Skip to main content

Is the West watching?

That things are going awry in Pakistan is probably an understatement. Sad to say the West still seems to believe that the new President and his Government should be supported. Perhaps closer scrutiny would be in order. More to the point, too, is that diplomats get things terribly wrong - that is to say, emphasising that which doesn't deserve it.

That is a subject taken up by Mustafa Qadri in an op-ed piece "Pakistan's clear message to the West" in the LA Times. Qadri is Pakistan correspondent for the Diplomat magazine and newmatilda.com. He writes in relation to the recent protests leading in the restoration of Pakistan's Chief Justice:

"Despite millions of dollars spent by the State Department on opinion polls in Pakistan, there has been a catastrophic failure to understand the local mind-set. As recently as Monday, that failure was in evidence when President Obama's envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard C. Holbrooke, praised Zardari, of all people, for his "statesmanlike" decision to reinstate the chief justice.

Where was the praise for the chief justice who had braved two authoritarian presidents, or for the hundreds of thousands of ordinary Pakistanis who risked assault and arrest to support him? To ordinary Pakistanis, it sent the familiar signal that the United States supports the autocrats over the people.

The Chaudhry victory will not solve Pakistan's problems. But by demonstrating the importance of functioning and accountable institutions, the country's lawyers may well have found an opening for the long road out of the country's present hell.

Is the West watching?"

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...
Post a Comment
Read more

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...
6 comments
Read more