RNPol.com

Sarah Palin is a Monumental Disgrace

2008-10-22T00:25:00.000-06:00

The quintessential right wing radical, supposedly representing the interests of “small town America”, now comes with a feminine twist. However Sarah Palin’s talents stop abruptly after she opens her mouth.

It is a miracle that from such a desolate void extends such a barrage of excrement that seems to embarrass its perpetuator every time she is interviewed on a credited media network. The barrage of excrement? Sarah Palin’s answers to most questions posed by anyone with half a brain (Sean Hannity excluded by implication). The desolate void? The unfortunate space between Palin’s ears.

Remarking that Obama doesn’t either declare or desire a wish for America to “win”, she seems confused – perhaps offended – as the crowds at her rallies seem to be. What in the world does “victory” mean? Didn’t Bush declare victory on May 1st, 2003? This binary win or lose perspective with respect to Iraq is not only naive, but dangerous, especially if held by those we trust in power. The process of democracy is long and arduous – typically taking multiple generations – after the suppression of cultural norms and traditions that directly oppose the growth of democracy, which seem to be in abundance in Iraq.

The “I can see Russia from my house” joke has been stressed out but its point still bears reiterating. With US-Russian relations strained, particularly since the recent Georgian conflict, can we seriously consider a cretin of an Alaskan governor as someone who has “foreign policy experience” with regards to Russia? Why wasn’t this dim-witted VP nominee trashed as soon as she alluded to this in the Katie Couric interview? I’d be impressed if she knew who the President of Russia actually is (Here’s a tip Sarah: it’s not Vladimir Putin).

Sarah Palin has destroyed any confidence I had in the Republican Party or John McCain’s campaign. Our country, and indeed the world, is facing one of the largest economic meltdowns for 50 years, but when asked about what she thinks we must do about it, her reply is the largely generic and mechanical free market tirade that the campaign has obviously had her memorize. This woman clearly has no understanding of the grave situation we are in, or of basic economic concepts for that matter.

Sarah Palin is nothing more than a pitiful demagogue, a Republican tragedy, and a complete and utter liability. I used to offer my condolences to Sarah Palin’s self respect every instance she opened her mouth and proved her ignorance beyond doubt, but now my pity has turned to deep concern. If Sarah Palin was applying for a menial job, her slowness might be considered cute. However, we are talking about potentially affording her the title of the most powerful person on Earth. It is official: Sarah Palin is a monumental disgrace as a VP nominee, and would be an absolute disaster as either the actual Vice President or as – and I hope I am not prophesising here – the President of the United States of America.

The McCain Campaign's Experiment with the Darker Side of American Politics

2008-10-10T17:04:00.001-06:00

“Who is the real Barack Obama?” asked John McCain in the UNM Student Union’s Ballroom. “A TERRORIST” someone bellowed from the crowd, a remark that provoked a look of surprise even from Senator McCain, but did not stop him from carrying on with the rest of his rhetoric. Why was John McCain so surprised at this comment when his running mate stopped short of making such a ridiculous assertion herself?

Other foolish remarks such as “KILL HIM” and “HE’S A TRAITOR” have followed the McCain campaign at Republican rallies ever since Sarah Palin decided to adopt the ‘inciting the mob’ tactic against Obama. The divisive rhetoric used in perpetuating the “Us vs. Them” mentality amongst voters undoubtedly has racial and thus dangerous undertones. This divergence of the McCain campaign from the issues to character assassination may prove to have dire consequences for future multiracial elections, American politics and perhaps American society as a whole.

The significance of the well calculated synchronization in highlighting the Hussein in Barack H. Obama as well as asserting that he “pals around with domestic terrorists”, emphasis clearly on the word terrorist, is indisputable. Attempts to present Obama as exotic, mysterious and deceitful have typically been left to the fringes of the far right conspiracy theorists hell bent on painting Obama to be a Muslim extremist or in some cases the antichrist. To bring this gibberish into the mainstream of American politics is nothing short of desperate demagoguery on the part of the McCain and Palin effort, and will go down in history just as the attacks on McCain’s children and the integrity of his record as a POW did in 2000.

I am astounded and saddened that McCain, being such an outspoken critic of gutter politics, would sink to such rotten depths himself. This type of assault is more of a reflection on the character of the McCain campaign rather than on Barack Obama himself, yet I fear that the dirt politics may still work in favour of McCain. No matter how much the American public says it hates negative campaigning, the numbers don’t lie. Negative adverts, character assassinations and fear tactics work.

As the McCain campaign rallies transform into something akin to a KKK assembly with Republican adherents calling to “kill” the “traitor” Barack Obama, the silences of McCain and Palin represent a tolerance, even a disregard, to these feelings.

In conclusion, it is safe to say that John McCain has lost this independent’s vote, and I hope the rest of the American public won’t stand for the dirt politics either. Let us leave John Sidney McCain and Sarah Louise Heath Palin wondering what happened on November the 4th.

The Death of the American Empire

2008-10-06T20:46:00.001-06:00

Published in both the Daily Lobo (http://www.dailylobo.com) and the Albuquerque Journal (http://www.abqjournal.com)

Why are politicians sounding alarm bells as Wall Street goes down in flames?

It’s simple: our economy is three-quarters goods and services. When people don’t have disposable income or access to credit, three-quarters of our GDP will slide. Therefore, quite simply, we NEED a strong confident banking system. To have a strong confident banking system, you need a strong confident Wall Street. So yes, this does mean bailing out powerful greedy CEO’s, but you can rationalize this as a ‘necessary evil’.

If you want to blame anyone for this catastrophic disaster, blame Alan Greenspan. Greenspan’s extraordinary rate cuts in 2003, combined with the post 9/11 message from Washington telling the American public to “SPEND TO BE PATRIOTIC”, meant that borrowers got money easily and spent it just as easily. Home ownership soared in the US in 2003, and as the real estate markets boomed due to Greenspan’s interest rate cuts, borrowers pulled the equity from their homes created by this fake boom.

This ‘housing bubble’ gave new (borrowed) wealth to the homeowners who thought they had achieved their American Dream. This borrowed wealth was simply not sustainable in the long wrong. First the housing bubble burst - now Wall Street is in collapse because it can’t put a price tag on its own investments. No wonder Alan Greenspan was nicknamed Chairman Bubbles in 2004.

This crisis is a direct consequence of the whole scale financialization of the United States. A shrinking manufacturing sector was replaced by a de-regulated expansive financial sector, but instead of “diversifying our portfolio” as the Wall Street likes to say, we put all of our eggs into one basket. Now we are entirely dependent on a healthy financial sector for the strength of the rest of the economy. Contrast this with countries like Japan and Germany, both of whom have successful financial AND manufacturing sectors. Japan and Germany typically enjoyed large budget surpluses when we had record setting budget deficits.

Following previous superpowers, the US has gone down the same treacherous road: from agriculture and fishing to commerce and industry, and now to post industrial large-scale financialization. Naturally from 2000 to 2008, under George Bush’s watch, the US accumulated unprecedented debt in all areas: from Uncle Sam’s record deficits to the Average Joe’s unpaid credit card – everyone owed someone else more money than ever before.

A professor of mine called this financial crisis a ‘collapse of the free-market ideology’, but history will call it the first casualty in the unavoidable disintegration of the supremacy of the USA. My message is simple: it is time to relieve ourselves of the American exceptionalism, self-aggrandizing ethnocentrism and outright arrogance we baptize our thoughts and discourse in: Say goodbye to hegemonic dominance, absurd claims of being God’s chosen nation and egotistical babble such as ‘God Bless America’. Instead, say hello to the mediocrity of inferiority.

Superhighway To Hell

2008-02-26T14:35:00.001-07:00

TEXAS – A NAFTA superhighway has outraged many Texans and also put fears about a North American Union into the hearts of people across the United States.

The proposed superhighway, also known as the Trans-Texas Corridor-35 and I-69, will first take route from Laredo (a city on the border of Mexico and Texas) to Texarkana (a city the border of Arkansas and Texas). Some critics remark that the finished superhighway is not only intended to go across Texas, but all the way north to Canada.

The cost of the project is said to be an astonishing $183 billion dollars over 50 years. The superhighway is said to be three times wider than a typical interstate at an incredible 1,200 ft width stretching over 4000 miles. There are planned truck lanes and passenger lanes which would allow vehicles to travel at 85 mph, as well as rail and utility lines.

The TTC-35 is going to be financed by private investors, none of whom are American. The project involves millions of acres that the State of Texas has vowed they will take from unwilling owners through eminent domain. This coupled with the fact that no voter approval is necessary for the State of Texas to start construction has led many to express concerns about the true intentions of the superhighway.

“Is this part of the North American Union, or is this just to enhance travel in Texas? I suspect it’s a lot more” warns Ron Paul, presidential candidate and Texas congressman. “Plus everybody I’ve run into in Texas doesn’t want it.”

The Texas Department of Transport has said the corridor will be needed because three-quarters of Mexican traffic into the United States comes via Texas, and private investors are an ideal way to finance the project without severely dipping into state funds. However critics have suggested that due to over saturated Californian ports, the superhighway (via Mexican ports) is going to be used to import more cheap Chinese goods to flood the American market, and thus displace American made goods.

A total of around 10,000 Texans showed up to protest the superhighway at 46 separate town hall meetings in only a week. There are 12 town hall meetings planned before March 3. Some observers have suggested that this project is just another stepping stone towards the North American Union.

The growing fears of a NAU has been the subject of many shady and unfounded conspiracy theories, however with recent developments the theoretical concept has taken a much more legitimate role in the media. The hypothetical union of Canada, the United States and Mexico has been compared to the European Union.

The NAU could mean rules and treaties being set up to regulate and intrude on the free market American economy. Joint regulations of industries (such as fishing, and even what goes into food products) are common in the European Union.

Another result of the NAU would be the single and common currency called the Amero, similar to the Euro of Europe. Almost all three countries reject the idea of the Amero as a common currency amongst Canada, the United States and Mexico because of the consequential loss of economic sovereignty due to the complete control of the inflation rate by one particular country in the union.

Interestingly, this is the same argument that kept the Euro out of England which is why Euro’s are not commonly accepted in the United Kingdom. The Pound Sterling’s inflation rate is set by the Bank of England and therefore economic independence is maintained, whereas other countries in the European Union bow to inflation rates set in Brussels.

Nonetheless, it is clear that this Texas sized proposal of the TTC-36 has been met with the same Texas sized opposition, and the State Department of Transportation is going to have a tough time securing the land and the legitimacy needed to go ahead with this so called superhighway to hell.

Lack of critical thinking kills real experience

2008-02-26T13:45:00.000-07:00

"Lack of critical thinking kills real experience"
by Raj Patel & Ender Kirin
Published editorial for the Gallup Herald on February 25th, 2008

"Barack Obama's a Muslim. Imagine if we had a Muslim President during 9/11. This is one nation under God." Can you imagine this type of bigoted annihilation of the truth being propagated in a university class room? I can - because I have seen it.

Among the other extraordinary claims of my classmate was that "Rudi Guiliani was pro abortion, whereas Hilary had a better idea about abortion because she was a woman." Perhaps my classmate has made the abysmal error in thinking that a Republican Party candidate would be pro abortion and a Democratic Party candidate would be anti abortion based in their respective genders.

People would argue that the classmate has a right to hold any opinion they wish, and they would even extend this right to them being able to express their opinion openly in this free speec age we live in. However what is most bewildering is that after the student had cast the ridiculous aspersions as part of a speech in front of the class, an abhorrent round of applause followed.

Naturally I decided to confront the student about the errors. I was under the impression that being on a university campus, open debate would have been welcomed, however I was wrong. The class went quiet as if I had just done something wrong, with the professor at the back of the class bellowing "refrain, Raj, refrain".

Perhaps some people can appreciate how absurd a university class this was. If you are penalized for questioning or challenging another point of view, especially in a university class, then there is something wrong with the class.

Aversion to critical thinking does not only fall into the domain of would-be pundits. In an effort to save themselves from the effort of having to examine their world too closely, people also miss out on many details that form the spice of life.

In one of my favourite local hang-outs, I witnessed an intersting machine with fresh eyes. On a busy winter morning like many others, an employee was making tortillas at Glenn's Bakery. Questions form like droplets of dew form on my mind, warmed by the new experience.

"Why are the tortillas so flufffy when they come out?" I posed the question thinking that she might know more about the process.

"I don't know," she just shrugged, and went back to pulling out tortillas.

"Don't you ever wonder?" I chanced. Her reply was "No." How much do we miss through rut-thinking and projections? I found myself thinking what a portion of my own experience is lost by not looking, not questioning. Maybe the whole wonder in life.

Whether through under-developed intellect or over-intellectualizing of situations, many people are disconnected from the reality and beauty of life.

The challenge is to engage more fully with the world, cross those imaginary lines of separation and find the real heart of life. Actual experience must inform intellect and fortify emotional intensity.

A critical questioning mind is beneficial in many different aspects of life. The courage to doubt yourself and those around you might do more than preserve the firing of neurons in that gray mass between your ears.

A critical mind is an aware mind, more likely belonging to an engaged person.

"People aren't looking for the meaning of life... they're looking for the feeling of being alive," Joseph Campbell once said. I can think of no better way to feel alive than to be profoundly engaged.

Rather than taking the wonder out of life or spoiling one's values, knowledge enchances this wonder by opeining up the possibility of new questions and given one firm ground upon which to base opinions.

Indian Invasian of The American Hospitality Industry

2008-02-25T10:06:00.000-07:00

Originally published in The Gallup Herald on Tuesday Feb. 19th, 2008

Indian Influx

GALLUP – Walk into any motel on the Route 66 strip, and you will almost certainly find a person from India behind the counter.

A large number of East Indian immigrants came into the US from Africa and India in the 1970’s. Armed with only entrepreneurial prowess and a will to succeed, they have monopolized the hospitality industry. The Asian American Hotel Owner’s Association boasts 8,000 members who own over 22,000 hotels and motels. This represents over 1 million rooms which accounts for 50 percent of the economy lodging properties, and 37 percent of all hotel/motel properties in the United States.

The statistics do beg the question: What was so attractive about the motel industry to East Indian’s in particular?

“It was the oil embargo,” says Kamlesh Patel, owner of Arrowhead Lodge on Route 66. “American motel owners panicked because the embargo stopped American’s from driving around their own country for vacations and we were here to pick up the pieces.”

The formula was simple – buy a relatively rundown motel at a very reasonable price, call in family members from India and invest money into the property. The result was family run roadside motels that kept a healthy profit margin.

“I could send my kids to college and still live comfortably,” says Smita Patel, who owns the Lariat Lodge. “I didn’t even have experience when I first started, but once you get the hang of it, it’s easy.”

Aruna Patel, co-manager of the Best Western Red Rock Inn, pointed out that without Indian investment into Gallup, none of the major franchise motels (Best Westerns, La Quinta, Hampton Inn, Ramada Inn, Super 8’s and more) would have been built. She said the reason why Indians flooded Gallup in the mid 1980’s was because it represented the crossroads where Route 66 passed through the Native American heartland.

“If it wasn’t for the Indian’s, you wouldn’t even see any franchise motels. There would be a void in the industry without us,” she said. “We made money but reinvested it in Gallup, you don’t see many people doing that”

One explanation for the Indian influx is their preference for the relatively laissez-faire economic approach adopted by the US government. The Indian government has held a very interventionist approach to the economy until very recently.

“Resources were limited back then, loans were difficult to obtain.” says Dinesh Patel, owner and manager of Desert Skies motel on the west side. “We preferred the motel industry because we could turn it into a family business.”

The Indian interest in hospitality is not set to slow down. Ever increasing numbers of Indian owned motels are projected, except now the owners are not only first generation immigrants but second generation Western educated Asian Americans.

“I grew up in a motel, running it and living in it,” says Falgoon Patel, 21 year old co-manager of a Best Western. “I’m going to college right now but after I get my degree you can bet I’m going to invest in a hotel, it’s what I’ve done my whole life”

Most of the Indian’s who came to Gallup did not have much but have earned their livelihoods following almost the exact same blueprint. They all agree what attracted them to the motel business is the deep tradition of hard work with family support. It is an age old practice adapted to modern America for a prosperous result.

The Ridiculous Nature of the American Political Process

2008-02-11T21:17:00.000-07:00

I’m feeling restless, standing in Gallup’s Fire Station on Feb. 5th 2008. Yes, the date should sound familiar – it’s ‘Super Tuesday’ and no - I’m not here to see the pretty red trucks - I’m here to vote for the candidate I want to run for the Democratic Party in the general elections of 2008. Or so I thought...

After waiting for about 40 minutes (an unacceptable wait – the Democratic Party clearly underestimated the amount of people who would turn up to vote in Gallup by setting up only one voting booth), I was told by a Democrat volunteer I could not vote because I did not register as a Democrat. So I questioned ‘When will I be able to vote, then?’ The reply was ‘when the Independent Party holds its elections’. What an absurd response.

So the American political system, delegate of democracy, once again fails who it was set up to serve. Let us take a closer look at this ‘democracy’ that we champion around the world as some type of exceptional and exclusive quality to America alone.
America has one of the world’s lowest voter turnout rates – but the highest number of elections and elected offices than any other liberal democracy.

The sheer cost required to run for election and reach out to the large number of constituents means that filthy rich corporations have an exceptional influence on candidates and therefore on policy.

This also means that only the exceptionally well off can run to become President of the United States.

Real political debate amongst candidates is just not possible in the United States – as they all dissolve into childish bickering with falsehoods, lies and empty rhetoric occupying most of the other time.

The length of elections leaves many people feeling disenchanted with the whole process.

How does one mobilize voters when no credible grass roots organizations can reach out to people anymore?

News media doesn’t help: it is only interested in what the major candidates have to say rather than giving all candidates equal exposure, furthermore they seem more interested in how much money a candidate raises rather than his or her stance on any particular issues.

Borders of voting districts in states are decided by the majority political party in that state (which means that they will obviously use this power in a way to draw voting districts in order to maximize benefit to that particular political party).
Finally, voting irregularities and technical problems (still acceptable in the most advanced liberal democracy in the world?) were strife throughout the November elections. Nevertheless, Al Gore won 50,999,897 votes, roughly 540,000 more than Republican rival George “Dubyah” Bush, yet Dubyah won the election because it is an Electoral College that picks the President.

So is this the reason why America has such a low voter turnout? Are people just sick of the political process in this country? For lack of a better word (I hate the 2008 election buzzword), something has to change. I’d probably propose scrapping the whole election process and putting something more representative in its place. Then again, I think American’s had enough of English people telling them how to run their country around 232 years ago…

Islamization & Infidels

2008-01-28T23:47:00.000-07:00

Pakistan
Islamization & Infidels:
A Brief History of Rule under Zia-ul-Haq

By Raj N Patel

Introduction

This essay will be dealing with the forces that decided to use Islam as a vice to forge a new identity for a new Pakistani country from its birth in 1947 to 1988, and how this process ultimately lead to the complete Islamization of the state of Pakistan. Particularly, I will be concentrating on General Zia ul-Haq, who was de facto dictator of Pakistan from 1978 to 1988. The backdrop of the ‘second’ Cold War (1978 – 1985) is relevant to the issue of Islamization of Pakistan, however it is beyond the scope of this essay (taking into account space limitations) so I have omitted any references to the effect it had on Pakistani internal affairs except the following: the most important factor that the war in Afghanistan (mainly the US against the communist threat posed by the USSR) had played is that Zia ul-Haq used the Soviet threat to scaremonger money from the United States, whilst simultaneously propagating the Islamic fundamentalist ideology to keep Afghanistan politically weak. A democratic strong Afghanistan has always been pro-India, because of tribal disputes of land that was illegally annexed by the British and declared Pakistani land during the partition. Thus a weak, Muslim Afghanistan under strict Islamic law upheld by the Taliban (contrary to popular belief the Taliban was trained by the Pakistani government and NOT by the US, however the US is ‘blamed’ for training the Taliban by providing economic assistance to Pakistan to aid its exploits in Afghanistan) is ideal for Pakistan to be top-dog in the particular region.
The main point of this essay is to highlight the destructive force that fundamentalist interpretation of religion has on a countries political structure, social structure, and economy. I will also delve into the repercussions Zia ul-Haq’s Islamization of Pakistan has had for the world we live in today.

Pakistan after independence: merging Islam and national identity (1947 – 1951)

The first prime minister of Pakistan, who was also a member of the All India Muslim League, was the largely secular Liaquat Ali Khan. Liaquat Ali Khan was criticized for having a pro-US foreign policy (thus seen as a pro-Western foreign policy) and the pressure he placed on the Communist Party of Pakistan during his tenure. L.A. Khan, alongside Muhammad Ali Jinnah, was a secular elite. This was proven and L.A. Khan’s secular ideology was noted when he decided to clamp down the radical Islamist political party, the Jamaat-e-Islami (Islamic Society) .

This did not stop state officials of Pakistan (who wanted to use Islam to blunt ethnic identity opposition and mold the Pakistani national identity by promoting national identity was synonymous with being a good Muslim) from using Islam for political gain and as a tool utilized to broker power. This was exemplified n 1948, by the Pakistani army’s decision to use the Islamic idea of jihad to recruit and entice tribesman for the seizure of Kashmir from its Hindu maharaja. The critical point here is that although Pakistan was founded by the secular elite, all of whom were Muslim but believed in equality of all peoples and a separation of Mosque and State, some elements of the early Pakistani government did not refrain from using radical elements from within the society to promote their own political agendas. As we will see, this was to have dire consequences, not only for Pakistan, but for the entire world.

Pakistan: First Nervous Steps on the Tight Tope between Islam & the West
Ayub Khan, military commander-in-chief of Pakistan, ousted General Iskander Mirza in 1958 through a bloodless coup d’état that was met with little opposition as the country had been in a considerably unstable condition under Mirza’s rule. Ayub Khan described this coup d’etat as revolutionary, and was also an advocate of using Islam, domestically, to blunt ethnic identity and forge a new Pakistani identity. His thoughts are summed up in his autobiography:

“True that in [Islamic] society national territorialism has no place, yet those living in an area are responsible for its defense, security and development. Attachment to the country we live in and get sustenance from is therefore paramount.” He goes on further to say “moreover, considering that the people of Pakistan are a collection of so many races with different backgrounds, how can they be welded into a unified whole whilst keeping intact their local pride, culture and traditions”

Mohammad Ayub Khan put through state reforms and legislations that strengthened the centralized state power. He introduced a “series of repressive measures”, in which “civil liberties were abolished, the press was controlled, and extraordinary penalties were prescribed for offences. Special military courts were set up and given power to pass any sentence except death, transportation, imprisonment exceeding one year, and whipping exceeding fifteen stripes. Ayub initiated series of sweeping reforms in matters such as the land tenure system, the educational system, and administrative reorganization”

As we will see, balancing being perceived as a pious, Islamic individual at home domestically in Pakistan, with being deemed a moderate, perhaps even secularist leader, in foreign relations, has been the political strategy of choice for Pakistani dictators.

Pakistan: Zia ul-Haq & The Islamic State

General Zia ul-Haq, who was in power of Pakistan for an astonishing 11 years, helped turn Pakistan into a complete Islamic state. His intentions became clear when he agreed with a BBC interviewer who asked him if he was trying to ‘cleanse and purify Pakistan’. He went onto say “I try to be a practicing Muslim. If in the process, I can be termed a puritan, it is up to those who judge. I am an idealist in all my Islamic beliefs but I don’t profess to have the knowledge”. Furthermore, he said he would “stay in power as long as Allah wills.”

This religious soaked rhetoric may have filled Haq’s domestic population with admiration, but such piety was to have an irreconcilable negative effect on the politics and culture of Pakistan. General Zia ul-Haq started the Islamicization process within a few days of holding office. Primary school children (ages 4 – 11) were taught that “Pakistan was a fortress of Islam” and that “the Muslims came to this country [India], bringing with them a clean and elegant culture and civilization today” . In essence, Pakistani children were now being conditioned to support long term “military rule in Pakistan, inculcating hatred for Hindus, glorifying wars, and distorting the pre-1947 history of the area constituting Pakistan.”

History was re-written and pumped to the young, impressionable children as if Orwell himself had written a contemporary history rather than a grotesque prediction of the future when he produced ‘1984’. Pseudo-intellectual material and falsehoods fused with state and divine authority to produce such assertions as “Islam can never co-exist with Hinduism, therefore Muslims must separate from India” (despite the fact that India has the 3rd largest population of Muslims in the world within its borders, and incidentally is the largest democracy in the world). Religious zealots and extreme supporters of state Sharia law, in effect those synonymous with proponents of the literal-interpretation of the Kor’an, were revered as founders of the ideology of Pakistan (one of these were Maulana Maududi, founder of the Jamaat-e-Islami) . This was a false claim to make, a claim that should have made the Pakistani people enraged over the staining of their great founding secular elite with these theofascist mediocre hatemongerers. Communal riots that broke out during the mass exodus of different religions to different parts of the subcontinent were described as ‘Hindu and Sikh massacres of unarmed Muslims’. Ayub Khan was described as an ‘extremely popular leader’ loved for his ‘piety’. Zia ul-Haq was acknowledged with introducing the ‘Islamic system dreamed by the founders of Pakistan’ . This fabrication has had a profound impact on contemporary Pakistani culture.

The justice system was transformed from the largely Anglo-Saxon system Pakistan had adopted from the British to the primitive system of Sharia Law as prescribed by the Kor’an and the hadith. The ridiculous nature of this law was exposed in 1983, when a 13 blind year old girl known as Safia Bibi, alleged that she had been raped repeatedly by her employer and his son. She was the only witness in the case she made against the men, and Islamic law requires four men to testify against a rapist for him or her to get charged. However due to the fact she was pregnant, the court took this as evidence enough (for having sex with a man other than her husband) and charged her instead. Her witness statements did not stand up in court because she was blind.

Zia ul-Haq regularly met with ulema (Muslim scholars), and this created a climate where religious piety in government was deemed to be desirable; indeed civil servants sought promotions by highlighting personal acts of religious observance. The regime also gave equal status of ‘higher sanad’, the diploma achieved by graduating from religious fundamentalist schools called madrassas, with that of a University degree. The effect of this was that graduates from religious schools, trained and conditioned by extreme religious values, were now able to apply for governmental positions. Zia ul-Haq, although promoting the ‘anti-Islamic’ view of the U.S and then U.S.S.R was still intent on securing U.S aid and economic assistance to help boost Pakistan’s weary economy. On December 20th, 1984, Pakistan held a referendum brought about by Zia ul-Haq in an attempt to gain political legitimacy to carry on his dictatorial Islamization of the country. The referendum had a single question: “Do you support the process initiated by the government for the Islamization of all laws in accordance with the Holy Quran and Sunnah and do you support the Islamic ideology of Pakistan”. The ridiculous nature of the question is inescapable; the question was asked to the masses of Muslim Pakistani’s, which were forced to give Zia-ul-Haq further power. The Jamaat-e-Islami called for a ‘Yes’ vote, arguing that it would be blasphemy for a Muslim to vote against Islamization. This is yet another example of the Pakistani political apparatus using Islam for political gain, and to give an almost totalitarian government divine consent; the pseudo theodemocracy in fact just a military theocracy.

Zia ul-Haq appointed Mohammad Khan Junejo as prime minister in 1985. Junejo was more of a secular man, especially juxtaposed to the Islamist hard line Zia ul-Haq always took. Junejo took an independent approach to his prime ministerial duties; he acted without consulting any military generals and it is thought that for this reason Haq dissolved the National Assembly on May 29, 1988 and put forth a law that required every judicial decision made to be in accordance with Sharia Law. Zia ul-Haq died on August 17th, 1988, in a mysterious plane crash.

Thoughts and conclusions

The Islamization of Pakistan under mainly Zia ul-Haq’s military reign has led to extremely dire consequences for the Pakistani people. It seems that every military dictator since, including the incumbent Pervez Musharraf, has used the blueprint set by each dictator before him: secure U.S aid by scaremongering (back then it was the Soviets creating a communist bloc in Afghanistan, now it is Osama Bin Laden wanting to destroy America), but maintain an image of piety amongst the population (which includes deeming the U.S as a threat to Islam), and finally convince the domestic population that the Pakistani army and Islamic values are inextricably linked. The U.S at the time of Haq did not care about his Islamization as they did not anticipate it would come back to haunt them; they were pre-occupied with the U.S.S.R expansion into Afghanistan, and were using Haq’s well molded Pakistani identity to use Islam as a fuel to set fire to any Soviet hopes of taking Afghanistan.

The problem with Zia ul-Haq was that the Islamization he introduced gave him and his cronies the ultimate legitimacy amongst a religious peoples; the legitimacy of the divine. In a country where the government repeatedly stated it was acting strictly to principles set out in the Kor’an and hadith, where the power balance swung between the military and the mosque is itself justified with the utmost religiosity and piety, and where the pan-Islamic worldview was taught to children to condition the next generation of zombies of Islam, who had enough power to deem this foolishness for what it actually is – the bastardization and rape of the Islamic faith for political gain and power to oppress people without any thought of moral justice? Zia ul-Haq will be remembered by his admirers as a man who brought Islam to Pakistan, but by his critics as someone who used Islam in a way that is strictly un-Islamic. The founding father of Pakistan, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, whom Haq had the audacity to quote and praise, would probably have turned in his grave to see Zia ul-Haq bring about changes that he did through the guise of the divine.

Sources and Credits

Haqqani, H (2005), Between Mosque and Military
Khan, A (1967), Friends Not Masters
Singhal, D. P. (1972), Pakistan
Barron. Brian (1978), President of Pakistan Interviews to Foreign Media Vol. 1, BBC documentary
Aziz, K.K. (1993), The Murder of History in Pakistan
Shakir, Naeem (2003), Women, Minorities & Hudood Laws in Pakistan

Barack Obama's Political Def Comedy Jam?

2008-01-18T17:14:00.000-07:00

Haha...

See the video of Barack Obama's shot at stand up comedy here.

You can't say the man's not charming.

Does Ron Paul Stand a Chance?

2008-01-18T16:41:00.000-07:00

To those watching most Republican debates, it is obvious that most of the Republican candidates take Ron Paul’s thoughts and policies as a joke or even offensively (in the case of Rudi Guiliani), to point where they are condescending towards him and his policies.

On the issues, Ron Paul really does set himself apart from the other Republican candidates. He talks with a certain clarity and integrity, alongside a confidence derived from knowing that he is probably the only candidate staying true to Republican Party, American & constitutional values.

However does he stand a chance when it comes to being elected to be the President of the United States of America? In my opinion, the answer is simply no. This is not because he is not a good candidate, nor is it because I don’t think he would be a competent President of the United States (with the incumbent being a scale to measure against, the bar is set very low in that respect anyway), but it is because I just don’t think the American people know enough about what Ron Paul stands for. Furthermore, I would even go as far as saying I don’t think the American people know what the constitution or the Republican Party is supposed to stand for anymore. Why?

We have been conditioned to the point where we, American peoples, citizens of a sovereign nation, are threatened and insecure at the prospect of our troops not being in the Middle East. This impression that we are constantly under threat has been projected into us, subliminally in news outlets or directly by rhetoric of politicians, especially from elements within the Republican Party, that there is an absolute need for the American army to be positioned in places to keep them under control. The alarmist rhetoric, the politicization of 9/11 for political gain (all hail Saint Rudy of 9/11), and the over-exaggeration of threats from the Middle East (so Iran isn’t actively pursuing a nuclear weapon, according to CIA documents, but Dubya Bush kept the ‘THEY’RE GONNA GET YA’ speeches coming) creates the misconception in the minds of the American people that there are 3rd world countries with enough money and resources to actually pose a significant threat to them.

Why? Why do they create this falsehood? The politics of fear is a complex issue that I do not wish to delve into. I am merely highlighting the problem. However I think the most obvious outcome is that it gives the Federal Government enough legitimacy to cut checks off the backs of American people to use as they please (in most cases financing pseudo-allies on the war of terror, namely Pakistan & Musharraf), which is just against Republican party values. I thought the Republican Party stood for small central government? With military spending and the war in Iraq costing us trillions of dollars, then Bush cutting taxes (which everyone welcomes & and rightly so), it begs the question, who is going to pay for all this indulgence? The answer is a terrifying one, but it is true, the cost will be handed to the next generation of American’s, who probably won’t be able to pay the debt, and so we will be in the pockets of the world’s next major superpower – China.

If you ask me personally, Ron Paul is the ONLY electable Republican candidate. However, if you ask the whole of America, I doubt you’ll get the same answer. They have been taken in by the offensive rhetoric and the fear pumped into them by the other candidates. However, do not take my words as concrete - who am I to say what the American people feel and do? Most political commentators were pushing the idea that Hilary Clinton’s campaign was over and about to crash at New Hampshire a couple of weeks ago. Frankly, I thank Ron Paul for his refreshing stance in Republican debates, as being the only true fiscal conservative out for the well being of the American public for generations to come, and for the only Republican candidate admitting he is obligated to keeping to the Constitution of the United States of America. Do most American’s share my sentiment? I would hope so… but I am by nature a cynic, plus I lost my faith in the American public when they elected Bush for the second term.

Pakistan & Mad-Man Musharraf

2008-01-18T00:11:00.000-07:00

RNPol.com presents "The Real Issue - Pakistan & Mad-Man Musharraf"
Originally published in the Gallup Choice on 11/12/07

Pakistan & Mad-Man Musharraf
by Nick S. Kozy (RNPol.com guest writer)

Pakistan President and military dictator Pervez Musharraf recently suspended the Pakistani constitution and declared a state of emergency. He also removed the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan for deeming Musharraf's actions unlawful. Pakistan is a Muslim country bordering on Afghanistan and Iran, and also has nuclear weapon capabilities, and therefore NEEDS to be an ally of the United States. However, what most people don't realize (at the point of writing this article - I'm sure my concerns will be realized in the very near future) is that it wouldn't be beyond reason to describe Pakistan as a radical Islamic-military-fascist-state. The military and Islamic right has way too much power in Pakistan, and with military being a corporation in itself (it has corporate interests running into the billions of dollars), displays the principles of a fascist state. In the United States of America, society is centred around the individual and individuality. In the fascist state, the individual liberties are squandered for the state; that is to say, the individual is made for the society.

Pervez Musharraf has shown his stupidity, incompetence and tenuous egocentricity throughout his reign as military dictator. Responsible for the Kargil conflict (a mini-war over the much disputed Kashmir province in Northern India), he somehow managed to blame then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif for the disastrous military policy that resulted in an unprovoked invasion into Indian territory and subsequent hugely embarrassing loss for Pakistan at the hands of its eternal enemy, India. He used this to stage a coup d'etat, ousting Nawaz Sharif and promising democratic elections that never came. US policitians should take a lesson from when they backed the Shah of Iran; one man cannot keep a whole country of militants under his control unless we use the democratic power of the moderate population to subdue the religious right. Eventually, if a peaceful democratic process is not reached or even pursued, the militants will take over, and the US cannot afford to have another anti-American government in Pakistan.

We must also look at Pakistani motives in foreign and domestic affairs. It seems to me that Pakistan's hollow rhetoric certainly compliments its furthermore pathetic military shenanigans on its borders. Is it not obvious that a strong, democratic (and therefore India-friendly) Afghanistan is detrimental to Pakistan being 'top-dog' in the region? What's more, if the war on terror ceases, then the Pakistan government could not demand the hefty checks the US government cuts them to help us in the war against the 'axis of evil'.

It is time we rethought our policy with Pakistan. It is a country where the military and mosque have more power than the moderate population, a country where a pan-Islamic worldview is taught to children, and a country that describes radical Islamic terrorists as "freedom fighters" (in the province of Kashmir). They have bullied us enough - now its time we bullied them.

Romney & Clinton win Michigan Primaries

2008-01-15T23:01:00.000-07:00

Mitt 'Migrant Mansion' Romney has won his home state of Michigan in todays primary, beating John McCain who came in second and Mike Huckabubba who came in third.

A number of factors have led to Romneys win - his extensive business experience, his long family and business connections in Michigan, he was even the Governor of the state.

Clinton, on the other hand, did not have Obama or Edwards competing with her for top position, so instead had to battle with the 'uncommitted' vote. Obama and Edwards voters were urged to vote uncommitted as a show of support for Obama and Edwards, who had withdrawn their ballots from the Michigan primary because they were angered at the date it was set.

Citroen Cowers in Fear of China?

2008-01-15T18:03:00.000-07:00

So first George Dubya is too scared to take pictures with the Dalai Lama just incase he offends the Chinese, and now Citroen apologizes for an advert in a Spanish newspaper that has an edited picture of 'Chairman Mao' scowling?

The funniest part is - Chinese chatroom users were the ones who first expressed displeasure at the advert. Why didn't the Chinese government did a good enough job at censoring this from the Chinese servers then?

Click here for the full article

New Hampshire Republican Debate

2008-01-05T22:12:00.000-07:00

Nothing new or refreshing...

As per usual the republican debate was marred with scathing attacks and political showdowns, especially attacks at Ron Paul and Mitt Romney with battles again between Mitt Romney and John McCain (which was expected, especially after the attack-ads posted from both camps). Ron Paul always gets attacked and criticised at these debates because his philosophy and ideas are so much different to those of his Republican counterparts. For example, he proposes following the constitution of the United States of America (shock horror for Republicans in this day and age). Another reason why I (as an independent) thought Ron Paul did better than the other ‘republicans’ was that he put some of the onus for the US economic exhaustion and fiscal fiasco onto the foreign policy (especially the war in Iraq). He also tied in the US Iraq war funding and inflation as a reason why we don’t have adequate healthcare and why the price of a barrel of oil is sky rocketing.

Mitt Romney also proved himself to be a real corpocrat when he was annoyed, almost to the point of personally insulted, when John McCain painted pharmaceutical companies (who make billions every year by exploiting - yes – EXPLOITING Americans into thinking they need this product to go to sleep or that product to do another normal bodily function) in a bad light. Well, now I guess we know who pays Mitt Romneys bills (including the landscaping done by illegal immigrants in his mansion?)

Giuliani didn’t surprise me at all to be honest – it’s the same old broken record with this guy. A very offensive tone used no doubt to get Americans scared/riled up into voting for him. Well that is just the Republican party pitch nowadays, isn’t it?

However one thing I found disturbing with Guiliani was when he stated that US foreign policy had absolutely NOTHING to do with radical Islamic fundamentalists. I know that Ron Paul is the on the other end of the spectrum saying that it has EVERYTHING to do with our foreign policy. I think the true answer lies in the middle – Islamic fundamentalists DO have a problem with the liberties we afford ALL parts of our society (women, homosexuals, etc) but the fact that our foreign policy is a very interventionist one gives them plausability in the eyes of the Muslims who aren’t yet radicalized but not exactly moderate. This plausability is the reason why these people have the resources to launch attacks like 9/11 against us.

A good point about the republican debate is that pretty much every candidate recognized the need to reduce US dependency on foreign oil. The clear picture that I get, and many other Americans get, is that we are an OIL-WHORE nation, and our Middle Eastern pimps bitch slap us around with oil prices. Mike Huckabubba had an idea to solve the problem – pay the first person to develop a car that runs 100 miles per gallon ONE BILLION DOLLARS! Yes, that’s right… $1,000,000,000. On that note, Huckabubba kept quite throughout the night compared to the others, maybe because New Hampshire doesn’t have such a large evangelical following and so he couldn’t pull a fast one like he did in Iowa – so I think his strategy in this debate was to keep quiet and out of trouble.

Overall the debate was disappointing (I have learnt not to expect too much from a republican debate) apart from Ron Paul and John McCain. Although I remain very skeptical about Ron Paul’s chances in the elections, I do tend to lean towards his politics more than anyone elses on the GOP roster. From the debate performances, John McCain probably has New Hampshire.

ABC / Facebook Debate Tonight 7pm/6c

2008-01-05T15:36:00.000-07:00

I will be watching the debate online since I'm at work right now and can't get to a computer. I will also be posting my personal feedback from the debate. This should be a good one since there is a lot to talk about, for example the Pakistani and Kenyan political crises, Turkey bombings, Huckabee's win (by God's grace - literally - if it wasn't for evangelicals would he have beaten Romney in Iowa?)...

Yeahhhhhh can't wait!!!!!!!!

Clinton Crashes at Caucus, Obama vs. Huckabubba?

2008-01-04T16:32:00.000-07:00

"They said this day would never come."

I have to say this was a good victory speech.

2008: Political Violence Rages in Kenya

2008-01-02T00:37:00.000-07:00

Yeah, while it was 'Happy New Year' for most of us, take a look at whats happening in East Africa...

Damn, and it just turned 2008. Its going to be a crazy year in the world of politics...

Democracy is the BEST Revenge

2007-12-30T16:34:00.000-07:00

Benazir Bhutto's Son Bilawal Will Chair the Pakistan's Peoples Party

Is this the hero we've been waiting for? He's 19, studying Political Science at Oxford University in England, and now has vowed to continue the Pakistan People's Party struggle for democracy with new vigor. So much weight on such young shoulders - I mean hes younger than I am, and I just turned 20 only thirteen days ago!

I'm going to control the cynic within and see how this plays out...

Tardy Thompson

2007-12-29T23:45:00.000-07:00

“I’m not particularly interested in running for president"- Fred Thompson

What a great way to hit back at those people that call you lazy and apathetic, Fred.

Benazir Bhutto - Politically Weak?

2007-12-29T18:12:00.000-07:00

"Writing to me through my Web site, American feminists say they are "aching" over the loss of "our dear, sweet, brave Benazir."

I understand the sentiment. But "brave" is not the word used by Pakistani women from whom I've also heard. They're hurting more over Bhutto's "self-imposed" conformity.

"She never realized her potential," a woman from Karachi tells me. "And not because she was killed but because when she had the chance, she did not effectively challenge the backward mindset that has now led to her demise."

There was a time when Pakistan's democratic politicians stuck it to the feudal fanatics. Bhutto's father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, was once heckled by a religious fundamentalist.

"You drink alcohol!" shouted the critic.

"Yes," retorted the elder Bhutto, "but I don't drink the blood of the people!"
His response captured the spirit of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Pakistan's founder. In 1947, Jinnah exuded high hopes for his people: "You are free. You are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques, or to any other place of worship in the State of Pakistan.

"You may belong to any religion or caste or creed. That has nothing to do with the business of the state. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens of one state... You will find that in due course of time, Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense ... but in the political sense as citizens of the state."

Jinnah meant every word of his unconventional vision because he, himself, lived as a maverick. He adored his non-Muslim wife, and his sister oftenappeared with him on the campaign trail. Her visibility attested to Islam's embrace of women as partners of men.

In the months ahead, the people of Pakistan will need to recall Jinnah's vision. It may be of comfort know that they're not alone. "
- Irshad Manji (CNN Commentary)

I think one thing that everybody agrees on is that Pakistan is an extremely hard country to govern. From the outset religious fundamentalism has been used to blunt ethnic opposition to Pakistani government and Pakistani borders. In a country where the pendulum of power swings between the mosque and the military, how does a woman like Benazir Bhutto stand a chance trying to modernize it?

Benazir Bhutto WAS politically weak when she held power, however to over come the forces that are holding Pakistan in the grip of backward society one must dismantle years and years of indoctrination instilled into a nation - from government propaganda to the teaching of the pan-Islamic worldview in schools. How can one expect a democratic and free government from a generation of children who were taught that kuffirs (non believers) were evil and that people just on the otherside of the Indo-Pak border were enemies of Islam and deserved death?

THE DIFFERENCE between Benazir Bhutto in power back when she held office and NOW - when she was just about to TAKE office - is that the breaking point had come and the people of Pakistan had had enough. This was Benazir Bhutto's time - Pakistani moderates and even just the normal folk who didn't indulge in politics were sick of General Musharraf. This sickness is what scared those that murdered Benazir Bhutto the most - for to gain complete control of Pakistan is to be able to override the Commander-in-Chief of military and religious fundamentalists. This would have been possible for Benazir Bhutto because she had the people on her side - General Musharraf had done an exceptional job of losing his credibility and proving his incompetence on many occassions.

Benazir Bhutto's assassination stands as a testament to the fact that she was seen as a threat. This tragedy can have some good in that it can serve to change the hearts and minds of people, especially within Pakistan, who sympathize with religious extremists and therefore take a rather laid back view to their fanaticism. Pakistan is now in search, and in hope, for a hero, a hero that will take back Pakistan to its people, a hero that will resemble the reincarnation of Muhammad Ali Jinnah (drawing on a Hindu theme to describe the end of a political crisis in Pakistan? how ironic), and finally, a hero that MUST come soon...

ROMNEY CAINS McCAIN

2007-12-29T15:14:00.000-07:00

The American Way...

Romney released an attack-ad (IN TRUE AMERICAN FASHION!) targeting John McCain, painting him out to be pro-illegal immigration and soft on tax cuts. Pro-illegal immigration? Mitt Romney has some nerve pointing the finger when it comes to illegal immigration, as he has a 'sanctuary' mansion that employs illegal immigrants to do his landscaping for him.

Most of Romney's ads to date have been targeting former Governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabubba, however a new threat from McCain has caused Mormon Mitt to spend new money to attack his Republican counterpart. Hey, at least they didn't call him a traitor.

Will McCain need a Cain?

On a separate note, John McCain would be the OLDEST PERSON in US HISTORY to become the President of the United States of America. If he won in 2008, he'd be a whopping 72 years old, but don't you find it funny that Mitt Romney is spending millions of dollars to ward off a senior citizen? Can't you get arrested for terrorizing senior citizens?

Don't get me wrong - I think John McCain is probably the most qualified of the Republicans to lead this country. I just don't want him to croak during the 4 year term, imagine if we have another Vice Dick lurking in the shadows...

HYUCK HYUCK HUCKABUBBA!

2007-12-28T23:50:00.000-07:00

Huckabee warned an Iowa crowd that 660 Pakistanis have come into the country illegally in the past year because of insecure borders. It was a new angle among the candidates reacting on the trail to the assassination Thursday of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.

He also said: “We have more Pakistani illegals coming across our border than all of the other nationalities except those immediately south of the border. … In light of what’s happening in Pakistan it ought to give us pause.”

But his Pakistan statements don’t jibe with the data. Pressed by reporters where he got his figure, Huckabee initially said: “Those are numbers that I got today from a briefing and I believe they are CIA and or immigration numbers.”

- Fox News

Amazing. Mike Huckabubba managed to completely side swipe the Pakistan crisis by actually talking about PAKISTANI ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION into the United States of America.

Come on Mike, everyone knows you don't know anything that happens outside the state of Arkansas. That means that when a major foreign crisis like this lends itself to be the major debate of the presidential elections, people like you should get on Wikipedia and read up on Pakistan-American relations, and then talk about it like you actually KNOW something.

The formula works for thousands of students around the country, so one would think that a presidential hopeful could make it work too?

And for your information, Huckabubba, for a Pakistani to jump the border to get into our country, he'd have to jump 8000 miles. Its clear that Huckabubba didn't do too well at international politics, geography or physics.

Clinton Takes the Moral High Ground

2007-12-28T22:21:00.000-07:00

Hilary Clinton told Wolf Blitzer that she 'regrets anybody would try to politicise this tragedy (Bhutto's death).' This was in retaliation to Obama's comments that 'experienced hands in Washington have not made particularly good judgements'.

Some people viewed this comment as a subliminal insult to Hilary Clinton, however I thought that one of the main criticisms of Clinton by Obama was that she WASN'T experienced?

I would tend to agree, I mean Hilary Clinton didn't have enough experience of her husband to know what experiences he was experiencing under the desk at his office in the White House.

Huckabee or Huckabubblehead?

2007-12-28T02:03:00.000-07:00

One of the main criticisms of American people by peoples of other nations is that they are completely oblivious to anything that is happening outside of the American border (this could probably be extended to the State border, or even city/town limits in some cases), however one would expect a presidential candidate to be well versed in foreign affairs, especially if he intends to rebuild the national image (NOT in the hearts and minds of Americans - blind patriotism is rampant in this country) but in the eyes of the world (which has an EXTREMELY dim view of the average American).

Mike Huckabee, however, challenges the view that a presidential candidate is knowledgeable about foreign affairs:

"He made a bad choice of words when saying the U.S. needs to consider “what impact does it have on whether or not there’s going to be martial law continuing in Pakistan.” He should have said whether or not martial law will be reinstated – it was lifted nearly two weeks ago. A minor slip, maybe, but not a subject he wants to mess up on when he is already considered weak in the area of foreign policy."

-Nancy Cordes (CBS News correspondent) commenting on Mike Huckerbee answering questions in Orlando, FL

A minor slip? Or perhaps the tip of the iceberg, with a sea shielding a whole mass of ignorance...

Wait until the 9th minute, to see a glimpse of a much larger, one would hope much more stupid (as in he has redeemed himself now) Mike Huckabee

"Hi. I'm Mike Huckabee, and congratulations on Canada for preserving their NATIONAL IGLOO."
-Mike Huckabee (as Governor of Arkansas)

And the scary thing is, Mike Huckabee is a credible presidential candidate. From a country that elected George Dubyah twice in a row, it is really not that surprising, is it?

Benazir Bhutto Assassinated...

2007-12-27T20:52:00.000-07:00

"Yes of course they would like to go against me because I am a threat. Under military dictatorship an anarchic situation has developed which the terrorists and Osama have exploited. They don't want democracy. They don't want me back. They don't believe in women governing nations, so of course they will try and plot against me but these are risks that must be taken..."

-Benazir Bhutto on Wolf Blitzer's The Situation Room

Benazir Bhutto was assassinated on Thursday at a political rally in Rawalpindi, in her home country of Pakistan. Several riots have erupted in many cities over the country, and the official stance of the Pakistani government has been to call for a 3-day period of national mourning.

A rather characteristic move on the Pakistani governments part, resembling a snake shedding its skin to blend in with the acceptable stance in the current political climate it is dealing with; a body that changes its principles and politics to appease the group it is addressing is one that has NO REAL principles or politics and will never stay true to its convictions because without principles one does not have convinctions.

An e-mail sent to Mark Siegel (Bhutto's US Spokesman) from Benazir Bhutto, forwarded to Wolf Blitzer read:

"Nothing will, God willing happen. Just wanted u to know if it does in addition to the other names mentioned in my letter to Musharaf of Oct 16nth, I wld hold Musharaf responsible. I have been made to feel insecure by his minions and there is no way what is happening in terms of stopping me from taking private cars or using tinted windows or giving jammers or four police mobiles to cover all sides cld happen without him"

-Benazir Bhutto in an e-mail to her US Spokesman

The Pakistani government may argue the above points, they may even give exaggerated numbers and other porky pies to hide their incompetence, but the fact that Benazir Bhutto was assassinated on Pakistani territory only 2 weeks after an initial attempt on her life is a testament to the fact that not enough was done to protect her.

US Reaction

In the typical American politics-esque fashion, the Presidential candidates have used this terrible tragedy for political gain. They all have tried to further their political campaigns by using their response to this tragedy to highlight their 'experience' in foreign issues. Wouldn't people rather see a sincere address conveying their deepest condolences rather than a cheap attempt at promoting their own political campaign? Rudi Guiliani even started talking about 9-11 as soon as he addressed her assassination (what a surprise?)

But why does the US care about events in Pakistan? Why is the assassination of Benazir Bhutto attracting so much attention in the US news media? Well essentially the fate of Pakistan is interlinked and infact directly correlated with the success of George Bush's "WAR ON TERROR". However, in a country that promotes the pan-Islamic worldview within its national curriculum, where religious schools (Madrasses) teach hatred of anything deemed non-Islamic and where billions of dollars (intended to help the 'war on terror') are diverted to military operations against Pakistan's neighbour India, does George Bush really expect Pervez Musharraf to do his utmost to help fight terror? For example, a strong democratic Afghanistan is traditionally pro-India, which Pakistan would of course perceive as a security risk to its national security. Then why would Washington expect Pakistan to eliminate terrorist camps bordering Afghanistan?

Is Washington to blame?

Some political commentators have also pointed the finger at the Bush Administration for Bhutto's assassination. The argument usually highlights the apathethic attitude of the Bush Administration toward Benazir Bhutto's security concerns, probably the result of the need to keep Musharraf a pro-US President rather than a military dictator of an Islamic country with nuclear capabilities. But one has to ask... if we have to prop up military dictators and then appease them just to keep them on our (the US) side, then isn't there a fundamental problem in what we are doing? Why aren't alarm bells ringing within George Bush's head? I guess sound doesn't travel through a vacuum.

So whats next?

Without a credible successor for Benazir Bhutto and elections being held in early January, Pakistan's political future certainly looks bleak. In a country controlled by the military and the mosque, fuelled by billions of dollars of aid from the US, is there any real sustainable political solution? Well firstly, the US can deliver aid to civic institutions rather than the military, helping re-build Pakistan from the ground up and thus exterminating the fire of anti-US sentiment that has swept the country, which Pervez Musharraf uses to scaremonger US politicians. Secondly, Pervez Musharraf's government should come under international scrutiny and question into why and how Benazir Bhutto was assassinated, and if there was anything untoward going on by any elements of the Pakistani apparatus. And lastly, Benazir Bhutto's death should mark a change in Pakistani political climate, for if there is any good to come out of her death, it is that people realize that Pakistan cannot carry on being governed by a military dictatorship complemented by fundamentalist Islam.