WMD hysteria redux in Pakistan?

This essay is part of an occasional feature on this blog that presents compelling stories from elsewhere in the world, particularly Africa, that are little reported in the American media. It's part of my campaign to get people to realize there is a lot going on in the world outside the US, IsraelStine and the Trumped Up Enemy of the Month. A list of all pieces in this series can be found found here..


As is now clear, the news media played a role in uncritically megaphoning the Bush administration's false claims about Saddam Hussein's arsenal of weapons of mass destructions and the non-existent threat they posed. This was indispensible in allowing the Bush administration to whip up public fervor for an unnecessary and disastrous war of aggression against a country that was never any threat to the United States.

The PBS program Bill Moyers Journal has an interview with two South Asia experts* who claim that the media may unwittingly be playing a similar role regarding the Obama administration's claims about Pakistan.

The Obama administration has made a big deal about the alleged danger to the rest of Pakistan posed by Talibanesque-elements in the country's tribal areas, which border Afghanistan. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even went so far as to call these elements 'an existential threat' to the Pakistani state.

Prof. Juan Cole and journalist Shahan Mufti admit that the Pakistani Taliban is certainly a problem for the central government but emphatically reject claims that they represent anything close to 'an existential threat' to the nuclear-armed state. They point out that the Taliban is pretty unpopular in most of Pakistan. To them, the idea that a small group of militia men armed only with Kalashnikovs can defeat one of the largest, most well-equipped and most powerful armies in Asia strain credulity... especially considering their lack of broad public support. The idea that they would know where nuclear installations are located, let alone be able to seize them, is even more dubious.

The Americans' real concern, they say, is to eliminate Pakistani tribal areas as a safe haven for the Taliban to launch attacks into NATO-occupied Afghanistan. The hysteria whipped up by the Obama administration's disingenuous claims of an 'existential threat' is simply designed to give the Pakistani army political cover to do the Americans' bidding... and most likely to give the Washington an ex post facto excuse for ratcheting up the war in Afghanistan and the controversial deadly drone attacks in Pakistan.

*-Warning: the two commentators, both of whom have actually lived in Pakistan, are both somewhat optimistic about the country's future

Dynastic parties

In many other parts of the world, political parties are little more than movements based around a particular individual.

For example, the ruling One Russia party is nothing more than a vehicle for that country's strongman. The party doesn't really stand for anything other than the cult of Vladimir Putin. In Guinea, the three main parties have had the same leaders since the charade of democracy was introduced 15 years ago.

In western countries, political parties are generally associated with a particular ideology. As such, they are institutions capable of renewing themselves when a particular leader leaves the scene.

In places where parties are personality cults, this is much more difficult. Either the "party" falls apart or it becomes something like a monarchy.

This has become fairly common in de facto one party states: dead dictators replaced by their sons. Syria's Assad was succeeded by his son. Togo's Eyadema was succeeded by his. Egypt's Mubarak has declared his son as heir apparent.

But even in countries that aren't monarchical republics, parties aren't immune to such tendencies.

Take the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) of the assassinated former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, which appears little more than a vehicle for that family.

In the 40 years of the PPP's existence, the "party" has only had four leaders:

-Benazir Bhutto's father (who was hanged and replaced by...)
-Benazir Bhutto's mother (who was ill and replaced by...)
-Benazir Bhutto herself (who was assassinated and replaced by...)
-Benazir Bhutto's husband and son (who is 19 years old)

In this mass movement with supposed widespread popular support, the only person within their ranks they could find deemed qualified to lead the party was a 19-year old boy studying in London and who's barely spent any time actually living in Pakistan.

Bhutto assassinated

Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was assassinated today in what is believed to be a homicide bomb attack.

Bhutto was the most prominent secular civilian leader in Pakistan. Her assassination risks being the beginning of the unstable nation's disintegration. Let's hope it isn't, but the dearth of decent politicians and strong institutions in the country leaves many pessimistic.

There's no reasoning with some people

I've always said that the greatest threat to the western world and to global security is not Islamic extremism, but religious extremism. I see no fundamental difference between Islamic extremists and Christian extremists. Both are clearly a threat to western values and to global stability. I see no fundamental difference between terrorism and wars of aggression. They are merely different ways of using violence to get what you aren't good or patient or civilized enough to obtain via the art of persuasion.

There's more than enough Islamophobia in the western world that I'm usually hesitant to appear to fan the flames. But some things are so outrageous that they beg for commentary. Condemning radical Muslim extremism doesn't detract from the threat of radical Christian extremism.

Hence, I was disgusted to read the sickening reaction to the British knighthood awarded to author Salman Rushdie. Rushdie outraged many in the Muslim world with his 1989 novel The Satanic Verses.

Pakistan's religious affairs minister Ejaz-ul-Haq told parliament that "If someone commits suicide bombing to protect the honour of the Prophet Mohammad, his act is justified."

He warned that, "If Britain doesn't withdraw the award, all Muslim countries should break off diplomatic relations."

Sayonara!

So we have a cabinet minister from purported ally in the so-called war on terror justifying homicide bombings over a work of fiction published 18 years ago

He whined that the knighthood "hurt Muslim sentiments." If he's so concerned about feelings, how exactly does Minister Warm and Fuzzy think homicide bombings would help the self-esteem of Britons?

The left-wing British daily The Guardian reported that In the eastern city of Multan, hardline Muslim students burned effigies of the Queen and Rushdie, chanting "Kill him! Kill him!"

The cabinet minister sniffed, "The west is accusing Muslims of extremism and terrorism."

Why? It's a mystery.

I spent two years living in a pair of overwhelmingly Muslim countries, just as I've spent all the rest of my life living in overwhelmingly Christian America. I know that most Christians and Muslims are moderate people who only want to decent, peaceful lives for themselves and their families.

But I also know that when very devout people, regardless of religion, get a persecution complex, rational or not, there's a good chance that the resulting siege mentality will result in violence.

If the minister thinks diplomatic relations between Pakistan and Britain should be broken off because of a novel, then maybe he's right. Religious fanaticism is immune to reason.

Pakistan regime's assault on freedom

I'm no fan of Venezuela's democratically elected leader Hugo Chavez. My most recent criticism of his regime generated quite a bit of flack. But my friend Mark, far more anti-Chavez than myself, pointed out an interesting hypocrisy.

Chavez's assault on Venezuelan broadcasters, press freedom, the judiciary and the political opposition has rightly generated him an avalanche of international condemnation. From conservatives and from the Bush administration, but from many progressive quarters (including myself) and human rights groups as well.

Eight years after stealing power in a military coup, Pakistan's dictator Gen. Pervez Musharraf has also launched an assault against the media, the press and the judiciary. American press coverage of this crackdown has been negligible. Outrage has been virtually nil. Particularly in comparison to the cacaphony of anti-Chavez tirades that still ring in the ear.

The State Department's comment: "There have been advances in bringing greater freedoms, including greater freedom of the press, in Pakistan over the years under President Musharraf's government. There have been some openings in that regard. Certainly nobody would want to see those openings reversed."

A pathetically meek reaction, especially compared to the hysterical response to anything Chavez says or does.

I guess freedom (said breathlessly) only applies to anti-American regimes. Regimes who claim abhorr America's enemy of the week are exempt from basic standards of liberty (also said breathlessly).

But anyone familar with the history of First Cold War already knows this.