Smith To Be Questioned on Torture Collusion

I'm guessing this won't go any further:

Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, is to be questioned over allegations that British security services colluded in the torture of terrorism suspects and operated under a "James Bond-style get-out clause".

The allegations, first reported in the Guardian last year, relate to a number of suspects arrested in Pakistan at the request of British authorities between 2003 and 2007. The men say they were repeatedly tortured by agents of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (ISI) before being questioned by MI5.

Yesterday members of the joint committee on human rights (JCHR) heard that British officials put pressure on the Pakistani authorities to get information and "knew very well" they were using torture during their investigations.

We live in hope.

John McCain - More of the same?

It would certainly appear so. After all, much like Bush, John McCain is enthrall to the oil industry. Bush and McCain may not like each other very much (and many people don't seem to like either of them), but you could barely get a fag paper between the two of them (nb. US readers, fag=cigarette, not some offensive term for homosexuals). Expect more of the same attempts by the US to control oil supplies across the globe if McCain comes to power (God forbid - although the alternative ain't exactly on a different plain).

Since 1989, McCain has received around $700,000 from the oil industry. Furthermore, McCain has worked :

....tirelessly to advance the interests of the oil industry. For example, McCain’s tax plan gives the top five oil companies $3.8 billion a year in tax breaks. McCain meanwhile has voted against reducing dependence on foreign oil, has twice rejected windfall profits tax for Big Oil, and has voted against taxing oil companies to provide a $100 rebate to consumers. If that were not enough, McCain also made a risky political decision recently to back new offshore oil drilling in the US.

Vote McCain, and you most definitely get more Bush (in terms of the President, not women you misogynist fool). But it doesn't end there. What about McCain's supposedly superior experience in international affairs? Ok, put aside his comments about Iraq and Pakistan sharing a border. And don't mention his acknowledgement of the state of Czechoslovakia (ceased to exist in 1993). Despite these gaffes, McCain has a very serious agenda on the international stage, particularly as a result of his relationship with the International Republican Institute (IRI). And just what are his links to the IRI?

Since 1993, McCain has served as Chair of the outfit, which is funded by the U.S. government and private money. The group, which receives tens of millions of taxpayer dollars each year, claims to promote democracy world-wide. On the surface at least, IRI seems to have a rather innocuous agenda including party building, media training, the organization of leadership trainings, dissemination of newsletters, and strengthening of civil society.

The hottest country in which IRI currently operates is Iraq. According to the IRI’s own web site, since the summer of 2003 the organization “has conducted a multi-faceted program aimed at promoting the development of democracy in Iraq. Toward this end, IRI works with political parties, indigenous civil society groups, and elected and other government officials. In support of these efforts, IRI also conducts numerous public opinion research projects and assists its Iraqi partners in the production of radio and television ads and programs.”

Furthermore, the IRI has been instrumental in events in Haiti. Funding from the IRI was used to foment a violent coup in Haiti against the leadership of Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Funding was also used to support opposition parties in the country, and an IRI representative persuaded the opposition parties to avoid compromising with Aristide. It is highly unlikely that Senator McCain was unaware of these events, although it is equally hard to say that he authorised them. However, with such a background in backing violent coups against democratically elected governements, he is perhaps perfectly placed for the role of US president. And, should that day arrive, it doesn't take a genius to work out which country will be first in the firing line. Somewhere rich in oil perhaps?

The Good Dictator Faces Impeachment?

Could the former Pakistani dictator (now President) Pervez Musharraf, be on his way out? It's about time that the West's favourite military dictator (and boy, does he have some tough competition) got what was coming to him. Question is, which way will the army swing?

Pakistan's ruling coalition parties say they will begin impeachment proceedings against President Pervez Musharraf.

Party leaders Asif Ali Zardari and Nawaz Sharif made the announcement after three days of talks. They would need a two-thirds majority to impeach.

Mr Musharraf took power in a bloodless coup in 1999.

He gave up control of the army last year and his allies were defeated in February's elections but he retains the power to dissolve parliament.

Mr Musharraf has previously said he would resign rather than face impeachment proceedings but he has made no comment yet on the latest move.

The BBC's Mark Dummett in Islamabad says an impeachment would take Pakistani politics into new territory, since no Pakistani leader has faced it before.

Pakistan Geared for Part II of the 'Good Dictatorship'

Who would have thunk it? One of America's best friends guilty of rigging an election. The following is taken from Human Rights Watch:

In an audio recording obtained by Human Rights Watch, Pakistan’s Attorney General Malik Qayyum stated that upcoming parliamentary elections will be “massively rigged,” Human Rights Watch said today.

In the recording, Qayyum appears to be advising an unidentified person on what political party the person should approach to become a candidate in the upcoming parliamentary election, now scheduled for February 18, 2008.

Human Rights Watch said that the recording was made during a phone interview with a member of the media on November 21, 2007. Qayyum, while still on the phone interview, took a call on another telephone and his side of that conversation was recorded. The recording was made the day after Pakistan’s Election Commission announced the schedule for polls. The election was originally planned for January 8 but was postponed after the assassination of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto. Another former prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, returned to Pakistan on November 25. An English translation of the recording, which is in Urdu and Punjabi, follows:

“Leave Nawaz Sharif (PAUSE).... I think Nawaz Sharif will not take part in the election (PAUSE).... If he does take part, he will be in trouble. If Benazir takes part she too will be in trouble (PAUSE).... They will massively rig to get their own people to win. If you can get a ticket from these guys, take it (PAUSE).... If Nawaz Sharif does not return himself, then Nawaz Sharif has some advantage. If he comes himself, even if after the elections rather than before (PAUSE)…. Yes….”

Repeated attempts by Human Rights Watch to contact Qayyum by phone were unsuccessful.

Fears of rigging have been a major issue in the current election campaign. Human Rights Watch said that since the official election period commenced in November 2007, there have been numerous allegations of irregularities, including arrests and harassment of opposition candidates and party members. There are also allegations that state resources, administration and state machinery are being used to the advantage of candidates backed by President Pervez Musharraf. Human Rights Watch expressed concern that the Election Commission, which is monitoring the polls, was not acting impartially.

You can hear the audio clip here.

Who would think that a man who overthrew a democratic government, would then load the dice so heavily in his favour with barely a murmour from the US? Only a fool would suggest that Musharraf will lose out in the election tomorrow. He has already won.

President Musharraf, John Bolton and Shit Eating Fuck Monkeys

Like a dingbat, I didn't pick up on this first time, but luckily the letters page in today's Guardian was gave me a handy pointer. As a result of the emergency powers invoked by Musharraf in Pakistan, Bush is reported to have told him:

“you can’t be the president and the head of the military at the same time.”

Now, you are all intelligent people and you don't need me to explain the irony behind that remark.

While we are on the subject of Pakistan, there seems to be a split in the neo-conservatives. Just last night, Douglas 'ladies and gentlemen' Murray spoke of the need for Musharraf to stand down and allow a democratic process to proceed (a rare nod of agreement from yours truly). John 'I am the walrus, goo goo g'joob, goo goo goo g'joob, goo goo g'joob, goo goo goo g'joob, goo goo' Bolton is reported as saying the following:

"I think for the moment the answer to that is support for Musharraf. And I think in fact the United States has contributed to some of the instability by implying less than robust support of Musharraf."

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't these neo-cons claim that democracy is always preferable to dictatorship in the run-up to the war in Iraq? D'you think they are a bit confused?? Or are they just simply opportunistic, murdering, intellectually bankrupt, morally deficient, humourless, fascist, soul destroying, shit eating fuck monkeys?? Just a thought.

Pakistan and Musharraf's Grip on Power

Renegade Eye has more on the situation in Pakistan here. Go read it. Now.

UK and US Back Musharraf in Private

No surprise given that President Musharraf is the good dictator favoured by the West. It has emerged in The Guardian today that there is a fair chance that the US and the UK gave Musharraf clearance to announce emergency rule. From The Guardian:

A Musharraf aide told the Guardian that the Pakistani president had "satisfied" objections raised by Mr Brown during the conversation. "There was pressure from the US and Britain in the beginning. But later on, when the government gave them the detail that elections will be held on time, and the president will take off his uniform, they did not have any objections," the official said, on condition of anonymity. A Foreign Office official insisted "no consent was implied or given".

Of course, the Foreign Office are hardly likely to admit this, but the truth is that the West relies rather heavily on Musharraf, particularly in relation to the so-called 'War on Terror' and the war in Afghanistan.

Despite claims in The Guardian that the West has issued an ultimatum to Musharraf, officials in the US are taking a slightly different stance. One senior official responsible for policy matters regarding Pakistan has claimed:

"The problem is we have a war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan is a coalition partner. We have troops on the ground in Afghanistan, and it's hard to have a good outcome there if Pakistan is not cooperating."

He also added:

“I think Musharraf has rolled the dice. He believes that the odds are in his favor, that the public is going to accept this and that the public response to this is containable without a lot of violence. But it’s a risk and we don’t know what the public reaction will be.”

And there is the problem for the US and the UK. they have invested a great deal in Musharraf in their attempts to deal with the situation in the northwest of Pakistan and are unlikely to do anything unless things escalate. Behind closed doors that US and UK will be hoping that is not another Burma, because they don't want to have to take any action in Pakistan, or face increased public pressure to do so. No, they will sit tight, keep their fingers crossed and ride this one out. After all, Musharraf is the good dictator

Musharraf - The Dictator Reveals Himself (Much to the Embarrassment of the West)

Pakistan's president Pervez Musharraf imposed emergency rule last night, plunging the nuclear power into crisis and triggering condemnation from leaders around the world.

The action to reassert his flagging authority was, he said, a response to Islamic militancy and to the 'paralysis of government by judicial interference'. He said that his country's sovereignty was at stake.

Judges and lawyers were arrested, troops poured on to city streets and television and radio stations were taken off the air. Musharraf also suspended the constitution and fired the chief justice, Muhammad Iftikhar Chaudhry, who spearheaded a powerful mass movement against him earlier this year.

Last night police arrested opposition politicians and senior lawyers including the chief justice's lawyer, Aitzaz Ahsan, and Imran Khan. 'Musharraf is acting like a spoiled child, holding the whole country hostage. These are the last days of Pervez Musharraf,' said Ahsan as he was escorted from his home into a police van. Ahsan, who leads the Supreme Court Bar Association, said that lawyers would launch a series of nationwide protests tomorrow.

Soldiers entered the Supreme Court in the late afternoon where Chaudhry and six other judges said Musharraf's declaration that he would rule under a provisional constitutional order was illegal. Chaudhry was reportedly under house arrest last night.

It is funny to see the establishment finally recognise what many have been saying for a long time. Pervez Musharraf is nothing more than a military dictator. The west was keen to ignore this as long as he played along with their game. However, in the light of the recent uprisings in Burma, his imposition of emergency rule and a brutal assault on the judiciary has meant that the west has no option other than to criticise him. If it were not for this assault, it is fairly likely that Musharraf would have been tolerated. After all, this is not the first time he has closed down independent television stations (that went by with barely a mutter). Now that world politicians are so publicly outraged, one question remains. Why did you tolerate a dictator for so long?

Iran and Pakistan - The American Contradiction

Sometimes even The Guardian disappoints me. The US has been upping the ante against Iran with its latest threat to class the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organisation. Not withstanding the fact that this would make it easier to portray Iran as a state harboring terrorists (and thus, under the Bu$h doctrine, make it easier to launch an attack), this move is an interesting contradiction with the situation in Pakistan, and its relationship with America.

One of the pretexts for this move by the US, is that Iran has been fomenting violence in neighboring Afghanistan. On page 13, The Guardian makes plain the government view on the troubles via an interview with Des Browne. Browne made the following statement:

"I have no doubt - because we have uncovered evidence - of weapons coming in through narco-trafficking routes, supplying weapons to the Taliban. I have reason to believe the Taliban go to Tehran for training."

He also accuses Iran of:

"backing every horse in the race."

This is all part of the Iran interfering with its neighbours pitch that the Western powers are spreading around. However, turn to page 26 and we find an interesting little story, buried away near the back of the international section:

The Pakistani government gave substantial military support to the Taliban in the years leading up to the September 11 attacks, sending arms and soldiers to fight alongside the militant Afghan movement, according to newly released US official documents.

Islamabad has acknowledged diplomatic and economic links with the Taliban but has denied direct military support. The US intelligence and state department documents, released under the country's freedom of information act, show that Washington believed otherwise.

The suspicion has lingered that some elements of Pakistani intelligence are still protecting the Taliban and its al-Qaida allies in the autonomous tribal areas along the Afghan border. US officials have warned they might take direct military action without Islamabad's approval.

So, while Iran is considered a hostile nation due to alleged activities in Afghanistan, Pakistan is considered a friend in similar circumstances. So when is the United States going to proclaim MQM as a terrorist organisation? I guess never as right-wing groups remain infatuated with right-wing military dictators.

Supreme Court Fights Back Against Musharraf

Pakistan's supreme court has overturned Musharraf's suspension of the chief justice. According to The Guardian:

Lawyers and civil society activists whooped with joy at the verdict in favour of Muhammad Iftikhar Chaudhry - the first time in Pakistan's 60-year history that a civilian has challenged a military leader in court and won. "This is a defining moment for our country - the first time we have true liberty," said Naseer Ullah Khan, a black-suited lawyer on the courthouse steps, where men embraced, shouted, and chanted, "Go, Musharraf, go".

I suspect he won't go without a fight. The pressure is certainly mounting on Musharraf. Just a couple of days ago, The Guardian reported:

A chill has descended over "Mush and Bush", as the Pakistan press dubbed the US-Pakistan axis. And the storming of the Red Mosque 11 days ago - an ostentatious strike against Islamists, killing its leading rebel cleric alongside an unknown number of hostages and students - is unlikely to put him back in favour: this was a seminary Musharraf had let grow since 2002, despite its vociferous endorsement of suicide bombings and the Taliban. While Washington and London continue publicly to characterise Musharraf as the west's best hope of stopping Pakistan's descent into Islamic extremism, in reality they have concluded that it is the general who is easing the path of the jihadis. And he must be stopped.

Gone are the days when he would be warmly described as "one of my best friends" by Bush. So close was the relationship, that the US increased arms exports by 45,000%. Of course, this wouldn't be the first time that a right-wing US administration has armed a dictator. And, as with the previous beneficiary, US troops could soon by operating within his borders. The US has recently been debating military strikes within Pakistan against al-Qaeda. With such mounting pressures, how much longer will it be before Musharraf acts like any other beast that is cornered and lash out at those around him? These are very dangerous times in Pakistan. Faced with two enemies within, and an enemy without, chaos is just around the corner. One must hope that Musharraf can be removed by his own people and democracy, free of foreign interference, can be restored.

US Cosies Up To Musharraf and Attacks Chavez

An interesting difference in the attitude of the US government to Venezuela and Chavez in the light of the recent controversies surrounding the media in the respective countries. First, we have John Negroponte, the man who sent the orders for Saddam to be executed (he flew into Iraq for secret talks two days before Saddam was sentenced - coincidence?), and his warm words for President Musharraf.

John Negroponte, the US deputy secretary of state, has backed General Pervez Musharraf, saying it was up to the Pakistan president to decide when to quit as army chief.

Negroponte held talks with Musharraf on Saturday amid a tense political crisis over the suspension of Pakistan's chief justice.

Negroponte said at the US embassy in Islamabad: "The message I brought was one of a strong friendship and trust for and with the government and people of Pakistan."

Those opposing Musharraf have seized on the unrest to press the president to give up his dual role as president and head of the military by the end of the year, when he is constitutionally obliged to.

When asked if he had talked with Musharraf about the removal of Iftikhar Chaudhry, the Pakistan supreme court chief justice, Negroponte said he had discussed the "general political situation" in Pakistan.

Critics accuse Musharraf of suspending Chaudhry to remove obstacles to his re-election as president-in-uniform by the outgoing parliament, in defiance of the Pakistani constitution.

"I think this is something that President Musharraf himself is going to want to decide and this is a matter that is up to him," Negroponte said.

No condemnation for the recent attack on Pakistan's media, merely words of support and 'friendship'. Compare this to the latest attack on Chavez by the Bu$hleaguers:

Robert Zoellick, almost certain to be the next head of the World Bank, on Saturday took aim at Venezuela's leftist president, Hugo Chavez, warning that his oil-fueled socialist revolution was headed for trouble.

"It's a country where economic problems are mounting, and as we're seeing also on the political and press side it's not moving in a healthy direction," Zoellick told reporters during a visit to Mexico.

So Pakistan, a country whose police raided the offices of a critical media network and shut it down, is worthy of 'strong friendship and trust', while Venezuela, a country that refused to renew the licence of a channel that was heavily involved in the failed 2002 coup, is 'not moving in a healthy direction'. An interesting interpretation of events, I'm sure you will agree.

"Musharraf good for Pakistan"

That's according to the Wall Street Journal, the paper of the establishment. From the Associated Press of Pakistan:

ISLAMABAD, Jun 15 (APP): President General Pervez Musharraf has been good for Pakistan as among other things tension with India over Kashmir eased during his tenure and the per-capita income advanced significantly, Wall Street Journal reports.

In an article by Arthur Herman in the leading American magazine, the author described President Musharraf as "good for Pakistan" in response to Benazir Bhutto's commentary 'Democracy for Pakistan' recently published in the same paper.

Herman, who is completing a full-length study on Gandhi and Churchill termed the record of Musharraf government as "impressive" especially in fostering a safe and relatively open Pakistan.

"At considerable risk to himself, General Musharraf has tried to rein in the forces of jihadism and end foreign support for fundamentalist madrassahs," the author opined.

Herman said Ms Bhutto's column was not only an exercise in hypocrisy, but a display of short-sightedness "on a massive and tragic scale."

He stated; Ms. Bhutto as prime minister of Pakistan proved to be one of the most incompetent leaders in the history of South Asia and was dismissed in November 1996 by Pakistan's president for what he called her regime's "nepotism, corruption" and "mismanagement".

And not a mention of his attacks on Geo TV. At least we know what the establishment really thinks of President Musharraf, a dictator in all but name.

White House - 'Musharraf's Uniform Is So Last Season'

Nice to see the American government once again getting to the heart of the matter in Pakistan. Some people might see the repeated intrusion of the media (particularly Geo TV) by the government as cause for concern, not so the White House. Apparently of greater concern to the free world is Musharraf's dress sense:

WASHINGTON: The US State Department says General Pervez Musharraf has pledged to take off his uniform if he is to continue in political life and the US takes him at his word.

Answering a question on Monday, spokesman Sean McCormack said, “You’ve mentioned the uniform issue. I know that he has pledged to make that choice and to – if he continues in political life, to put aside the uniform. And we take him at his word at that and we would expect him to follow through on his commitments.”

Yeah, because a military uniform makes American intentions in the region just a little too obvious. It's just not the kind of uniform one expects in a franchise state, is it?

Pakistan - Media Crack Down

Normally, I wouldn't post a comment from an earlier thread, but I think this comment demands it:

Instead of strenghtening the content and quality of Pakistan's newly established news channels, the government instructed cable tv operators since 31 May not to carry those covering events it considers "unfavourable".

Just a fornight after threatening attacks on Aaj TV, three senior journalists - two working for Agence France Press and one for Associated Press - have received envelopes containing gun bullets as clear death threats on 29 May in Karachi. This happens just four days after a council of ethnic extremists openly declared putting those journalists on a 'black list'. There is a constant climate of coercion against all norms of civility at the hand of some ethnic extremists. One after another, the judiciary, the local media and now even those working for international media are being meted out blatant intimidation.

The Media Retribution Council of pro-MQM elders has issued list of ‘chauvinist’ journalists complaining that such elements expose the wrongdoings without being intimidated. http://tinyurl.com/343qeg

Threatening media personnel is not an aberration for MQM. http://tinyurl.com/343qeg

It is a persistence posture of intimidation evident for the past five years that MQM is a coalition partner in Sind province and at the centre.

A number of senior MQM leaders continue to enjoy freedom in the world's capital for independent media, but they haven't learnt the significance and value of empowering the middle-cleass and the down-trodden with free expression. On the contrary they have launched a campaign to silence and punish those who have the ability to raise voice on behalf of the voiceless. MQM claims that it champions "moderation" in Pakistan. MQM has 42 MPAs in the Provincial Assembly of Sindh and 07 Provincial Ministers and 8 Advisors in the Province of Sindh. Why then the country's educationally and professionally enlightened and most moderate legal personnel have fallen totally out of line with them? Was it really necessary to harass the Karachi's lawyer community?

Maltreatment of female journalists

All boundaries of civility were trampled when a female reporter of Daily Times was held on the roadside on gun-point not far away from a police patrol. http://www.teeth.com.pk/blog/2007/05/14/a-tt-to-my-head-a-press-pass-in-my-pocket/#comments

The Urooj Zia episode is a telling evidence of what kind of treatment is meted out to eduated female professionals by groups claiming to be the vanguard of moderation!

It also speaks of the attitude accorded to journalists even when they happen to pass by a street. The fact that a gun was placed on Urooj Zia's head speaks for itself the sanctity of a peaceful citizen disregarded and disgraced. What adds salt to the injury is the indifferent, unhelpful and rather shameful attitude of those expected to enforce law and order and provide all possible protection to law abiding citizens.

* Some weeks earlier, worrisome reports surfaced how women representatives are manhandled by MQM thugs in local assembly sessions:http://karachi.metblogs.com/archives/2007/04/the_language_of_1.phtml

Media activists should demand from MQM how much it has has helped Pakistan move towards pluralistic, tolerant and accomodative polity?

In addition to the timely notice by the International Freedom of Expression Exchange (IFEX), International Federation of Journalists, Reporters Without Borders too has voiced serious concerns over threats issued to Pakistani reporters covering the causes and consequences of the 12 May tragedy in Karachi.

The International Federation of Journalists, Reporters Without Borders have voiced serious concerns over threats issued to Pakistani reporters covering the causes and consequences of the 12 May tragedy in Karachi. See related links below:
http://www.neurope.eu/view_news.php?id=73934
http://www.ifex.org/eng/layout/set/print/layout/set/print/content/view/full/83610
http://www.pfuj.info/contants/news/morenews25.htmhttp://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=57432
http://www.teeth.com.pk/blog/2007/05/25/mqm-threatens-20-journalists
http://www.bignewsnetwork.com/forum/showthread.php?p=27187
http://paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?179108

In effect, a free hand was given to mobs to mercilessly quell moderate lawyers and quashing enlightened journalists who were covering the events. There are sad indications that irreparable blows have been inflicted on key components of the civil society in Pakistan that mostly comprise of, represent and cater to vastly moderate elements of Pakistan’s society:

Was it really necessary to harass and intimidate the Karachi's lawyer community?

In fact, Altaf Hussain's policies and actions are a disservice to Western efforts to promote moderation in Pakistan. Why then Altaf Hussain has launched a confrontation with the country's educationally and professionally enlighted and most moderate legal personnel?

While Musharraf claims to be in coalition with forces of moderation but in deeds it is open collision with the country's civic actors, judiciary and the media.

* This section was added later as the comment was incomplete and the author was kind enough to email the whole message through to me again.

Musharraf Clamps Down on Media - And The Establishment Goes Quiet

Remember the furore over the refusal to renew RCTV's broadcasting licence? Even the BBC joined in the chorus of disapproving voices, even going so far as to claim that Venezuela was under 'militant rule' (before a cunning piece of stealth editing). Well, something similar has happened again, only this time it is by one of 'our' allies. Interestingly, there has not been a word of comment by many of those keen to jump on the Chavez as totalitarian rhetoric so beloved of Bush.

Over the week-end, President Musharraf gave us a glimpse of his totalitarian tendencies. As a result of the growing political storm in Pakistan, with calls for a return to democracy growing ever louder, Musharraf gave the order to take Geo TV off the air for promoting an "anti-state attitude" and casting "aspersions against the judiciary and the integrity of the armed forces". Geo TV was taken off the air shortly after an interview with Imran Khan on its flagship news programme, watched by around 30 million people. According to the president of the station:

"We had an interview with Imran Khan followed by a discussion about the military in politics. Suddenly it all went blank."

As well as the suspension, legislation has been introduced that provides for fines of up to £85,000 and the suspension of a station's licence.

This is not the first time that Geo TV has been attacked by the government. Back in March, Musharraf banned "The Kamran Kahn Show" due to its coverage of the dispute with a suspended Supreme Court judge. The station's offices were also raided by the police after broadcasting footage of them firing rubber bullets into a crowd of protesters. The bureau chief at the time is reported as stating that:

"Police have attacked our office, they are breaking windows. They are beating our staff. They have used tear gas shells. Even our female staff have been hurt. They are damaging our building."

And yet, silence from the very people who claim to stand for freedom of speech. Not even the BBC, so quick to criticise Chavez, have made any comment on this attack on the free press. Bush, unsurprisingly, failed to take the opportunity to remind Pakistan of its democratic responsibilities. According to the BBC:

Mr Bush also called for the "immediate and unconditional release" of dissidents in such nations as Belarus, Burma and Cuba.

He listed these nations, along with North Korea, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Iran and Syria as the "worst dictatorships" and criticised Venezuela, Uzbekistan and Vietnam for rolling back earlier "freedom".

Venezuela, but not Pakistan. Chavez refused to renew a license due to the failure to observe basic broadcasting laws. Musharraf has sent the police in to raid a TV station and has repeatedly taken it off the air. RCTV backed a coup in Venezuela. Geo TV is calling for a return to democracy. The differences are obvious and stark. And yet, nothing. Still, I guess that should be no surprise when the mainstream media describes an ideological opponent of Bush 'militant', whilst they gloss over the totalitarian tendencies of a close friend and ally. Once again, the establishment clubs together to protect one of their own.

Further info: Opinion piece by Geo TV's Group Executive Director

* In other Pakistan related news, via the BBC:

A woman and three men were shot dead in a public execution in a Pakistani village after tribal elders found them guilty of adultery, officials said.

Reports said the executions were watched by some 600 people.

Looks like Pakistan has long way to go before it is truly a democratic state worthy of friendship.

Fascism is Alive and Well....

And takes the form of Timothy Blair. According to Timmy:

Justin Parker’s song for David Hicks will make you cry. With laughter:

Together we make a stand
To bring him home
For a nation’s pride,
He is someone’s child.

Apparently Australia’s pride depends on the return of a Jew-loathing Taliban member who rejoiced in the opportunity to shoot at Indian soldiers. Hicks is, however, someone’s child; there’s no disputing that. Otherwise he wouldn’t have been born.

That's right, 'rejoicing' in an 'opportunity' is now a crime. As usual with the far-right, ALLEGATION=FACT. And there are precious few 'facts' in Timbo's post (or comments for that matter).

The 'Good' Dictator

Whilst one dictator is continuing to stick two fingers up to the West with little in the way of punishment (so much for the Blair doctrine), another dictator that has cosied up to the West is facing a major backlash. And yet, as Mugabe is rightly reviled for his disgusting abuses of human rights, the threat to Musharraf poses a serious problem to Bush and Blair. As far as they are concerned, Musharraf is a 'good' dictator that must be supported at all costs to act as a buffer to Islamic militancy (a similar policy to that employed in South America during the Cold War). Much as the West's support of the Shah in Iran has had lasting effects, so could our support of Musharraf have long term effects in Pakistan.

Just last week, Musharraf suspended a top judge of the Supreme Court for 'abuse of office'. What this abuse was has not yet been disclosed, but many suspect that this is an attempt by Musharraf to purge the judiciary of independent voices, particularly with an election due towards the end of this year. This, in turn, has led to massive demonstrations against Musharraf by lawyers and opposition leaders who support the continued independence of the judiciary. The police acted in the manner befitting of a dictatorial state by firing tear gas and arresting numerous demonstrators, including an opposition party leader and a former national president. In Lahore, hundreds of protesters were joined by the former president Rafiq Tarar, who was subsequently arrested and removed from the scene in a police vehicle. In total, over 200 people were arrested in Lahore and more were rounded up in raids in Islamabad and neighboring Rawalpindi.

Not content with an attack on the independence of the judiciary, Musharraf has also launched an attack on the media. On Thursday, the Pakistani government banned a leading prime-time television program because of 'negative coverage' of the President. According to CNN, Kamran Khan, host of "The Kamran Kahn Show" on Geo TV (the most popular channel in Pakistan), was banned from doing his show due to its coverage of the dispute. The attack on the media continued after the demonstrations across Pakistan. After broadcasting footage of police firing rubber bullets into the crowds, Geo TV's offices were raided by the police. According to Geo's bureau chief, Hamid Mir:

"Police have attacked our office, they are breaking windows. They are beating our staff. They have used tear gas shells. Even our female staff have been hurt. They are damaging our building."

So, let's make this clear. Violent attacks on the opposition? Check. Purging the judiciary? Check. Shutting down the media? Check. And that's not to mention the fact that the judge in question, Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, has already been roughed up once by the very security services that were sent to 'protect' him. Of course, you would expect the West to be quick to condemn these actions, right? This is how State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack responded:

"...President Musharraf is acting in the best interest of Pakistan and the Pakistani people."

Whoa, easy on the criticism there Sean.

The problem for the West is that Pakistan is a 'vital ally' in the 'War on Terror'. So vital, that Bush threatened to bomb them 'back to the Middle Ages' (such a charmer) if they didn't get onboard. Musharraf is now seen as a pro-Western dictator in the region and is subsequently under some very serious pressure. There is a very real danger of his regime collapsing and a 'vital ally' will be lost. Furthermore, the fact that he is being propped up by the US and UK governments only serves to inflame a region already hostile to the West. The collapse of Musharraf's dictatorship would be yet another nail in the coffin for the foreign policy of the Western powers in the 21st century.

The Association Effect

The way the world views America is often seen through the prism of foreign policy. The assumption is often made that the main reason why America is hated in certain parts of the world, is the constant interference by the US government in a military context. Whilst this is certainly true, other factors play a crucial part in the American PR machine.

A good example is the behaviour of certain American corporations across the globe. McDonalds, Disney and Coca-Cola are as identifiable with America as the Stars and Stripes. They are ambassadors for their country whenever they go abroad. How they treat the people in the regions they operate, has serious consequences for the way the people view the US. The preferential treatment that US corporations face in the poorest parts of the world, breeds contempt and loathing. This contempt then turns to hatred of the US and everything they feel it represents.

Of course, the Middle East and Asia is the biggest breeding ground for this contempt at the present time. One country in particular, Pakistan, is on the verge of being consumed by a growing anger towards the West. This anger will not have been stemmed by Coca-Cola's activities in the region. The IUF have recently reported the following:

"While Coca-Cola Company (CCC) executives in Atlanta, Georgia, USA were preparing to celebrate the holidays and enjoy their buoyant third quarter results, management at Coca-Cola Beverages Pakistan Limited (CCBPL, owned by CCC) were carrying out a vicious attack on employment and trade union rights at the company's Karachi operations in defiance of a local court order to desist.

"Union-busting is a traditional management reflex at Coke Pakistan. In Central Pakistan, unions were busted in Lahore and Gujranwala and union officers have been dismissed. At Rahim Yar Khan, the union president was dismissed in 2001 and only reinstated after a tough 3-year legal battle the company continues to contest.

"Where dismissals alone fail to break the union, massive casualization has become the main management tool for maximizing insecurity and limiting union bargaining power. At the Rahim Yar Khan plant, 6-700 casual workers are employed at peak season - including 250 "seasonal" workers employed year round and some 50 who have worked at the plant for 5 or more years. To further restrict the potential union membership base, 200 permanent workers are excluded from union membership after having been reclassified as "managers" or "supervisors" — despite the fact that they work as operators and have no management authority." [via Killer Coke]

It is the perception of the workers in situations like this, that leads to a growing resentment to the West. In conjunction with the utilisation of the military by the West, it is little wonder that so many people in this region feel that America is an enemy. As long as Western companies with such strong brand identities and cultural links, continue to attack the workers, so the countries that they represent will become tainted by the same brush. Certainly, foreign policy is key to the distrust of the West, but it is not the only factor that is taken into account by those who mistrust the West.