Oman Disinvites Modi - News Reverberates in India
Mirza A. Beg
Written Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Counter Currents, Wednesday, October 28, 2009
http://www.countercurrents.org/beg281009.htm
Media Monitor Network, Wednesday, October 28, 2009
http://world.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/67736
Some times good guys also win. It happens only once in a while, but when it does, it gives hope to many who struggle against the evil perpetrated by the powerful, the rich and the connected.
Such is the case when some decent ordinary people with the support of many other decent people were able convince the Government of Oman to deny Mr. Modi a visa. It thwarted, Gujarat’s Chief Minister Mr. Modi from falsely projecting himself as a world trotting statesman and camouflaging his evil deeds.
Mr. Modi was elected the Chief Minister of Gujarat State in the western part of India, on the platform of a fascistic leaning Indian Peoples Party (Hindi initials BJP). It came to power in late1990s. It got that chance because the Congress party that had governed India since independence from Britain in 1947, with only one break of four years, had become stale and the populace was tired. In that vacuum stepped in the rightwing BJP. It cashed in on its years of devious hard work, promoting sectarian riots and fear mongering in the well trodden footsteps of demagogues, albeit with an Indian patina. For years the BJP had engineered riots against the Muslim minorities, Christian evangelism and lower cast Indians. Finally it was able cash in on the fear it had planted among decent ordinary Hindus.
Mr. Modi was the Chief Minister of Gujarat in February 2002, when a train carriage in which the BJP goons were travelling and harassing people on the railway station, was burnet at Godhra in Gujarat. To this day it has not been conclusively proven as to who did it. Instead of arresting those responsible for the event and bringing them to justice, he blamed Muslims, whom his party has been killing for years in contrived riots. The next day in the manner of Nazi “Krstallnacht” he unleashed a reign of terror and mayhem, by the goons of his party under the protection of his chosen police force, in the manner of Nazi SS.
As Chief Minister of Gujarat, Mr. Modi presided over and orchestrated widespread riots in which about 2000 hapless Muslims were massacred and more than 200,000 were rendered homeless. It was internationally reported as a pogrom against the Muslim minority in Gujarat.
International human rights organizations, including the Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the National Human Rights Commission of India held Mr. Modi directly responsible for orchestrating that gory mob violence in which innocent Muslims were butchered, burnt alive and women gang raped.
Mr. Modi has also succeeded in corrupting and intimidating most of the judiciary in Gujarat. The criminals are protected by Mr. Modi’s police, while thousands of displaced Muslims are unable to return to their homes. The same gangsters also harass Christians and have burned their Churches.
The Supreme Court of India felt compelled to step in. It compared Mr. Modi with the infamous Roman Emperor Nero and ordered an especially constituted team from the Federal (Central) Government to investigate Mr. Modi’s crimes.
Though his party has lost national power in two successive national elections of 2004 and 2009; unfortunately in the federal structure of India, states have power over law and order, just as the federal US government was hampered in the American South of1960s. Mr. Modi has succeeded in polarizing the normally decent people of Gujarat and has won elections to remain the Chief Minister in Gujarat. And because as often happens, fascistic demagogues are efficient, Mr. Modi is indeed efficient and has brought businesses to Gujarat supported by some among the rich diaspora of Guajaratis from the US.
Now that his party is in decline in the rest of India, he has been trying mightily to project himself as a world class leader with an eye on gaining national leadership. With a well-deserved harvest of global condemnation haunting him, Mr. Modi is desperately courting foreign collaboration to mend his image to achieve political restitution in India.
Fortunately because of the efforts of those who value the Gandhian tradition of India, Indians from all religions and ethnic groups came together, petitioned and convinced the US State department to deny Mr. Modi the coveted visa, not only once but twice in three years.
Spurned by the US and some Western countries, he aimed at developing contacts with the rich Gulf Emirates. Mr. Modi nefariously planted stories of being invited by the Sultanate of Oman. Again some concerned people took it upon themselves to circulate a petition on line. Again many human rights organizations all over the world, but most importantly from India extended their full support. Many wrote personal letters to the Ambassador and the government of Oman.
In response, not only the Ambassador of Oman disinvited him, but took out an advertisement in a well respected national newspaper, Indian Express, stating that the Sultanate of Oman had not invited Mr. Modi to Oman.
To Mr. Modi’s discomfort the news is reverberating though the Indian press and has even been picked up by the international web based media. (It can easily be searched on Google, “Modi denied Visa to Oman”). It puts his efforts towards gaining coveted visas from Indonesia that he has been working on, and visa from many other countries in jeopardy.
Though it is only a small victory for decency, and not much help to those who perished in the Mayhem engineered by Mr. Modi in Gujarat, but it does give incentive to average people. They can make a difference. All they have to do is, try.
Mirza A. Beg can be contacted at mab64@yahoo.com or Mirzasmusings@blogspot.com
Thursday, October 29, 2009
In search of Jesus 2009-10-15
In search of Jesus
Mirza A. Beg
Written Oct 15, 2009
Voices in Wartime, October 27, 2009
This poem, allegorically laments the misuse of the name and the message of Jesus. With a few changed words and syntax it would be valid for any religion.
The age of Information is entwined with the age of misinformation. Thoughtful understanding requires hard work; propaganda only needs bumper stickers. Religious zealots from all sides symbiotically feed on propagandized fear. The internal struggle is between the heart of each religion serving with humility and the strong arm seeking supremacy through misconstrued words.
The paradox is – in all religions; those who claim universality of their brand of religion behave as exclusivist tribal supremacist and those who introspectively value personal responsibility enhance universal amity.
Son of Mary
Celebrated is your name
Your Hellenized name
Jesus!
You are a messenger
A pristine idea to a few
A God to some
And the Son of God
You are a friend to some
A seer of wisdom
A promise of justice
And salvation
A hope for tomorrow
A redeemer to fallen
A beacon to lost souls
A promise of peace
Some shout your name
From lavish pulpits
Peddling salvation
From fire and damnation
They amass power
To usher your kingdom
At the point of the sword
Or atom tipped bombs
While others
Walk a lonely road
Quietly, humbly
Serving the needy
They love their neighbors
Humbly serve the meek
The sick, the injured
And the bombed
Mirza A. Beg can be contacted at, mab64@yahoo.com, or http://mirzasmusings.blogspot.com/
Mirza A. Beg
Written Oct 15, 2009
Voices in Wartime, October 27, 2009
This poem, allegorically laments the misuse of the name and the message of Jesus. With a few changed words and syntax it would be valid for any religion.
The age of Information is entwined with the age of misinformation. Thoughtful understanding requires hard work; propaganda only needs bumper stickers. Religious zealots from all sides symbiotically feed on propagandized fear. The internal struggle is between the heart of each religion serving with humility and the strong arm seeking supremacy through misconstrued words.
The paradox is – in all religions; those who claim universality of their brand of religion behave as exclusivist tribal supremacist and those who introspectively value personal responsibility enhance universal amity.
Son of Mary
Celebrated is your name
Your Hellenized name
Jesus!
You are a messenger
A pristine idea to a few
A God to some
And the Son of God
You are a friend to some
A seer of wisdom
A promise of justice
And salvation
A hope for tomorrow
A redeemer to fallen
A beacon to lost souls
A promise of peace
Some shout your name
From lavish pulpits
Peddling salvation
From fire and damnation
They amass power
To usher your kingdom
At the point of the sword
Or atom tipped bombs
While others
Walk a lonely road
Quietly, humbly
Serving the needy
They love their neighbors
Humbly serve the meek
The sick, the injured
And the bombed
Mirza A. Beg can be contacted at, mab64@yahoo.com, or http://mirzasmusings.blogspot.com/
Friday, October 9, 2009
Nobel Prize-Obama 09-10-08
Nobel for Obama - Perhaps Premature, But Good
Friday, August 9 2009
The American Muslim, Friday October 9, 2009
President Obama was awakened by his press secretary to an announcement from the Nobel committee that 2009 Peace Prize goes to President Obama. Perhaps no one was more surprised than the recipient. Those who have supported Mr. Obama’s ideas, ideals and style are also pleasantly surprised, but some wonder if the recognition is not a bit premature.
In the nine months he has been in office, Mr. Obama has put in motion a very ambitious and much needed plan of action to achieve not only the objectives, spelled out during the presidential campaign, but also had to save the economy from the abyss of depression. He knows that taking on one problem at a time, as the experts would have it, may be seasoned advice, but considering the gravity of challenges he does not have the luxury of putting any of the pressing problems on the back burner.
Perhaps no world leader had inherited so many problems on the first day in office. Even Franklin Roosevelt did not have to contend with what came to be known as the Second World War until late in his second term. President Roosevelt’s main problem on entering the office was the economic depression.
Mr. Obama had to contend with two wars of hubris that his predecessors unleashed and conducted them with such incompetence and ferocity that it has not only killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, but has left the US bleeding in an expensive quagmire from which extrication appears to be elusive. It has weakened American power and prestige around the world and an impression has taken hold that
Even before taking the office of the president Mr. Obama had to face a complete economic melt down of
He has not yet been able to put forward a clear policy to bring peace to
So none of the pressing problems have been solved yet, but by virtue of his stance and thoughtful policies, the world has again started to put faith in the words of an American President and has taken his extended hand of peace and friendship. The decades of war of words with
The Nobel committee recognized this sea-change in American policies and the concurrent change in the attitudes of other countries to award the peace prize to President Obama.
The Nobel citation reads, “President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
“Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the
Even if the Peace Prize is premature, Mr. Obama certainly deserves admiration and support for all he has accomplished so far, with much more heavy lifting to be done for the fruition of his efforts. We have yet to leave the wars and famines of the 20th century behind to usher a new century of peace and justice. One can not but admire the way President Obama has conducted himself with elegance and grace in the rough and tumble of the political process.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Iran at Cossroads 09-06-22
Iran at the Cross Roads – What should the US Do
By
Mirza A. Beg
Written Monday, June 22, 2009
Part I -The Tuscaloosa News, Thursday, June 25, 2009
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20090625/NEWS/906249887
Part II -The Tuscaloosa News, Friday, June 26, 2009
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20090626/NEWS/906259938
Media Monitors. Network, Thursday, June 25, 2009
http://world.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/63766
Part – I, The American Muslim, June 25, 2009
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/iran_at_the_cross_roads_what_should_the_us_do_part_1/0017427
Part – II, The American Muslim , June 25, 2009 http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/iran_at_the_cross_roads_what_should_the_us_do_part_2/0017428
Part I – Iran at the Cross Roads
The tenth presidential election in Iran was on the 12th of June. A few months ago, it was widely thought to be an easy win for President Ahmadinijad. Though his popularity had some what declined, because of the economic pressures on an average Iranian, but his very simple unostentatious life style and his strong stand against the tirade of the Bush administration were very popular. It was a matter of national pride. The very fact that Iran was able to withstand the massive American pressure, made Iran look strong and the US appear weak.
The most popular person to challenge President Ahmadinijad was the former two-term President Khatami, who was very popular when first-elected in 1997. Considered a reformer, but by the end of his second term his followers were disappointed. On the domestic front he failed to loosen the grip of the clergy on the levers of power. On the international front his friendly overtures to United States, including his offer of support against the Talibans in Afghanistan were rebuffed by the Bush administration. Instead of taking the hand of friendship, the Bush administration inanely branded Iran to be a part of the Axis of Evil. Mr. Ahmadinejad won the presidential elections of 2005, by painting the reformers as ineffective appeasers of the United States.
The dynamics of the presidential election changed when in March 2009 the former President Khatami, having problems even getting the approval of the Guardian Council to run, withdrew and threw his support to Mr Moussavi.
The other important factor was the end of the Bush era and the election of President Obama, along with the change in the US foreign policy from belligerency to diplomacy. Mr. Obama’s overtures for a civil dialogue with Iran left President Ahmadinejad without an easy mark to rail against. Mr. Moussavi, a loyal supporter of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, was approved by the clerical establishment. He started gathering the support of all who were dissatisfied with the status-quo. It included the intellectuals, liberals, young people asking for the easing of what they considered onerous regulations, but most of all, many average Iranians suffering the economic hardship because of the western embargo on Iran and fall in oil prices since last November.
In this contentious election, almost 40 million Iranians, eighty percent of the electorate voted. The pre-election polls indicated a very close race, with a chance of Mr. Moussavi winning. The election results started trickling in even before the polls closed. Surprisingly, President Ahmadinejad won by a thumping majority of 62% to Mr. Moussavi 33%. To the shock of many, Mr. Moussavi, as well as the other candidates lost by big margins even in their hometowns.
Those who had voted for Mr Moussavi, felt strongly that the election had been rigged. In Iran the system did not allow observers from the campaigns to monitor the voting and tabulation. It fed the dissatisfaction. The authorities refused to entertain any doubts. Within a week the dissatisfaction burgeoned to wide scale protests and civil demonstrations. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenie first rejected the demand for recount, then accepted a partial recount, again without the monitors.
In the mean time, the government arrested an untold number of people. Many well known names from the 1979 revolution, such as the daughter and some family members of Ayatollah Rafsanjani, and many others former ministers have been detained.
The strong arm suppression of hundreds of thousands of peaceful protesters was beamed the world over, including the beating and killing of silent marchers. According to the Iranian government 17 people have been killed, the opposition and other sources claim hundreds killed.
In this budding revolution, many supporters of the Iranian regime see the hand of the CIA, as it had overthrown Prime Minister Mosaaddeq in 1953 to restore the Shah to the throne. There concerns are legitimate, as the Bush administration had left no doubt that it would use any means to change the regime in Iran. It is quite possible that the Bush policies and spies in place in Iran may have a hand in stirring up the pot.
It is also possible that the election was very close and President Ahmadinejad may have won the election by a small margin, but it is becoming clearer by the day that there was wide scale rigging to ensure the results. On the 22nd of June, the 12 member Guardian Council, that oversees the election, accepted that three million votes may have been miscounted and there were 50 places, where the number of votes cast exceeded the eligible voters. Yet it declared the elections to be fair, allowing only a limited recount. Once people loose faith in the honesty of the process, they can not be satisfied by the promises of unsupervised rectification by the same people.
From the fast changing scene in the past twelve days, it is evident that the CIA may have had its designs, but this wide spread movement was neither planned, nor controlled by anyone including its reluctant leader Mr. Moussavi. The wide spread pent up frustration of a large populace has found an avenue to express itself. Mr. Moussavi finds himself at the head of a budding revolution that he did not plan. He is in no position to contain it without loosing face and his leadership.
Ayatollah Khamenie is in a precarious position. By taking a strong stand against a total and open recount, he missed a great opportunity to control the events peacefully and to co-opt the opposition. One great advantage of democracy is that it allows change to take place without tearing up the fabric of the society. It tolerates a certain level of corruption, nepotism, even small irregularities in vote counting. By taking a strong stand Ayatollah Khamenie is in danger of loosing control or suppressing and closing the country, harming Iran and the people of Iran, to retain power by the force of arms. Iran may lurch from a theocratic democracy to a dictatorship.
Iran is finding it difficult to run a system as part democracy. Half free responding to the will of the people, such as popularly elected president and the Assembly (Majlis) albeit allowing only the candidates approved by the Guardian Council, and half controlled by the Supreme leader, indirectly elected for life, by an elected Assembly of Experts.
When the fog of the fast moving events clears, Iran would have changed, no matter who wins. If the present structure of the government survives by closing the doors shut to the outside world, it would be detrimental to the Iranian people. If it incorporates the opposition, it will be a desirable change; otherwise it may turn out to be a bloody revolution that no Iranian wants.
The Iranian regime is trying to shut the news of demonstrations and repression, but inter-connective technology of the 21st century is proving to be an impediment. The cell phones are ubiquitous, more than 80 percent of the people, especially the young have it and can twitter the information and pictures world wide. The government cannot shut the technology portal to the rest of the world without severely wounding its own economy and communications.
One hopes that the rulers in Iran will remember that violent repression of the voice of the people exposes the bankruptcy of the government. The US may dislike and may have been helping elements opposed to the government within Iran, but the enormous uprising and peaceful demonstrations in support of the opposition is the voice of Iran and its future.
Mirza A. Beg can be contacted at mab64@yahoo.com and at mirzasmusings@blogspot.com
Iran at the Cross Roads – What Should the US Do
By
Mirza A. Beg
Written Monday, June 22, 2009
Part II - What should the United States do
Iran has been in turmoil since the election on June 12th. For the rest of the world, especially for the US, it is important to understand, it is about Iran and not about the United States. It is the 21st Century, not the 20th, when the super powers manipulated the events in the world with impunity.
Events in Iran are moving fast. Most of the popular punditry in the United States was initially flummoxed, interpreting events with the US-centric biases; particularly the Neo-Con infected Republican Party. In spite of all the horrible mistakes of the eight Bush years, miring the country in un-necessary and terribly mismanaged wars and driving the country to near bankruptcy, they have learned no lessons, certainly not humility. They are taking pot shots at President Obama to be more belligerent towards the Iranian government.
They do not understand that the history of US orchestration of the overthrow of the first democratically elected Iranian regime in 1953 is as fresh in the Iranian psyche as the hostage taking of Americans by Iran in 1979 is for the American mind. The US supported brutal war waged on Iran by Saddam Hussain during the Reagan administration in the1980s has not faded from Iranian memory. Iran lost about a million of its youth affecting most families in Iran. The countries that the Iranians mistrust the most are Great Britain and the United States.
The Neo-Con mindset argues, “The Mullahs in Iran accuse the US anyway, so why not support the opposition”. They do not understand an important distinction. It matters less what the government propaganda machine puts out, it matters enormously what the people believe. So far it appears that because of the election of President Obama and the change in course of the US foreign policy, the Iranian public opinion towards the US has changed from completely negative to largely favorable or ambivalent.
Obviously the killing of peaceful protestors and bystanders in Iran is of concern to all decent human beings. But it is in the interest of the Iranians, the US and the world, that the events in Iran should be handled by Iranians peacefully. If the situation deteriorates in chaos, it is the Iranians who will suffer the brunt. The Iranian opposition has asked for moral support not belligerency towards the Iranian regime.
The United States is, and has been a super power for the last seventy years with world wide interests. It has often supported corrupt dictatorships over democracy in Asia, Africa and Latin America, while paying lip service to the idea of democracy. Mr. Reagan’s opposition of the Soviets is often highlighted by the Neo-Cons, but they never acknowledge his support of the South African apartheid regime while branding Nelson Mandela a terrorist, the support of the murderous Contras in Nicaragua and a deafening silence after the rape and murder of five US nuns and the murder of the Archbishop by the government death squads in El Salvador.
It is important to understand the present crisis in Iran and the role of major players in historical context. The Islamic Republic of Iran was born thirty years ago in a people’s revolution against the corrupt and brutal regime of the Shah wedded solely to aggrandizement of his personal power helped by the western interests. Iran is not a dictatorship as some exaggerate, but a theocratic democracy, not to our liking.
Since the revolution in 1979, Iran has had ten presidential elections, and six presidents. Three of the presidents were elected for two terms each. All the previous elections were largely considered to be fair. The office of the President in Iran is not the highest office. It is more like the office of the chief executive officer, under the ultimate authority of the Supreme Leader (literally, the leader of the revolution).
The Supreme Leader is elected for a life time by the 86 members, Assembly of Experts. The Assembly of Experts is elected from a list of screened candidates by a direct election for an eight year term. That is how the theocracy controls the democracy. The former president Ayatollah Rafsanjani is the current chairman. He along with many in the religious establishment are supporting Mr. Moussavi.
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who led the1979 revolution was unanimously elected as the first Supreme Leader. He held the office until his death in June 1989. The Assembly of Experts filled the vacancy by electing Seyyed Ali Khamenei (the president at the time) as the Supreme Leader by a two thirds majority. After twenty years he is still in power. He can only be replaced by impeachment. The reformers have unsucessfully tried to limit the term of the Supreme Leader.
The candidates for presidential election in contention are the children of the revolution and were strong supporters of Ayatollah Khomeini. Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the current president was seeking a second term. The challenger Mr. Mir Hossein Moussavi is a former foreign minister who became the prime minister, during the presidency of, no other than the present Supreme Leader Seyyed Ali Khameini from 1981 to 1989.
Many in the US, particularly in the Neo-Con circles are making the mistake of grouping the Moussavi followers to be an anti Islamic revolution. One of the most potent symbols used by the Moussavi supporters is the green color, popularly considered to be the color of Islam. This is an internal Iranian struggle for power in the Iranian context of freedom; the limit on the power of the state and for the bread and butter issues. Both the candidates are Iranian patriots who support the 1979 revolution and do not disagree with the ideas of constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran; though gradually it is evolving as a struggle for the check on the near absolute power of the Supreme Leader.
Their foreign policy is not likely to be substantially different. While Mr. Ahmadinijad was reactive to the belligerency of President Bush and finds it difficult to change, Mr. Moussavi will perhaps be more nuanced and soft spoken in the Obama mode, but will not yield Iranian interests to the Western pressure. President Obama is appropriately using the soft power words, rather than the bluster and empty threats of the Bush era.
Mirza A. Beg can be contacted at mab64@yahoo.com and at mirzasmusings@blogspot.com
By
Mirza A. Beg
Written Monday, June 22, 2009
Part I -The Tuscaloosa News, Thursday, June 25, 2009
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20090625/NEWS/906249887
Part II -The Tuscaloosa News, Friday, June 26, 2009
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20090626/NEWS/906259938
Media Monitors. Network, Thursday, June 25, 2009
http://world.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/63766
Part – I, The American Muslim, June 25, 2009
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/iran_at_the_cross_roads_what_should_the_us_do_part_1/0017427
Part – II, The American Muslim , June 25, 2009 http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/iran_at_the_cross_roads_what_should_the_us_do_part_2/0017428
Part I – Iran at the Cross Roads
The tenth presidential election in Iran was on the 12th of June. A few months ago, it was widely thought to be an easy win for President Ahmadinijad. Though his popularity had some what declined, because of the economic pressures on an average Iranian, but his very simple unostentatious life style and his strong stand against the tirade of the Bush administration were very popular. It was a matter of national pride. The very fact that Iran was able to withstand the massive American pressure, made Iran look strong and the US appear weak.
The most popular person to challenge President Ahmadinijad was the former two-term President Khatami, who was very popular when first-elected in 1997. Considered a reformer, but by the end of his second term his followers were disappointed. On the domestic front he failed to loosen the grip of the clergy on the levers of power. On the international front his friendly overtures to United States, including his offer of support against the Talibans in Afghanistan were rebuffed by the Bush administration. Instead of taking the hand of friendship, the Bush administration inanely branded Iran to be a part of the Axis of Evil. Mr. Ahmadinejad won the presidential elections of 2005, by painting the reformers as ineffective appeasers of the United States.
The dynamics of the presidential election changed when in March 2009 the former President Khatami, having problems even getting the approval of the Guardian Council to run, withdrew and threw his support to Mr Moussavi.
The other important factor was the end of the Bush era and the election of President Obama, along with the change in the US foreign policy from belligerency to diplomacy. Mr. Obama’s overtures for a civil dialogue with Iran left President Ahmadinejad without an easy mark to rail against. Mr. Moussavi, a loyal supporter of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, was approved by the clerical establishment. He started gathering the support of all who were dissatisfied with the status-quo. It included the intellectuals, liberals, young people asking for the easing of what they considered onerous regulations, but most of all, many average Iranians suffering the economic hardship because of the western embargo on Iran and fall in oil prices since last November.
In this contentious election, almost 40 million Iranians, eighty percent of the electorate voted. The pre-election polls indicated a very close race, with a chance of Mr. Moussavi winning. The election results started trickling in even before the polls closed. Surprisingly, President Ahmadinejad won by a thumping majority of 62% to Mr. Moussavi 33%. To the shock of many, Mr. Moussavi, as well as the other candidates lost by big margins even in their hometowns.
Those who had voted for Mr Moussavi, felt strongly that the election had been rigged. In Iran the system did not allow observers from the campaigns to monitor the voting and tabulation. It fed the dissatisfaction. The authorities refused to entertain any doubts. Within a week the dissatisfaction burgeoned to wide scale protests and civil demonstrations. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenie first rejected the demand for recount, then accepted a partial recount, again without the monitors.
In the mean time, the government arrested an untold number of people. Many well known names from the 1979 revolution, such as the daughter and some family members of Ayatollah Rafsanjani, and many others former ministers have been detained.
The strong arm suppression of hundreds of thousands of peaceful protesters was beamed the world over, including the beating and killing of silent marchers. According to the Iranian government 17 people have been killed, the opposition and other sources claim hundreds killed.
In this budding revolution, many supporters of the Iranian regime see the hand of the CIA, as it had overthrown Prime Minister Mosaaddeq in 1953 to restore the Shah to the throne. There concerns are legitimate, as the Bush administration had left no doubt that it would use any means to change the regime in Iran. It is quite possible that the Bush policies and spies in place in Iran may have a hand in stirring up the pot.
It is also possible that the election was very close and President Ahmadinejad may have won the election by a small margin, but it is becoming clearer by the day that there was wide scale rigging to ensure the results. On the 22nd of June, the 12 member Guardian Council, that oversees the election, accepted that three million votes may have been miscounted and there were 50 places, where the number of votes cast exceeded the eligible voters. Yet it declared the elections to be fair, allowing only a limited recount. Once people loose faith in the honesty of the process, they can not be satisfied by the promises of unsupervised rectification by the same people.
From the fast changing scene in the past twelve days, it is evident that the CIA may have had its designs, but this wide spread movement was neither planned, nor controlled by anyone including its reluctant leader Mr. Moussavi. The wide spread pent up frustration of a large populace has found an avenue to express itself. Mr. Moussavi finds himself at the head of a budding revolution that he did not plan. He is in no position to contain it without loosing face and his leadership.
Ayatollah Khamenie is in a precarious position. By taking a strong stand against a total and open recount, he missed a great opportunity to control the events peacefully and to co-opt the opposition. One great advantage of democracy is that it allows change to take place without tearing up the fabric of the society. It tolerates a certain level of corruption, nepotism, even small irregularities in vote counting. By taking a strong stand Ayatollah Khamenie is in danger of loosing control or suppressing and closing the country, harming Iran and the people of Iran, to retain power by the force of arms. Iran may lurch from a theocratic democracy to a dictatorship.
Iran is finding it difficult to run a system as part democracy. Half free responding to the will of the people, such as popularly elected president and the Assembly (Majlis) albeit allowing only the candidates approved by the Guardian Council, and half controlled by the Supreme leader, indirectly elected for life, by an elected Assembly of Experts.
When the fog of the fast moving events clears, Iran would have changed, no matter who wins. If the present structure of the government survives by closing the doors shut to the outside world, it would be detrimental to the Iranian people. If it incorporates the opposition, it will be a desirable change; otherwise it may turn out to be a bloody revolution that no Iranian wants.
The Iranian regime is trying to shut the news of demonstrations and repression, but inter-connective technology of the 21st century is proving to be an impediment. The cell phones are ubiquitous, more than 80 percent of the people, especially the young have it and can twitter the information and pictures world wide. The government cannot shut the technology portal to the rest of the world without severely wounding its own economy and communications.
One hopes that the rulers in Iran will remember that violent repression of the voice of the people exposes the bankruptcy of the government. The US may dislike and may have been helping elements opposed to the government within Iran, but the enormous uprising and peaceful demonstrations in support of the opposition is the voice of Iran and its future.
Mirza A. Beg can be contacted at mab64@yahoo.com and at mirzasmusings@blogspot.com
Iran at the Cross Roads – What Should the US Do
By
Mirza A. Beg
Written Monday, June 22, 2009
Part II - What should the United States do
Iran has been in turmoil since the election on June 12th. For the rest of the world, especially for the US, it is important to understand, it is about Iran and not about the United States. It is the 21st Century, not the 20th, when the super powers manipulated the events in the world with impunity.
Events in Iran are moving fast. Most of the popular punditry in the United States was initially flummoxed, interpreting events with the US-centric biases; particularly the Neo-Con infected Republican Party. In spite of all the horrible mistakes of the eight Bush years, miring the country in un-necessary and terribly mismanaged wars and driving the country to near bankruptcy, they have learned no lessons, certainly not humility. They are taking pot shots at President Obama to be more belligerent towards the Iranian government.
They do not understand that the history of US orchestration of the overthrow of the first democratically elected Iranian regime in 1953 is as fresh in the Iranian psyche as the hostage taking of Americans by Iran in 1979 is for the American mind. The US supported brutal war waged on Iran by Saddam Hussain during the Reagan administration in the1980s has not faded from Iranian memory. Iran lost about a million of its youth affecting most families in Iran. The countries that the Iranians mistrust the most are Great Britain and the United States.
The Neo-Con mindset argues, “The Mullahs in Iran accuse the US anyway, so why not support the opposition”. They do not understand an important distinction. It matters less what the government propaganda machine puts out, it matters enormously what the people believe. So far it appears that because of the election of President Obama and the change in course of the US foreign policy, the Iranian public opinion towards the US has changed from completely negative to largely favorable or ambivalent.
Obviously the killing of peaceful protestors and bystanders in Iran is of concern to all decent human beings. But it is in the interest of the Iranians, the US and the world, that the events in Iran should be handled by Iranians peacefully. If the situation deteriorates in chaos, it is the Iranians who will suffer the brunt. The Iranian opposition has asked for moral support not belligerency towards the Iranian regime.
The United States is, and has been a super power for the last seventy years with world wide interests. It has often supported corrupt dictatorships over democracy in Asia, Africa and Latin America, while paying lip service to the idea of democracy. Mr. Reagan’s opposition of the Soviets is often highlighted by the Neo-Cons, but they never acknowledge his support of the South African apartheid regime while branding Nelson Mandela a terrorist, the support of the murderous Contras in Nicaragua and a deafening silence after the rape and murder of five US nuns and the murder of the Archbishop by the government death squads in El Salvador.
It is important to understand the present crisis in Iran and the role of major players in historical context. The Islamic Republic of Iran was born thirty years ago in a people’s revolution against the corrupt and brutal regime of the Shah wedded solely to aggrandizement of his personal power helped by the western interests. Iran is not a dictatorship as some exaggerate, but a theocratic democracy, not to our liking.
Since the revolution in 1979, Iran has had ten presidential elections, and six presidents. Three of the presidents were elected for two terms each. All the previous elections were largely considered to be fair. The office of the President in Iran is not the highest office. It is more like the office of the chief executive officer, under the ultimate authority of the Supreme Leader (literally, the leader of the revolution).
The Supreme Leader is elected for a life time by the 86 members, Assembly of Experts. The Assembly of Experts is elected from a list of screened candidates by a direct election for an eight year term. That is how the theocracy controls the democracy. The former president Ayatollah Rafsanjani is the current chairman. He along with many in the religious establishment are supporting Mr. Moussavi.
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who led the1979 revolution was unanimously elected as the first Supreme Leader. He held the office until his death in June 1989. The Assembly of Experts filled the vacancy by electing Seyyed Ali Khamenei (the president at the time) as the Supreme Leader by a two thirds majority. After twenty years he is still in power. He can only be replaced by impeachment. The reformers have unsucessfully tried to limit the term of the Supreme Leader.
The candidates for presidential election in contention are the children of the revolution and were strong supporters of Ayatollah Khomeini. Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the current president was seeking a second term. The challenger Mr. Mir Hossein Moussavi is a former foreign minister who became the prime minister, during the presidency of, no other than the present Supreme Leader Seyyed Ali Khameini from 1981 to 1989.
Many in the US, particularly in the Neo-Con circles are making the mistake of grouping the Moussavi followers to be an anti Islamic revolution. One of the most potent symbols used by the Moussavi supporters is the green color, popularly considered to be the color of Islam. This is an internal Iranian struggle for power in the Iranian context of freedom; the limit on the power of the state and for the bread and butter issues. Both the candidates are Iranian patriots who support the 1979 revolution and do not disagree with the ideas of constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran; though gradually it is evolving as a struggle for the check on the near absolute power of the Supreme Leader.
Their foreign policy is not likely to be substantially different. While Mr. Ahmadinijad was reactive to the belligerency of President Bush and finds it difficult to change, Mr. Moussavi will perhaps be more nuanced and soft spoken in the Obama mode, but will not yield Iranian interests to the Western pressure. President Obama is appropriately using the soft power words, rather than the bluster and empty threats of the Bush era.
Mirza A. Beg can be contacted at mab64@yahoo.com and at mirzasmusings@blogspot.com
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Obama to Muslims 09-06-04
A Critique of President Obama’s Speech in Cairo
Mirza A. Beg
Friday, June 5, 2009
Media Monitor Network, Friday June 5, 2009
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/62997
Counter Currents, Saturday June 6, 2009
http://www.countercurrents.org/beg060609.htm
The American Muslim, Saturday, June 6, 2009
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/a_critique_of_president_obamas_speech_in_cairo/0017369
Pine Magazine, Atlanta, Saturday, June 6, 2009
http://www.pinemagazine.com/site/article/2036
The Tuscaloosa News, Tuesday, June 9, 2009
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20090609/NEWS/906099997/1004/SPORTS?Title=Give-Obama-time-to-prove-himself
Al Jazeerah, Tuesday, June 9, 2009
http://ccun.org/Opinion%20Editorials/2009/June/9%20o/A%20Critique%20of%20President%20Obama's%20Speech%20in%20Cairo%20By%20Mirza%20A.htm
The speech by President Obama in Cairo, Egypt, on the 4th of June billed as, “An Address to the Muslim World” is indeed historic. It appears that the speech has been largely well received by his intended audience.
There are many critics of the speech. As usual the right wing critics in the US lament that he should not have accepted any mistakes in the past US policies. Most of the thoughtful criticism from the Muslims, his intended audience is about some of the things he said, but mostly what he did not say or did not say with more emphasis.
That includes me as well. While talking of violence by Palestinians, I wish he would have also commented on much worse violence inflicted on the Palestinians by Israelis, as is obvious by the death toll in many of the Israeli military operations. The toll of violence in Gaza last January was approximately1300 Palestinian killed, mostly civilians, to about 6 Israeli soldiers. How can one ignore it? Since it was billed as an address to the Muslim world and not only to the Arabs, I wish he would have also covered the conflicts in other parts of the world where Muslims are being persecuted.
Having said that, critics should keep in mind that President Obama has been in office for barely five months; he has inherited from his predecessor two wars, and an economy that was teetering on the precipice of depression. Deregulation by the successive US governments starting in 1980, become completely irresponsible in the last administration. It encouraged and lauded unbridled greed on Wall Street that left the American economy in shambles with the fear of possible depression, rippling through the world markets.
One should keep in mind that President Obama is a president of a Democratic Republic and not a dictator with unlimited powers. The American President is perceived to be the most powerful man in the world, but his power in the US is circumscribed and checked by the other two branches of the government. He can be powerful domestically only if he can convince the American electorate that his policies are in their self interest.
There is a difference in being an idealistic critic and an idealistic politician or even a statesman. As President Lincoln once equated the navigation of the ship of State to navigation through the Mississippi River; by necessity one has to follow the path of the river. Even though one may be traveling south, but when the river meanders to the north, one has to go along that short distance. It takes time and sustained effort by a visionary leader to gradually institute new policies while educating and carrying the people along. It is not easy to challenge wrong policies and the propaganda of decades. Those idealistic politicians who get too far ahead and do not take appropriate time to educate the people are overwhelmed by the entrenched opposition and court failure. The good policies and noble intents find a place on the dust heap of history.
It is unrealistic to expect that in a fifty-five minute speech President Obama could have covered all the nuances and details of the accumulated problems of many decades. As he acknowledged, “I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point.” He added, “Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all. “
Of course if he does not follow up with concrete policies, these lofty words and ideas, the critics would have been proven right, but one needs to give him some time.
Generally speaking, it appears from the myriad polls over the years that about 25 to 30 percent of Americans, (as voters in most other countries) belong to “my country right or wrong” group. They abhor the idea of acknowledging any mistakes. Mr. Bush’s intransigence was mistaken for strength. Their idea of patriotism is rooted in the supremacy of their religion and blind nationalism. They are adept at ignoring reality and confuse their interest with the universal morality.
Another 20 to 30 percent understand universal morality and do think of right and wrong in terms of “Do unto others, what one wants for himself”. The struggle is to convince the 40 percent or so apathetic voters who do not follow the news of international events closely. They are essentially concerned with the pocket book issues. They tend to follow the leader who can convincingly promise a better economy and hopefully deliver it.
One should keep these political realities in mind and that President Obama has inherited the most ominous problems from his predecessor, an economy that was in a free fall from October 2008 to March 2009, two wars spiraling towards endless quagmires and rotting infrastructure. He has not only made bold efforts to tackle them, it is remarkable that against the conventional wisdom that the president should not tackle more than one or two problems at a time, he considered the dialogue with the Muslim world and tackling the Palestine-Israel problem of such paramount importance that he made such a bold speech and has raised expectations.
Critics who find no difference between President George W. Bush’s rhetoric and President Obama’s speech have a very short memory. President Bush appointed right wing ideologues and known enemies of Islam, such as Elliot Abrams, Daniel Pipes and General Boykin to name just a few, to important positions and their rhetoric were incendiary. President Obama has shown by his action and many speeches that he does not skirt contentious issues, but speaks clearly and cogently to make people understand his thoughts and actions.
Thoughtful criticism of leaders is very important. That is how the leaders learn and try to meet the legitimate needs and aspirations of the people, but one should temper it with an understanding of the leader’s character and consideration of the facts on the ground.
Mirza A. Beg can be contacted at mab64@yahoo.comOr read this at http://mirzasmusings.blogspot.com/
Mirza A. Beg
Friday, June 5, 2009
Media Monitor Network, Friday June 5, 2009
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/62997
Counter Currents, Saturday June 6, 2009
http://www.countercurrents.org/beg060609.htm
The American Muslim, Saturday, June 6, 2009
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/a_critique_of_president_obamas_speech_in_cairo/0017369
Pine Magazine, Atlanta, Saturday, June 6, 2009
http://www.pinemagazine.com/site/article/2036
The Tuscaloosa News, Tuesday, June 9, 2009
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20090609/NEWS/906099997/1004/SPORTS?Title=Give-Obama-time-to-prove-himself
Al Jazeerah, Tuesday, June 9, 2009
http://ccun.org/Opinion%20Editorials/2009/June/9%20o/A%20Critique%20of%20President%20Obama's%20Speech%20in%20Cairo%20By%20Mirza%20A.htm
The speech by President Obama in Cairo, Egypt, on the 4th of June billed as, “An Address to the Muslim World” is indeed historic. It appears that the speech has been largely well received by his intended audience.
There are many critics of the speech. As usual the right wing critics in the US lament that he should not have accepted any mistakes in the past US policies. Most of the thoughtful criticism from the Muslims, his intended audience is about some of the things he said, but mostly what he did not say or did not say with more emphasis.
That includes me as well. While talking of violence by Palestinians, I wish he would have also commented on much worse violence inflicted on the Palestinians by Israelis, as is obvious by the death toll in many of the Israeli military operations. The toll of violence in Gaza last January was approximately1300 Palestinian killed, mostly civilians, to about 6 Israeli soldiers. How can one ignore it? Since it was billed as an address to the Muslim world and not only to the Arabs, I wish he would have also covered the conflicts in other parts of the world where Muslims are being persecuted.
Having said that, critics should keep in mind that President Obama has been in office for barely five months; he has inherited from his predecessor two wars, and an economy that was teetering on the precipice of depression. Deregulation by the successive US governments starting in 1980, become completely irresponsible in the last administration. It encouraged and lauded unbridled greed on Wall Street that left the American economy in shambles with the fear of possible depression, rippling through the world markets.
One should keep in mind that President Obama is a president of a Democratic Republic and not a dictator with unlimited powers. The American President is perceived to be the most powerful man in the world, but his power in the US is circumscribed and checked by the other two branches of the government. He can be powerful domestically only if he can convince the American electorate that his policies are in their self interest.
There is a difference in being an idealistic critic and an idealistic politician or even a statesman. As President Lincoln once equated the navigation of the ship of State to navigation through the Mississippi River; by necessity one has to follow the path of the river. Even though one may be traveling south, but when the river meanders to the north, one has to go along that short distance. It takes time and sustained effort by a visionary leader to gradually institute new policies while educating and carrying the people along. It is not easy to challenge wrong policies and the propaganda of decades. Those idealistic politicians who get too far ahead and do not take appropriate time to educate the people are overwhelmed by the entrenched opposition and court failure. The good policies and noble intents find a place on the dust heap of history.
It is unrealistic to expect that in a fifty-five minute speech President Obama could have covered all the nuances and details of the accumulated problems of many decades. As he acknowledged, “I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point.” He added, “Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all. “
Of course if he does not follow up with concrete policies, these lofty words and ideas, the critics would have been proven right, but one needs to give him some time.
Generally speaking, it appears from the myriad polls over the years that about 25 to 30 percent of Americans, (as voters in most other countries) belong to “my country right or wrong” group. They abhor the idea of acknowledging any mistakes. Mr. Bush’s intransigence was mistaken for strength. Their idea of patriotism is rooted in the supremacy of their religion and blind nationalism. They are adept at ignoring reality and confuse their interest with the universal morality.
Another 20 to 30 percent understand universal morality and do think of right and wrong in terms of “Do unto others, what one wants for himself”. The struggle is to convince the 40 percent or so apathetic voters who do not follow the news of international events closely. They are essentially concerned with the pocket book issues. They tend to follow the leader who can convincingly promise a better economy and hopefully deliver it.
One should keep these political realities in mind and that President Obama has inherited the most ominous problems from his predecessor, an economy that was in a free fall from October 2008 to March 2009, two wars spiraling towards endless quagmires and rotting infrastructure. He has not only made bold efforts to tackle them, it is remarkable that against the conventional wisdom that the president should not tackle more than one or two problems at a time, he considered the dialogue with the Muslim world and tackling the Palestine-Israel problem of such paramount importance that he made such a bold speech and has raised expectations.
Critics who find no difference between President George W. Bush’s rhetoric and President Obama’s speech have a very short memory. President Bush appointed right wing ideologues and known enemies of Islam, such as Elliot Abrams, Daniel Pipes and General Boykin to name just a few, to important positions and their rhetoric were incendiary. President Obama has shown by his action and many speeches that he does not skirt contentious issues, but speaks clearly and cogently to make people understand his thoughts and actions.
Thoughtful criticism of leaders is very important. That is how the leaders learn and try to meet the legitimate needs and aspirations of the people, but one should temper it with an understanding of the leader’s character and consideration of the facts on the ground.
Mirza A. Beg can be contacted at mab64@yahoo.comOr read this at http://mirzasmusings.blogspot.com/
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Dem. in Pakistan 09-03-18
Civil Revolution may Usher a Constitutional Democracy in Pakistan
Mirza A. Beg
Written Wednesday March 18, 2009
Counter Currents, Saturday, March 21, 2009
http://www.countercurrents.org/beg210309.htm
The Tuscaloosa News, Sunday March 22, 2009
Indian Muslim, India, Saturday, March 21, 2009
http://indianmuslims.in/civil-revolution-pakistan-democracy/
Pakistan avoided yet another crisis. Although oscillating between corrupt civilian governments and military dictatorships, crises have been a way of life for Pakistan. But this crisis was different. It was not particularly for or against a leader. It was the third act of a grass-roots movement, led by the lawyers, in favor of the rule of law under a constitutional framework.
Pakistan appears to be on the verge of emerging as a functioning constitutional democracy, with primacy of laws and constitution that has eluded Pakistan for 61 years of its checkered history.
Three times in the span of two years the lawyers, men and women in their somber black coats defied the illegal edicts of the government and succeeded in forcing the government to back down.
The Current Crisis:
The current crisis precipitated when, presumably with the connivance of President Zardari the current Supreme Court (largely considered illegitimate) barred the leader of opposition Mr. Nawaz Sharif and his brother, Shabaz from contesting elections and holding offices. President Zardari recklessly dismissed the Shabaz led government of Panjab, the most populous province.
This brought out the Lawyers back on the streets for the third time with planned marches to the capital Islamabad, demanding the restoration of Supreme Court justices fired by the former President Musharraf, and as promised by Mr. Zardari in February 2008 elections. The leader of the opposition Mr. Nawaz Sharif’s joined in the protest.
The Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) of President Zardari, in the face of massive civil demonstrations averted its breakup when President Zardari yielded to the pressure from the senior leaders of the PPP led by the Prime Minister Gilani, the United States and the Military. Prime Minister Gilani diffused the crisis by announcing that the Supreme Court Judges and the former Chief Justice Iftekhar Chaudhry will resume offices following the resignation of the current justices (considered illegal) on the 21st of March. It led to widespread nation wide jubilation.
This was not a win for Mr. Sharif, though he is the beneficiary of it. Large sections of the population consider Mr. Zardari and Mr. Sharif as corrupt and there have been legal verdicts against them. It is the victory of a movement led by lawyers demanding respect for the constitution and the rule of law.
The first and second civil disobedience movement of lawyers:
The first time the lawyers led the movement for the rule of law March 2007, when on irrelevant charges President, General Musharraf suspended Chief Justice Chaudhry for taking up the petition on behalf of hundreds of people missing, allegedly at secret detention centers accused of terrorism. Eventually he was exonerated and General Musharraf backed down.
The movement sprang up the second time in November 2007, when only days before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was to give its verdict on a petition challenging the constitutionality of President, General Musharraf’s re-election in October 2007, because he held on to the post of the chief of staff of the army simultaneously. President Musharraf suspended the constitution, jailed several justices of the Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice Iftekhar Chaudhry and appointed a new slate of judges who ruled in his favor. But under the intense pressure of the civil disobedience led by the legal profession, General Musharraf had to yield and gave up the post of the Army Chief of Staff, appointing General Kayani in his place.
The elections of 2008 and Mr. Zardari’s rise to power:
New Assembly elections were held in February 2008. The two main opposition parties, the PPP led by former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and the Faction of Pakistan Muslim League (PLM) led by the Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had one thing in common, the promise to reinstate the fired Chief Justice and other judges.
PPP leader Benazir Bhutto fell to an assassin’s bullet at an election rally on the 27th of December 2007. Her Husband and a reviled figure in Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari stepped into the vacuum and partly as a sympathy vote for popular Benazir Bhutto the PPP won the largest share of seats followed by PLM. Since no party won an outright majority, the two largest parties PPP and PLM formed a coalition government.
The coalition broke up when Mr. Zardari reneged on his promise to reinstate the ousted judges by the President Musharraf. In August 2008, President Musharraf resigned under a threat of impeachment and in September Mr. Zardari was elected the President of Pakistan. Since then Mr. Zardari has reneged on all the inconvenient promises and has tried to accrue power.
Pakistan has floundered rudderless in the crosscurrents of internal power struggle between the corrupt civilian governments and endemic coups by the military dictators; and external pressure from the United States to serve its foreign policy aims through the Pakistani military for the last fifty years. The result has been complete decimation of the Pakistani judiciary. The Supreme Court has become the handmaiden of who ever holds the reins of power. Chief Justices have been appointed and fired at the whims of the government in power many times.
The new opportunity for Pakistan:
Fortunately for Pakistan Mr. Zardari was thwarted by the third civil disobedience by the lawyers. The power equation has also changed. Unlike the past, the forces that traditionally supported those in power in Pakistan had to take other realities into consideration.
The American government is the main economic backer of Pakistan, but under President Obama, it realizes that the war on terrorism can not be won by propping corrupt oppressive regimes. President Obama conveyed his strong disapproval of Mr. Zardari’s grab for power. The army, the most important instrument of power in Pakistan had had enough under President, General Musharraf. The new Chief of Staff General Kayani told Mr. Zardari in no uncertain term that the Army will not intervene to support him. The top leadership of PPP including the Prime Minister Mr. Gilani, weary of Mr. Zardari’s leadership, let him know that they were not behind him. And finally the police that was supposed to stop the marchers refused to use force on the silent peaceful marchers, except at some places in Karachi the strong hold of PPP.
The change in circumstances will exert an enormous pressure on all concerned. The reinstated Chief Justice Chaudhry will feel the weight of responsibility to make the Supreme Court a true guardian of the constitution. The Army had had enough for the time being and will try to influence the government, but not as heavy handedly, and the politicians have learnt at least for the immediate future that they can not take people to be supine as before. The lawyers movement has shown no ulterior motive to form a competing center of power, it has disbanded after every success to pursue their private lives. Yet it has rejuvenated in the times of need.
The maturing of Pakistan as a constitutional democracy will strengthen the authority of the elected government and will obviously be good for Pakistan. It will also be beneficial to countries with interest in Pakistan. Though it will take time, but after eight years of floundering in Afghanistan the new Obama administration realizes that US efforts in combating the terrorism will succeed only if Pakistan is not a failed state. A constitutional democracy in Pakistan will also be better for India because the relations will not depend on the whims of individuals. It will lead to better cooperation and enhance the possibility of reconciliation between two democratically elected constitutional governments.
Mirza A. Beg may be contacted at mab64@yahoo.com or at http://mirzasmusings.blogspot.com/
Mirza A. Beg
Written Wednesday March 18, 2009
Counter Currents, Saturday, March 21, 2009
http://www.countercurrents.org/beg210309.htm
The Tuscaloosa News, Sunday March 22, 2009
Indian Muslim, India, Saturday, March 21, 2009
http://indianmuslims.in/civil-revolution-pakistan-democracy/
Pakistan avoided yet another crisis. Although oscillating between corrupt civilian governments and military dictatorships, crises have been a way of life for Pakistan. But this crisis was different. It was not particularly for or against a leader. It was the third act of a grass-roots movement, led by the lawyers, in favor of the rule of law under a constitutional framework.
Pakistan appears to be on the verge of emerging as a functioning constitutional democracy, with primacy of laws and constitution that has eluded Pakistan for 61 years of its checkered history.
Three times in the span of two years the lawyers, men and women in their somber black coats defied the illegal edicts of the government and succeeded in forcing the government to back down.
The Current Crisis:
The current crisis precipitated when, presumably with the connivance of President Zardari the current Supreme Court (largely considered illegitimate) barred the leader of opposition Mr. Nawaz Sharif and his brother, Shabaz from contesting elections and holding offices. President Zardari recklessly dismissed the Shabaz led government of Panjab, the most populous province.
This brought out the Lawyers back on the streets for the third time with planned marches to the capital Islamabad, demanding the restoration of Supreme Court justices fired by the former President Musharraf, and as promised by Mr. Zardari in February 2008 elections. The leader of the opposition Mr. Nawaz Sharif’s joined in the protest.
The Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) of President Zardari, in the face of massive civil demonstrations averted its breakup when President Zardari yielded to the pressure from the senior leaders of the PPP led by the Prime Minister Gilani, the United States and the Military. Prime Minister Gilani diffused the crisis by announcing that the Supreme Court Judges and the former Chief Justice Iftekhar Chaudhry will resume offices following the resignation of the current justices (considered illegal) on the 21st of March. It led to widespread nation wide jubilation.
This was not a win for Mr. Sharif, though he is the beneficiary of it. Large sections of the population consider Mr. Zardari and Mr. Sharif as corrupt and there have been legal verdicts against them. It is the victory of a movement led by lawyers demanding respect for the constitution and the rule of law.
The first and second civil disobedience movement of lawyers:
The first time the lawyers led the movement for the rule of law March 2007, when on irrelevant charges President, General Musharraf suspended Chief Justice Chaudhry for taking up the petition on behalf of hundreds of people missing, allegedly at secret detention centers accused of terrorism. Eventually he was exonerated and General Musharraf backed down.
The movement sprang up the second time in November 2007, when only days before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was to give its verdict on a petition challenging the constitutionality of President, General Musharraf’s re-election in October 2007, because he held on to the post of the chief of staff of the army simultaneously. President Musharraf suspended the constitution, jailed several justices of the Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice Iftekhar Chaudhry and appointed a new slate of judges who ruled in his favor. But under the intense pressure of the civil disobedience led by the legal profession, General Musharraf had to yield and gave up the post of the Army Chief of Staff, appointing General Kayani in his place.
The elections of 2008 and Mr. Zardari’s rise to power:
New Assembly elections were held in February 2008. The two main opposition parties, the PPP led by former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and the Faction of Pakistan Muslim League (PLM) led by the Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had one thing in common, the promise to reinstate the fired Chief Justice and other judges.
PPP leader Benazir Bhutto fell to an assassin’s bullet at an election rally on the 27th of December 2007. Her Husband and a reviled figure in Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari stepped into the vacuum and partly as a sympathy vote for popular Benazir Bhutto the PPP won the largest share of seats followed by PLM. Since no party won an outright majority, the two largest parties PPP and PLM formed a coalition government.
The coalition broke up when Mr. Zardari reneged on his promise to reinstate the ousted judges by the President Musharraf. In August 2008, President Musharraf resigned under a threat of impeachment and in September Mr. Zardari was elected the President of Pakistan. Since then Mr. Zardari has reneged on all the inconvenient promises and has tried to accrue power.
Pakistan has floundered rudderless in the crosscurrents of internal power struggle between the corrupt civilian governments and endemic coups by the military dictators; and external pressure from the United States to serve its foreign policy aims through the Pakistani military for the last fifty years. The result has been complete decimation of the Pakistani judiciary. The Supreme Court has become the handmaiden of who ever holds the reins of power. Chief Justices have been appointed and fired at the whims of the government in power many times.
The new opportunity for Pakistan:
Fortunately for Pakistan Mr. Zardari was thwarted by the third civil disobedience by the lawyers. The power equation has also changed. Unlike the past, the forces that traditionally supported those in power in Pakistan had to take other realities into consideration.
The American government is the main economic backer of Pakistan, but under President Obama, it realizes that the war on terrorism can not be won by propping corrupt oppressive regimes. President Obama conveyed his strong disapproval of Mr. Zardari’s grab for power. The army, the most important instrument of power in Pakistan had had enough under President, General Musharraf. The new Chief of Staff General Kayani told Mr. Zardari in no uncertain term that the Army will not intervene to support him. The top leadership of PPP including the Prime Minister Mr. Gilani, weary of Mr. Zardari’s leadership, let him know that they were not behind him. And finally the police that was supposed to stop the marchers refused to use force on the silent peaceful marchers, except at some places in Karachi the strong hold of PPP.
The change in circumstances will exert an enormous pressure on all concerned. The reinstated Chief Justice Chaudhry will feel the weight of responsibility to make the Supreme Court a true guardian of the constitution. The Army had had enough for the time being and will try to influence the government, but not as heavy handedly, and the politicians have learnt at least for the immediate future that they can not take people to be supine as before. The lawyers movement has shown no ulterior motive to form a competing center of power, it has disbanded after every success to pursue their private lives. Yet it has rejuvenated in the times of need.
The maturing of Pakistan as a constitutional democracy will strengthen the authority of the elected government and will obviously be good for Pakistan. It will also be beneficial to countries with interest in Pakistan. Though it will take time, but after eight years of floundering in Afghanistan the new Obama administration realizes that US efforts in combating the terrorism will succeed only if Pakistan is not a failed state. A constitutional democracy in Pakistan will also be better for India because the relations will not depend on the whims of individuals. It will lead to better cooperation and enhance the possibility of reconciliation between two democratically elected constitutional governments.
Mirza A. Beg may be contacted at mab64@yahoo.com or at http://mirzasmusings.blogspot.com/
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Greetings for 2009 08-12-18
A Wish for the Year 2009
Mirza A. Beg
December 18th, 2008
On December 31, the year 2008 will fade into history. Though January 1, 2009 will not be materially different, but the year 2009 can be, and I hope will be a harbinger of better tomorrows. Many will take stock of their hopes and desires for the future, but some will find refuge in this season of festivities and let desires negate hope and trump reality. The poor and dispossessed of the world will go on toiling towards dashed hopes and early deaths. The challenge is to bring changes to these lives and usher in a new millennium of peace and cooperation that is still waiting for the last eight years of the chronological millennium.
The year 2008 has been one of the most miserable years in more than half a century. Not only do the wars still rage in Iraq and Afghanistan, but no less devastating regional civil wars in Sri Lanka, Darfur, Congo and many other places go on unabated; Mr. Mugabe, in resource-rich Zimbabwe has led its citizens to unbelievable destitution, while the world can awkwardly condemns as a bystander. The terrorism of state and non-state actors in many regions is on the rise.
Dictators and oppressors persist and terrorist attacks come with the regularity of tides. We have only limited attention span, and are overwhelmed by so many crises. The crisis of the past month fades, replaced by a new crisis of the month or even the week. The Junta in Burma (Myanmar) perseveres in its horrible record of oppression. The world focused on it for a few weeks, then moved on.
All the crises have been dwarfed by the economic meltdown of 2008, which started with the subprime mortgage crisis in the United States. This was only the proverbial straw. If not this, some other unraveling of the economic pyramid scheme would have burst the bubble of unregulated greed of unscrupulous funds managers on Wall Street, who ran amok under a blind eye of a government that willfully dismantled the instruments of governmental regulatory responsibilities.
To dispel all doubts that we are living in a global economy, the US economic crisis has reverberated through the world economies, including the very poor countries that are dependent on the aid and charity of the wealthier nations. The governments of all major economies, including the United States, have come to realize that they can not manage it alone and have been forced to coordinate their efforts to dig themselves out of this self-made morass.
But the year 2008 has also been a watershed year. The situation became so bad that it may have woken us from a long slumber of complacent inattention.
In America, in the wake of the shock of 9/11 in 2001, fear took hold. Loud voices of the prophets of fear and greed found a fertile ground. Americans opted for erosion of their constitutional freedoms in exchange for a feeling of safety.
After eight years of utter mismanagement, Americans realized that their pocket-books are dwindling and even the substandard employment of eight years is about to turn in to unemployment and their future as a great nation has been jeopardized.
Against all odds, in contradiction of the conventional wisdom, Americans rose above their prejudices and voted Barack Obama as the president-elect of the United States. No one could have even ventured to predict that a black American could win the election in 2008.
This is of even greater significance because Mr. Obama avoided the mean and negative campaigning that has been the hall-mark of the past successful elections. A majority of Americans rejected the petty politics of fear and rose to vote for a future of hope and equity. Americans voted for Mr. Obama even though he did not take the bait of demonizing those who disagreed with American policies and offered dialogue to reach a better and equitable understanding instead of hubris.
The American Revolution was one of the most important engines for the flowering of democracies in the world. This change in American attitudes and government is a harbinger of a better tomorrow of dialogue and understanding among the peoples of the world. In this interconnected world of fast communications and global economy, no place is too far, or too insulated to escape the consequences of oppression of supposedly distant people. It is time to think of others empathetically to develop common platforms and aspirations.
Industrial revolution has conclusively proven that prosperity is not a zero-sum proposition. For some to be rich, many do not have to be poor. Human ingenuity can help produce more with less effort and invent new techniques and materials of comfort, for the betterment of all.
This is not a new idea; European prosperity rose from the ashes of the conflagration of two world wars on this concept. Leaders reflect our collective will and hopes. No leader, including Mr. Obama by himself can bring about the millennium of peace and cooperation, but with the help of all those who choose a better tomorrow, not only for themselves, but for all, this may be a time for that momentous change. Let us make the year 2009 the start. With best wishes,
Mirza A. Beg may be contacted at mab64@yahoo.com.
His essays are available at http://mirzasmusings.blogspot.com/
Mirza A. Beg
December 18th, 2008
On December 31, the year 2008 will fade into history. Though January 1, 2009 will not be materially different, but the year 2009 can be, and I hope will be a harbinger of better tomorrows. Many will take stock of their hopes and desires for the future, but some will find refuge in this season of festivities and let desires negate hope and trump reality. The poor and dispossessed of the world will go on toiling towards dashed hopes and early deaths. The challenge is to bring changes to these lives and usher in a new millennium of peace and cooperation that is still waiting for the last eight years of the chronological millennium.
The year 2008 has been one of the most miserable years in more than half a century. Not only do the wars still rage in Iraq and Afghanistan, but no less devastating regional civil wars in Sri Lanka, Darfur, Congo and many other places go on unabated; Mr. Mugabe, in resource-rich Zimbabwe has led its citizens to unbelievable destitution, while the world can awkwardly condemns as a bystander. The terrorism of state and non-state actors in many regions is on the rise.
Dictators and oppressors persist and terrorist attacks come with the regularity of tides. We have only limited attention span, and are overwhelmed by so many crises. The crisis of the past month fades, replaced by a new crisis of the month or even the week. The Junta in Burma (Myanmar) perseveres in its horrible record of oppression. The world focused on it for a few weeks, then moved on.
All the crises have been dwarfed by the economic meltdown of 2008, which started with the subprime mortgage crisis in the United States. This was only the proverbial straw. If not this, some other unraveling of the economic pyramid scheme would have burst the bubble of unregulated greed of unscrupulous funds managers on Wall Street, who ran amok under a blind eye of a government that willfully dismantled the instruments of governmental regulatory responsibilities.
To dispel all doubts that we are living in a global economy, the US economic crisis has reverberated through the world economies, including the very poor countries that are dependent on the aid and charity of the wealthier nations. The governments of all major economies, including the United States, have come to realize that they can not manage it alone and have been forced to coordinate their efforts to dig themselves out of this self-made morass.
But the year 2008 has also been a watershed year. The situation became so bad that it may have woken us from a long slumber of complacent inattention.
In America, in the wake of the shock of 9/11 in 2001, fear took hold. Loud voices of the prophets of fear and greed found a fertile ground. Americans opted for erosion of their constitutional freedoms in exchange for a feeling of safety.
After eight years of utter mismanagement, Americans realized that their pocket-books are dwindling and even the substandard employment of eight years is about to turn in to unemployment and their future as a great nation has been jeopardized.
Against all odds, in contradiction of the conventional wisdom, Americans rose above their prejudices and voted Barack Obama as the president-elect of the United States. No one could have even ventured to predict that a black American could win the election in 2008.
This is of even greater significance because Mr. Obama avoided the mean and negative campaigning that has been the hall-mark of the past successful elections. A majority of Americans rejected the petty politics of fear and rose to vote for a future of hope and equity. Americans voted for Mr. Obama even though he did not take the bait of demonizing those who disagreed with American policies and offered dialogue to reach a better and equitable understanding instead of hubris.
The American Revolution was one of the most important engines for the flowering of democracies in the world. This change in American attitudes and government is a harbinger of a better tomorrow of dialogue and understanding among the peoples of the world. In this interconnected world of fast communications and global economy, no place is too far, or too insulated to escape the consequences of oppression of supposedly distant people. It is time to think of others empathetically to develop common platforms and aspirations.
Industrial revolution has conclusively proven that prosperity is not a zero-sum proposition. For some to be rich, many do not have to be poor. Human ingenuity can help produce more with less effort and invent new techniques and materials of comfort, for the betterment of all.
This is not a new idea; European prosperity rose from the ashes of the conflagration of two world wars on this concept. Leaders reflect our collective will and hopes. No leader, including Mr. Obama by himself can bring about the millennium of peace and cooperation, but with the help of all those who choose a better tomorrow, not only for themselves, but for all, this may be a time for that momentous change. Let us make the year 2009 the start. With best wishes,
Mirza A. Beg may be contacted at mab64@yahoo.com.
His essays are available at http://mirzasmusings.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
