Egypt Uprising 11-2-2

Uprising in Egypt – Country at the Cross Roads

Mirza A. Beg

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

The Tuscaloosa News Wednesday, February 2, 2011

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20110202/NEWS/110209918

The American Muslim, Wednesday, February 2, 2011

http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/uprising_in_egypt_country_at_a_cross_roads/0018368

Media Monitors Net, Wednesday, February 2, 2011

http://world.mediamonitors.net/Headlines/Uprising-in-Egypt-Country-at-the-Crossroads

Cross Currents, Wednesday, February 2, 2011

http://www.countercurrents.org/beg010211.htm

Inspired by the spontaneous revolution in Tunisia, thousands of young Egyptians took to the streets in Cairo on January 25^th 2011, congregating in Tehrir (Liberation) Square. A 20^th century dictatorship was overwhelmed by 21^st century technology. Facebook and Twitter facilitated instant communication to overcome the government censors. Their protest against poverty, unemployment and government corruption erupted as a peaceful revolt against the thirty years of autocratic rule of President Hosni Mubarak. In unison they demanded Mubarak to leave.

Eighty-two year old Mubarak, caught by surprise sent his family to England, shut off the Internet and imposed a curfew. He employed his usual means to suppress the peaceful protesters by sending the feared police and Special Forces. Police used water cannons, tear gas and rubber bullets, but to their surprise they could not intimidate as in the past. It was reported that about a dozen protesters were killed. This simply made the protesters even more determined and the crowd grew even larger and at places the police were overwhelmed and even beaten.

Out of fear, or as a matter of policy, the hated police were withdrawn on the third day and the army was called out. Some damage to the government buildings was reported, including the world famous Museum of Antiquities. Looting of richer neighborhoods by nefarious miscreants is widely believed to be the act of agent provocateurs and the police, to discredit the peaceful revolution.

The military is one of the most respected and egalitarian institutions in Egypt. People welcomed the soldiers in their tanks and armored carriers as protectors. They did not interfere with the peaceful protest. It was amazing to see protesters joyously riding on the tanks along with the soldiers.

Three days later Mubarak reconstituted his government, appointing a Vice President for the first time. Omar Sulaiman, the new Vice President is respected in some US circles, but the Egyptians know him as the former intelligence chief known for his role in torture of prisoners, particularly in the US extraordinary rendition-for-torture program. Mubarak also replaced the Prime Minister. and the police chief.

Though the spontaneous revolution started with the young, gradually men and women of all ages and people of all political leanings have joined in. On Tuesday the 1^st of February, millions of Egyptians marched throughout Egypt, demanding Mubarak’s resignation with sporadic anti US slogans for the long US support for Mubarak. The newly appointed Vice President Sulaiman has offered to meet the leaders of the revolution to discuss ways to proceed with the reforms.

The army has announced that it would patrol to protect people and property, but would not fire on peaceful protest, confirming that Mubarak’s weakening power.

Though the revolution was spontaneous and leaderless, gradually Egyptians from all shades of the political spectrum, including the Muslim Brotherhood and the Communists have coalesced behind an internationally respected figure, El Baradei, a 2005 Nobel Laureate and former Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency.

Western governments, especially the United States were also caught flatfooted. Secretary of State Clinton’s first statement was insipid, but by the second day the US administration could read the writing on the wall. Obama strongly urged Mubarak to respect people’s right to peaceful protest and asked for the restoration of the internet connections. He also diplomatically threatened Mubark to behave or jeopardize the annual largess of one and a half billion dollars.

The US has traditionally considered Egypt as one of the most important allies in the Middle East for four reasons. First - Egypt is by far the most populous Arab country. Second - The US considers it a bulwark of peace with Israel. It provides enormous leverage to Israel’s occupation and activities in the occupied Gaza and West Bank. Third - After 9/11, Egypt has toed the US line in the war on terrorism, to the extent that it was one of the most important destinations for torture of “extraordinary rendition prisoners” in the Bush administration. And fourth – Suez Canal is a strategic passage for oil and commerce for Europe.

The nervousness in the US is understandable. The Obama administration is very carefully playing its cards. The US realizes that the era of preaching democracy and supporting dictators in Latin America, Middle East and Asia is over. The much-maligned Wikileaks expose, though embarrassing, shows that the US did urge dictators like Mubarak to ease up on the draconian laws and move towards democracy. It has not gone un-noticed among the intelligentsia in the Middle East and it bodes well for the future of US standing among the people in the region and puts potentates on notice. But the average Egyptian does not consider the US to be a friend. Obama administration needs to be more proactive and on the right side of the unfolding history.

Israel is naturally terribly concerned and considers Mubarak to be a close ally. NPR has reported that it is strongly encouraging the US and others to fully support Mubarak.

Leaders of most of the important parties, especially El Baradei have emphasized that they would honor all treaty obligations, including the peace treaty with Israel. In a democratic Egypt the government would be answerable to its people and would not be pliant to the US policy towards the Palestinians, and would not support Israel’s strangulating blockade of Gaza as Mubarak has. This would bring greater urgency to the peaceful solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and give impetus to the US efforts.

Obviously a major change in the power equation cannot be fully predicted. It poses new challenges and new opportunities. No one doubts that democracy with all its problems and flaws has proven to be a better form of government. It takes time to take root and find its stride.

Some in the West are afraid that Egypt would follow the example of Iran. It is based on ignorance of history as well as geography. The Iranian revolution sprang against a tyrant that suppressed Islam. As it unfolded, instead of looking to the future, the US and Iranian policy makers became prisoners of their past, rooted in the1953 US interference in suppressing the budding democracy in Iran.

Egyptians have no such history. In 1956 Eisenhower forced the withdrawal of the tripartite invasion of Egypt by Britain, France and Israel. To its credit Obama administration has carefully supported the right to peaceful revolution. Though the death toll has reached more than hundred, a whole-sale suppression has not occurred because of a blunt US warning to Mubarak use of force on peaceful demonstrators will not be tolerated.

If handled with care democracy in Egypt is more likely to follow the Turkish model. The Muslim Brotherhood since 1960s has abjured force and has followed political means under an oppressive dictatorship. It is more akin to the Christian right in the US than the theocratic clergy in Iran. Though in a new democracy respect for constitution needs time to take root.

Democratic Egypt would be a positive force in bringing democracy to countries that have educated populations with large-scale unemployment and poverty, such as Syria, Algeria, Jordan, Yemen, and Sudan. The Gulf Countries and Saudi Arabia have small populations rich because of petro-dollars and would not follow the current wave of revolutions.

Egyptians are a proud people with a five thousand year of great history, and one of the best-educated young generations in the Middle East. Two years ago when I was in Cairo, I talked to Egyptians from a broad cross section of generational, educational and economic and religious background. They were friendly talkative and inquisitive. They talked about everything under the sun, but could not voice opinions on their government. Liberation is in the air and Egyptians have found their voice.

Mirza A. Beg can be contacted at mab64@yahoo.com and comments may be posted on mirzasmusings.blogspot.com

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

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/

Karadzic Arrested 08-07-22

Karadzic, the Serbian Butcher of Bosnia, Arrested

Mirza A. Beg
Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Pine Magazine, Tuesday, July 22, 2008
http://www.pine-magazine.com/maincat.php?category_id=2
Media Monitors Network, Tuesday, July 22, 2008
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/53127
The American Muslim, Tuesday, July 22, 2008
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/karadzic_the_serbian_butcher_of_bosnia_arrested/0016437


The arrest of Radovan Karadzic, the leader and one of the main architects of Serbian atrocities and genocide against the Bosnian Muslims and Catholic Croats is not only good news, but much needed victory for the cause of justice. He, as the civilian leader, along with Ratko Mladic, the military leader of the Serb forces, was the main culprit in the civil war in Bosnia from 1991 to 1996. They rained death and destruction on Sarajevo and directed the genocide in Bosnia that killed more than 200,000 Bosnians and Croats. They were indicted for their crimes against humanity by the international court of justice at The Hague and have eluded arrest for the last thirteen years.

As children, we are taught and fortunately we believe that evil does not pay and justice triumphs in the end. It is an uplifting message to imbibe. It gives us an ideal to aspire for, rooted in the purity of innocence. Perhaps that early implant of idealism is what keeps the world from spinning completely out of control and falling irredeemably into chaos.

Unfortunately, as adults we come face to face with the reality, leading to disillusionment. We sadly come to realize that tyrants, exploiters and killers are only occasionally brought to justice to face deserved punishment. Most tyrants not only thrive, but are even celebrated; especially when they are supported by a sectarian populace. If they live long enough and mellow with age, their sectarian good deeds help cover up their terrible crimes.

The best known extreme examples are Hitler who came to a well deserved ignominious end, but Stalin was celebrated until his natural death by his beleaguered countrymen. History is full of such pairs. In modern times many horrible killers and dictators retired and found refuge in other countries to live and die in isolated luxury. Tyranny by stronger countries on weaker countries is often celebrated in the hallowed name of patriotism and nationalism by the strong.

Occasionally when tyrants, killers and genocide perpetrators are caught and brought to the bar of slow grinding sporadic justice, a modicum of humanity is reclaimed, a few tears are wiped and it rekindles hope.

Often tyrants are replaced by other tyrants, or even unintended tyranny of war of hubris, such as the fate of Saddam Hussein. Many dictators and evil systems fall to leaders full of promise who adapt the same methods, once in power, as in the case of Idi Amin of Uganda and Mugabe of Zimbabwe. Unfortunately most major countries have been guilty of selective violations of human rights of beleaguered minorities; there are many current examples of such ongoing conflicts.

After the unprecedented carnage of the WW II, the stunned world came to its senses to establish a world-wide organization, The United Nations (UN), to be a world assembly where a consensus could be reached, so that such carnages could be avoided for a better future.

Though the UN has been immensely successful through its many agencies in helping the poverty-stricken peoples of the word, unfortunately it has failed in its primary purpose of outlawing wars and carnage. The main impediments are the five major powers, the victors of the WW II; Great Britain, France, the United States, China and now Russia in place of the Soviet Union. They reserved for them-selves the power of veto, the right to individually kill any resolution in the Security Council, the executive arm for world peace in the UN. Thus many regional wars and even genocides have continued, in which either the powers them-selves were engaged or it involved their client states.

The UN also created the International Court of Justice, headquartered at The Hague in the Netherlands, to be the impartial arm of justice for those who had no other recourse. The most powerful country, the United States refused to join it. Therefore, the International Court of Justice works only when the less powerful tyrants are defeated and caught.

Nevertheless, the arrest of Radovan Karadzic after thirteen years of eluding half-hearted attempts by the Serbian and the UN peace-keepers is a small victory for the ideals that we were raised on, and it keeps the flickering flame of justice alive.

Mirza A. Beg can be contacted at mab64@yahoo.com .

Burmese disaster 08-05-12

Junta Obstructs Aid While Burmese Die

Mirza A. Beg
Monday, May 12, 2008

The American Muslim Tuesday, May 13, 2008
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/junta_obstructs_aid_while_burmese_die/0016218

The devastation caused by the forces of nature such as cyclones, tsunamis and earthquakes are well known. We have witnessed their fury many times, particularly in the last three years. What we have not witnessed is the intentional criminal neglect by the government of the country. The Burmese government has not only ignored the plight of the suffering masses, but has done all they can to reject and impede the help that the world is eager to provide.

The cyclone that hit Burma (Myanmar) on the third of May, 2008 devastated the heavily populated, rice farming delta region of the Irrawaddy River, including the largest city and, until recently, the capital Rangoon (Yangon).

People all over the world through their governments and through private charities are aching to help, but have been stymied, by the putative Burmese military junta masquerading as a government.

Unlike tsunamis or earthquakes, the cyclone system moves slowly. Modern weather predictions and satellite tracking allows time for governments to help populations prepare for the impending disaster, and where possible evacuation. There is no evidence that the Burmese junta cared to inform the people in the path of the cyclone. Cyclones are a natural phenomenon, neither good nor evil. The Burmese junta has proven to be not only depraved, but criminal, because it does not allow others to help either, transforming a tragedy into a catastrophe.

The United Nations estimates that as many as 120,000 people may be dead and millions are homeless, in dire need of food, shelter and clean water. With the experiences after the tsunami in Indonesia in December 2004, and the earthquake in Pakistan in October, 2005, the UN and international community learned valuable lessons in large scale disaster relief. The first few hours after a disaster are extremely important for the survival of people barely hanging on to the tenuous thread of life.

The response from the international community was immediate. Supplies were on the way, being stored in neighboring countries and relief ships the same day. All that the government of Burma had to do was, say yes. The relief supplies and equipments along with trained aid workers would have poured in.

The Burmese Junta said no. Later under universal condemnation modified it to “yes but”. They wanted the supplies to be given to them, and obstinately refused the influx of foreign aid workers. They are scared that aid workers would be carriers of humane ideas and democracy. The United Nations and the relief agencies know the modus operandi of the Burmese Junta. They are sure that the aid will be pilfered; diverted to the well-healed generals and the army. Most of it will not reach the hungry suffering victims in dire need.

Cruel military juntas are efficient in the use and mobilization of the army. The Burmese junta was very efficient in the misuse of the army in the brutal suppression of the peaceful demonstration by the monks in September- October 2007, but the army was nowhere to be seen in the devastated regions of the Irrawaddy delta in the wake of the this cyclone. Yet, the government was telling the UN that its army would help distribute the emergency supplies.

On the contrary, while the people in the Irrawaddy delta are dieing, the junta has spent its attention, meager resources, and man power in holding sham elections in the rest of the country to legitimize its rule. The only local organized help that the people have is from the Monks and the shelters in the monasteries.

UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon has expressed immense frustration that after nine days only a trickle of aid has reached the victims. He has not been able to contact the leader of the junta General Than Shwe in the last nine days. Obviously General Shwe does not care.

Unfortunately in this show down, the cruel dictators have had their way. This stand-off has already resulted in the death of thousands, who could have been saved in the immediate aftermath of the cyclone. If the food, water and medicine do not reach the survivors, they will die in large numbers because of malnutrition, diarrhea, malaria and other contagious diseases that can be avoided. Children are particularly vulnerable. The international community has reluctantly started to surrender the relief supplies to the Burmese junta.

How has such dastardly government survived for almost forty-five years? It is the same old story. While the democracies condemn the government and have even imposed sanctions in the last few years, they quietly and often illegally trade with it because of rich mineral wealth of Burma. Burmese rubies and sapphires are the best in the world. China is the biggest beneficiary of such trade. To compete with China, India and other south-east Asian countries have regular trade relations with Burma. The French and other oil companies are engaged in petroleum exploration and production, even the US while imposing trade sanctions quietly allowed Chevron Oil Company to trade freely with Burma up to the last November.

Democracies mostly pay lip service to the idea of democracy, while they surreptitiously support dictatorships for their interests, as in the case of Burma. It is time that the citizens of democracies should expose such nefarious deals. The world super-powers have consistently worked to weaken the UN for their own purposes, as we have seen in the case of the Iraq invasion. It is time to strengthen the UN and other international organizations, so that an above-board united action can be taken against the governments that kill and torture their own citizens and invade and torture others.

Mirza A. Beg can be contacted at mab64@yahoo.com
His writings are available at http://mirzasmusings.blogspot.com/