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.

The Nuclear Plan: India’s Indecision Lingers

After another inconclusive meeting (pictured right) with the United States, India has once again neglected to move forward with the controversial implementation of civilian nuclear deal. Instead, they have postponed their participation in this particular pact until more of the consequences can be analyzed. While India remains skeptical of the N-Deal, pressures from the US are mounting as the presidential elections creep closer. Arguments and accusations have been made on both sides about the actual incentives and goals of this nuclear deal, which have only caused further delay of a decision. It seems that the political disparities and petty tiffs between the two countries have created a halo effect around the nuclear deal, which has masked the many potential economic and intercontinental relations benefits that an agreement like this could bring if implemented correctly. Nevertheless, it is absolutely necessary to resolve all domestic and political differences regarding the deal first.

The N-Deal, which was proposed in July of 2005, was a “landmark agreement” on civilian nuclear energy cooperation between the US and India, but has generated controversy since the day it was produced. Critics of this deal, such as Jayanti Natarajan--an Indian lawyer and politician-- say that it is too intrusive, requiring more intense inspections, which“undermines attempts to prevent states like Iran and North Korea from acquiring nuclear arms and [that it will] potentially contribute to a nuclear arms race in Asia.” Some details of the nuclear deal may actually allow terrorists to access nuclear weapons more easily. This is one of the many things the US must monitor if the deal is signed. Now, it is said that the added pressure is simply due to the Bush Administration’s need to tie up loose ends before Washington becomes too busy with issues concerning the presidential elections occurring in November 2008. Nicholas Burns, US Under Secretary of Political Affairs, commented that “it is smart to get it back to the Congress in a time when they will have the time to look at it and not to get it too deep into our election year.” Burn's comments call into question the objectives of the US government and indicates that the US is simply trying to do as much as they can while they still have the the political power. These criticisms pose valid arguments as to why the nuclear deal should be abolished. Although, is nixing the deal and potentially never knowing what kinds of nuclear technologies India has been producing really the best deccision?

Shared knowledge of nuclear technology and information reduces the risk of a nuclear attack happening. If India decides to sign this pact, there is no doubt that the information gained through an open transfer of knowledge would foster a much needed relationship with the United Nations Security Council. The more information that is disclosed to the UN, the easier it will be to monitor nuclear action. The deal would open new trade opportunities and strengthen the US relationship with India, which is already hesitant to form closer political and strategic ties with the US, due the possibility of losing their military advantage. It would also provide India with US assistance in their civilian nuclear program, and expand cooperation in energy and satellite technologies. (Facility pictured left) Even though there is a significant number of advantages, India should be concerned about the effect of declining such a deal. Questions of reliability start to arise around other topics of conversation. It is possible that other countries, like China or England--both countries participate in valuable trade with India-- could start to see them as resistant and unpredictable to agreements. Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has said that there would “undoubtedly be disappointment and also there would be a question as to what extent one can calculate Indian reaction to the negotiations on other subjects.” It is fair to say that this issue cannot be dragged on forever, and that a decision needs be reached in order to make any significant progress. However, India should be given more time to consider if the gain of powerful ally is worth sacrificing so much of their privacy.

The importance of this topic tends to be more sensitive and should not be rushed. While there is a remaining concern regarding the need to prevent nuclear conflict, forcing an agreement that may still have loopholes is not the answer. The criticisms mentioned before are some of what has made this N-Deal so controversial. The US and India should focus on that which would involve India in the global atomic energy commerce. The n-deal may help India “meet the future energy needs of an economy steaming along with an annual growth rate of 9%.” India needs to consider the ramifications if the nuke deal is rejected and how it will affect their relations with the other parts of the world. As for now, the civilian nuclear deal is put on hold, but not considered completely dead. The US should take this time to refine the guidelines of the deal to make it more appealing and concrete for India rather than put more pressure them.

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.