be Israel is just trying to show its might on innocent civilians.

The possibilities are endless……

I don’t know how much I am right or wrong on this but its just a thought.  Pakistan should keep its guard stiffer than ever, although Indian government is saying that they are not looking for a war, can we trust them ?

h1

Indian Bluff

January 2, 2009

An eye opener by my fellow blogger…..
http://pakistankakhudahafiz.wordpress.com/

f16_kk_paf

Will India launch punitive strike(s) against Pakistan? Highly unlikely. India would have already struck if it had a choice. It doesn’t have a choice for two major reasons:

1. Indians know, they can start a conflict, but where and how the war ends will not be in their control.

2. By tangling themselves in a war, they run a too realistic risk of delivering a mortal blow to their service-based economy, which may not even survive the brinksmanship Indians are engaging in.

Arguably, Indians suffer from the ‘white man’s complex.’ Urbanite Indians love to mimic the American way of life. They imitate the ‘goras’ in ways ranging from their attire to their manner of speech. So much so, they have named Bombay film industry after an American icon, namely the Hollywood. Somewhere during the last decade or so, Indians became so engrossed with the ‘gora complex’ that they began imagining India to be an economical powerhouse and military superpower equating the Americans. Perhaps, it’s this complex which sullied the better judgment of Indian urbanites and their media in demanding punitive strikes against Pakistan.

Nevertheless, after the initial hysteria will ware down, at least some sane Indians will ask, if India could afford such an arrogant behavior? That when the reality will hit them rudely, like ton of bricks, that neither India is America nor Pakistan is Afghanistan.

Despite the ferocious appearance of the Indian military, largely on paper; the fact remains, over 80% of its obsolete hardware is a carryover from the Soviet-era. Indian handicap of obsolete hardware was highlighted during the 2002 India-Pakistan standoff. It was a humiliating experience for the Indians. Operation Parakram cost India about $2 billion in cash and 798 in human cost, and that too without a single shot fired from the Pakistani side.

It was also a disastrous Indian deployment, because even after one year of hostile posturing, they could not cross the border, fearing an all out war ending in a nuclear exchange. That is when India truly lost its supposed conventional superiority over Pakistan. The humiliating pull back effectively closed the doors on India for any future conventional war endeavors; because Pakistani nuclear arsenal was here to stay. However, during the same time Pakistanis were modernizing its arsenal through the rapid induction of modern weaponry like F-17 fighters and precision weapons like the Hatf-8 cruise missiles.

Since then, India has dabbled with nonstarters, like ‘cold start’ doctrine. The idea was to catch Pakistan off-guard by sending a comparatively smaller but highly mobile force across the border at a moment’s notice. It was a nonstarter because of Pakistani equalizer (its nukes); plus they realized they would still have to deploy a considerable amount of logistics and men at the front positions, where they would have remained juicy sitting-ducks for the preemptive PAF air strikes.

The other reason India cannot afford a war with Pakistan is, its economy is too young and still too small to survive through a round of war. Regardless, the havoc it will run on the already distressed Pakistani economy, the war will for sure spell an end to the largely service-based economy, which depends on the foreign investments; and the foreign investments inherently depend on peace driven stability.

A brief look will abundantly expose the facade of the Indian economy; which will collapse at the first signs of uncertainty or instability. In 2008, its external debts increased to around $221 billion. In 2007, Indian exports stood around $145 billion, while imports were around $217 billion; a deficit of $72 billion in a single year.

Its factory output account for 27.6% of the GDP and employs 17% of the total workforce. Rest of the workforce is largely dedicated to the agriculture sector. According to a 2008 World Bank report, 75.6% Indians live on less than $2 per day. It suffers from higher rates of malnutrition than Sub-Saharan Africa. Over 70% its population is either illiterate or educated below the primary level. Indian tourist industry is 1/6 of Las Vegas. Recently, Standard & Poor’s announced, India risk a downgrade from BBB-minus rating to the lowest investment-grade rating. Clearly, Indians are hardly in a financial shape to even contemplate on waging a war.

Indian service industry accounts for over 55% of its GDP. Bangalore is called the Silicon Valley of India. A large number of Information Technology companies are located in the city. It is the largest contributor of India’s $33 billion IT exports (2007). IT giants like Infosys and Wipro are headquartered in Bangalore. Other undertakings headquartered in Bangalore are Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), National Aerospace Laboratories (NAL) and Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) to name the few.

Bangalore is also called the world’s call-centre capital. Foreign IT giants like the IBM, Microsoft, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Apple and Cisco have also heavily invested in the city by opening call centers there. These call centers bring in major amounts of service-generated foreign revenues. Their 24/7 operations provide the customer support throughout the globe. An interruption of operations for even for a single day could mean loss of millions of dollars for the foreign investors.

As ugly as it may sound, but that’s what wars are, brutal and ugly. Imagine: far short of nuclear strike, only a couple of bombs or Shaheen-II (with an accuracy of 200m) armed with conventional warheads are dropped on the outskirts of Bangalore. Will even a single foreign company think twice before closing their operations for good? Would they stay around to see if they will get lucky during second round too?

Feel-good slogans like ‘shining India’ don’t help the arrogance clouding the good judgment war-mongering Indians. They can try to start a war on their terms, but it will definitely not end at their terms. Unless India has somehow overcome their fear of far-superior Pakistani nuclear arsenal, or they have found a way to move whole India under kilometer deep nuke-proof shelters, it will not dare to start a war.

Adnan Gill.

h1

Us Muslims!!!

December 23, 2008

I read an interesting post post at http://karachiwali.wordpress.com , but I dont see the point of it. I dont want to offend anyone but our beloved religion Islam has been highjacked by maulvi’s you have made Islam a male dominated religion and  until we throw the mulla’s out nothing will be set out right.

In addition to this, different people have interpreted Islam in different ways and it has happened soo much soo that the whole meaning has changed. For example, Zakat was supposed to be a social fund so that the society could benefit from it but nowadays people prefer giving Zakat to their poor relatives (most of the times its less than what they are accounted for). I know people take money out of their Pakistani’s accounts just before zakkat’s deducted because,

1. They dont trust the system
2. They think its beneficial to give it to their poor relatives.

The way I look at this, I say this is not right. There should be a transparent system setup to monitor this and then everyone can get a fair share of such a benifit as per their needs.

About, Islam and education. Well Deen and Duniya need to go together. They are like two balls which need to be balanced in the same propotion but I am affraid to say all us grip one of them tight and let the other one slip. These days if anyone keeps a beard then people get worried and say “Maulvi hogaya hai”. People are even scared of giving out their daugthers in religious families because they are jamati’s.  Today education has opened our minds soo much that we have even started to question Allah’s authority.
Boys and girls study in co-ed’s and its not considered bad. Dating is seen as part of our soceity, for boys the high the shalwar the more dangerous he is and for girls the higher the shalwar the more fashionable and rich she is.  What are we trying to achieve here?

Prophet Mohammad, started the first preaching from his own home and muslims from our age start preaching from a different corner.

The interesting thing which I usually try to find an answer to is. Pakistan was made in the name of Islam that is the reason its known As Islamic Republic of Pakistan. But which islam are we talking about ? Sunni, Shia, Baraivi, Deubandi, Ismaili, Kadyani or Wahabi…Because as far as each of these categories go they are called muslims in one way or another.

If the youth of today do want to make a change then you dont need to discuss it on a blog and write some emotional replies and then use TAB+CTRL to look the fresh bollywood news or check out how Angelina Jolie looks  on red carpet. All we need to do is study Islam on our own. Read the books of all other related religions and then see how Islam is better. The five pillars of Islam are not just merely pillars. They are things on which the whole infrastructure of Islam rests on. You are all clever people and none of you needs your hand to be lead into a direction. When Allah will want then you will find the right paths and discover what Hazzart Mosa , Prophet Mohammad, Hazzart Ali and the rest of them did.

I always say “Prosperity lies in testing and learning and testing again”. We need to be true to ourselves. I know I dont get a satisfying reflection of myself in the mirror because I know I am not following the same Islam as Prophet Muhammad thought. But are you guys following the right things ?

I know tons of people who drink on Friday night but look for a halal restaurant to eat. I know parents who let their children go out with white girls but then take them to Pakistan so that they can end up with good brides. The truth is our soceity and culture is becoming a laughing junk.

 

Elbert Hubbard 

“Religions are many and diverse, but reason and goodness are one. ”
The Roycroft Dictionary and Book of Epigrams, 1923

h1

Barrack Obama, A New America / A New World

December 22, 2008

fairey_obama_hope

I must say it was an eye openner seeing Barrack Obama win. I was very pessimistic before he won and I often said that America is not ready for a colored president. But hey, we all saw him WIN. He no doubt had the best campaings in the history of not only American but the history of world. The money he got for funding his campaing could have easily changed the future of many under development countries. The speeches were soo powerful that at times I burnt the pizza in the oven because I was too lost in his speech.

No doubt, he has been a motivational speaker and has spoken a common man’s probles.

But, what now?

Although, I have nothing against the man but I highly doubt that he will be able to serve his promises. There are a lot of complexties involved in the real issues because of which, he won the elections. Iraqn and Afghanistan are states where there is not much manuvarity to change policies. Iran on the other hand is a naughty boy of the class who has been hard to control even for a strong Bush regime and above them all comes Pakistan, an ally in trouble because of  following American agenda. I tend to question now, what will Obama do? Call troops back from Iraq and pile up Afghanistan ?  His voters wont be happy about it.  Hit Iran in the center and start another war? His voters again vote be happy.  On the other hand the funding/aid to Pakistan has not been appreciated over the years so I dont think so he will carry on doing that and if that happens then they wont be happy.  So basically its a pretty shitty situation.

Above all this, would the democrats and the republican and the congress let Obama chose eitherwise? I dont think so. For long enough American strategy has been very fixed in the matters they deal with things and I think Obama will be lost in the crowd behind the “I cant do anything scenario”. Therefore, I say that either Obama will be the best President of American or he will be the worst mistake American people chose for themselves.

May peace prevails and happiness sustains.