Pakistan: More than a State of Emergency

Over the weekend, President Pervez Musharraf declared Pakistan to be in a state of emergency. Interestingly, the commotion around this topic was not caused by the actual conflict. Rather the controversy stems from accusations about whether or not the declaration made by the President was warranted. The internal conflict within the country is not a new development, despite the recently reported Taliban’s violent activity. The former Pakistani Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto(pictured left with Musharraf), has even voiced her disapproval, saying that Musharraf has only declared the state of emergency to allow him to stay in power and have complete freedom to use military action, against the wishes of the public. One cannot help but notice the slight regression back to a form of dictatorship. To gain further insight into this issue, I searched the blogosphere to read and respond to what others thought of the recent controversy in Pakistan. In one blog entitled BZ Notes!, the author published a post, “Emergency in Pakistan: A Political Meltdown”, that offers insight on the issue and argues, similarly to myself, about the consequences the Pakistani President will inevitably face after such a decision. Contrary to this, Manan Ahmed, author of “Pakistan: The Emergency Plus Edition” lists arguments supporting the President’s decision. Each of these blogs makes excellent points, which I highlighted in my comments.

“Emergency in Pakistan: A Political Meltdown”
Comment:
The arguments you make are very similar to my own. I agree that this kind of political crisis has been looming for quite some time, and I do not agree with the way that the President is handling things. He is acting as a military dictator desperate for control. I agreed with your statement “it is not more than a tactic to stay in power, oppress the freedom of speech, and to heavy handedly silence the opposing voices in the society.” While this is a very strong opinion, I agree that Musharraf declared the state of emergency as a political move to gain more power and control over Pakistan. I also wanted to highlight your comment about how “he stands alone today, completely disconnected from the nation on whom he rules.”(shown in cartoon to the right) The fact that, along with the general public, the former Prime Minister has also expressed her opposition to Musharraf’s actions, which shows that he will not have much support with his endeavors. I enjoyed reading your post and I look forward to following your blog as this situation unfolds.

“Pakistan: The Emergency Plus Edition”
Comment:
I found your post interesting and some of your arguments very valid. However, I believe our opinions differ when addressing Musharraf’s motives behind his declaration of a state of emergency. First, your argument about needing “diplomacy” is very valid and I believe that is a good solution, but I do not think that is what Musharraf is planning to enforce, since his background is in the military. It seems that this will only lead to more violence. Second, I would like to address your comment that “Pakistan needs a strong dictator. The fallacy ... the gross oversight ... has always been that he was never in control.” Pakistan needs stability and to gain control over their political situation, we agree on that. However, my question is, when has dictatorship ever been a good thing? Musharraf is acting in his own personal and political interest so that he can gain the control he has been lacking during his presidency. The state of emergency gives him the ability to overrule the democratic constitution, giving the President power to act as he sees fit, which consequently is not what the people of Pakistan want. I fail to see how this is a good thing.

Turkey Versus the PKK: Prepared to Go to the Next Level

The tension is rising on the Iraqi-Turkish border, threatening the start of full-fledged war within a matter of days. The Kurdistan Working Party, generally referred to as the PKK, has been fighting with the Turkish government to establish more autonomy for the Kurds. Due to their recent attacks on Turkey, there have been reports of enormous domestic pressure within Turkey (depicted left) to launch an attack on the Kurdish separatists operating in Northern Iraq. While retaliating using military forces may satisfy the Turks need for revenge, another attack will only destabilize the region more, inevitably throwing both sides into battle. Many other countries, such as Iraq and the US, are concerned because an escalation of this conflict may require their intervention. Despite this looming danger, with enough international influence, the two battling parties might be convinced to ceasefire and come to a diplomatic solution so as to avoid a potentially violent encounter.

The PKK was formed in the 1970’s with the purpose of demanding an independent Kurdish state within Turkey. The region of Kurdistan covers large parts of eastern Turkey, northwestern parts of Iraq and Iran, and smaller parts of northern Syria and Armenia. (pictured right) Turkey and many Western countries regard the PKK as a terrorist organization due to the escalating attacks on the Turkish government over last few years. Firat Anli, a district mayor in Diyarbakir says, "the result of the political and social problems in the region not being resolved." The recent attacks, which have killed both Turkish soldiers and civilians, show that the PKK is not at all interested in talking and has no intention of attending any meetings in Turkish Parliament until the demands for a more autonomous state are met. Since the formation of the PKK, more radical groups have branched off organizing their own attacks in parts of Turkey. The longer this fight continues, the more unstable the Kurdistan region will become, making it even harder to promote diplomacy in the future.

The United States, along with the Iraqi governments, has separately tried to mediate the conflict between Turkey and the PKK by condemning any military attacks from either side. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has called on the Turks to practice "self-restraint." However, the Turkish government has already made arrangements to cross into Iraq to pursue Kurdish military bases that have been suspected of conducting the attacks in Turkey. Respecting the wishes of their western allies, Turkey has agreed to postpone any attacks in hopes that the US will find a way to stop PKK activity. If the US and other external influences fail to accomplish this task, the Turkish military will not hesitate to move forward with the planned incursion. The Iraqi Kurdish leader Masoud Barzani said “his autonomous region would defend itself in any way if Turkish troops invaded.” Not only are the actions taken by the PKK causing Turkey distress, they are also upsetting the Iraqi citizens who have had to deal with the turmoil brought about by the attacks prompted by the PKK.

While this dispute is between Turkey and the PKK, left alone to deal with their problems, it would surely result in a violent end. The action of the PKK thus far have proven to affect many more lives than just their own. The Iraqi government has also expressed a desire for the Kurdish separatists to leave Iraq, since the PKK is positioned in the mountains housing many Iraqi citizens who have had to flee their homes in fear of Turkish attacks. The US and the Iraqi governments should place added international pressure on the PKK and Turkey cease fire and to handle the situation centrally, since the implications actions of these regions are starting to spread.

Kurdish rebels have offered a conditional ceasefire on Turkey if the military agrees to abandon their plans to enter into Northern Iraq and comply with their demands for more autonomy. The PKK has not agreed to release any of the Turkish prisoners currently incarcerated and have not agreed to any previous demands from the Turkish government. However, this ceasefire may be the only opportunity to extinguish a potential war between the two regions, but external parties, including the US, must act swiftly. Turkish Foreign Minister published a statement saying, "We will continue these diplomatic efforts with all good intentions to solve this problem caused by a terrorist organization." But he added: "If we do not reach any results, there are other means we might have to use." (Illustrated in picture above) The chances of reaching an agreement in such a short time are not likely, but an extension of the ceasefire may help to calm each side and resume diplomatic options. International influence will be a key contributor to the success of this endeavor.

President of Iran Visits U.S.: The Controversies that Follow

The President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad(pictured below), arrived in the United States over the weekend, scheduled to attend the United Nations General Assembly, and also to speak at an open forum at Columbia University. In his speech on Sunday, Ahmadinejad addressed issues regarding Iran’s war policies, allegations of supplying weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to Iraq, and the overall treatment of the citizens of Iran. The arrival of Ahmadinejad in the U.S. caused many controversies centered on the Iranian President’s reputation of being a “cruel dictator” and advocate of war. His speech was well thought out but seemed like a form of propaganda to get the American public and the U.N. to view Iran less negatively. In an interview, the president of Iran emphasized Iran’s “peaceful nature”. Whether or not this attempt at gaining a more positive global image will help Iran’s standing in the U.N. is still to be determined.

In this author’s blog called "Iranian President at Columbia University", she carefully dissected each of the controversies the media has focused on regarding Ahmadinejad and voiced some alternative views about his comments. I found many of her arguments to be similar to my own beliefs, such as this one, “I think it is important for promoting peace in the world for all sides to put aside biases and attempt to understand each other”. Furthering opportunities, (i.e. through public forums) to educate one another is essential to developing understanding. However, it does seem like the President of Iran may not have been revealing the whole truth and using his appearances in the media to make Iran look more “neutral” than they may really be, given his more violent history. It seems like the perfect opportunity to “better his image” right before he goes to speak in front of the U.N. General Assembly.
Also, in response to the comment “there is Iranian aid to insurgents, but it might be through nongovernmental groups or through paramilitary groups with governmental connections.” This statement may be true; however, Ahmadinejad never specifically denied that his government did not supply WMD’s to Iraq, nor did he mention doing anything to stop these non-governmental groups from aiding Iraq. This seems like it should be a concern for Iran’s safety as well as the U.S.

In another author’s blog titled "American Inhospitality", I aimed to address some of the questions he posed about the speech. The authors commented on a few of the major topics involved in the controversy, such as “was an this really an open forum for thought and discussion, when the tone and the introduction was setup in such a way that creates an atmosphere of unwelcome and inhospitality?” To this, I respond by saying that the American media has negatively portrayed Iran for many years; thus, some feeling of being “unwelcome” had to have been expected. Although, I do agree that the reaction to the Iranian president’s arrival into the U.S. was rather harsh. Pictured, defending himself in an interview to the left. Perhaps, if Ahmadinejad had answered some of the questions more directly, the hostility shown towards him may have decreased. Ahmadinejad stated that he wanted to have the opportunity to provide the American people with “correct and clear” information. To me, it seemed like many of his responses could have been a kind of propaganda to help Iran’s image rather than ideas to discuss.