Musharraf imposes emergency rule - Political Forum

Brother Oz · #1 (**permalink**) 11-03-2007, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf has declared emergency rule, state-run TV has reported, as independent channels went off air.

Paramilitary troops have been deployed inside state-run television and radio stations in Islamabad, witnesses said.

Gen Musharraf is awaiting a Supreme Court ruling on whether he was eligible to run for re-election last month while remaining army chief.

Pakistan has been engulfed in political upheaval in recent months.

The security forces have suffered a series of blows from pro-Taleban militants opposed to Gen Musharraf's support for the US-led "war on terror".

The BBC's Barbara Plett reports from Islamabad that fears have been growing in the government that the Supreme Court ruling could go against Gen Musharraf.

Private channels Geo News and Dawn News earlier quoted unnamed sources as saying the government had made up its mind to declare emergency rule. Shortly afterwards they came off air.

A special cabinet meeting is expected shortly.

One TV channel reported that emergency rule may involve the suspension of the constitution.

Parliamentary elections are due in January.

Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who recently returned to the country after years of self-exile to lead her party in the elections, is currently in Dubai on a personal visit.

Things like this make it very difficult for the West. This election, as well as bringing in Bhutto, were supposed to make Pakistan seem like some form of democracy, so that America could justify its alliance. But with events like this, it makes it increasingly difficult to sell Pakistan's government as an enlightened democracy.

Wolf X · #2 (**permalink**) 11-03-2007, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Oz

Things like this make it very difficult for the West. This election, as well as bringing in Bhutto, were supposed to make Pakistan seem like some form of democracy, so that America could justify its alliance. But with events like this, it makes it increasingly difficult to sell Pakistan's government as an enlightened democracy.

Well the US/Pakistani alliance is out of nessessity. I doubt that the US would be allies with Pakistan if we weren't in the middle of the War on Terror.

misalign · #3 (**permalink**) 11-03-2007, 05:25 PM

Iran and afghanistan border pakistan so we can only imagine what is passing between them. On the other side is india but she probably doesnt want to come anywhere near that. Another reason to bomb Iran?

Brother Oz · #4 (**permalink**) 11-03-2007, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Well the US/Pakistani alliance is out of nessessity. I doubt that the US would be allies with Pakistan if we weren't in the middle of the War on Terror.

Yes, but for support it needs to be justified in terms of defending democracy.

Brother Oz · #5 (**permalink**) 11-03-2007, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Well the US/Pakistani alliance is out of nessessity. I doubt that the US would be allies with Pakistan if we weren't in the middle of the War on Terror.

Yes, but for support it needs to be justified in terms of defending democracy.

Aya · #6 (**permalink**) 11-04-2007, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Oz

Yes, but for support it needs to be justified in terms of defending democracy.

It was never justified. It was a military regime already before this emergency rule.
But there are always double-standards^^

Eaglefish · #7 (**permalink**) 11-04-2007, 11:12 AM

We have plenty of "friends" who run dictatorships. Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, numerous African countries. Democracy doesn't work in Muslim countries...yet. Outright Dictatorships simply hold the line and will be overtthrown. What is needed is enlightened theocracies, or less autocratic secularism. Musharraf and the Army is holding on to power, and their enemy is not simply terrorism but a divided populace seeking to find some sort of stability within a nation torn by the islamic nationalist rebound movement, and the desire for a freer society. I don't think Bhutto could have much power against th extremists, and as Pakistan is facing imminent civil war the military is a better option for the west than theocracy.

Brother Oz · #8 (**permalink**) 11-05-2007, 12:42 PM

Quote:

It was never justified. It was a military regime already before this emergency rule.
But there are always double-standards^^

But America likes to be able to say that its influence on its allies makes them move towards democracy. Which is why they got Musharraf to agree to work with Bhutto.

Dragon Horse · #9 (**permalink**) 11-05-2007, 02:34 PM

I want to know what America is saying behind closed doors to him. I think we are saving face before the media but telling him we won't cut military aid unless he goes too far, because the truth is we need Pakistan to be stable.

Free and fair elections will elect Islamic radicals and they will have nuke access...that is reality.

We should stop setting outselves up this way and say something like:

"while we prefer democracy, the greater issue in the developing world is political stability and economic development because we recognize that not all countries are immediately able to convert their nations into liberal democracies in the Western tradition, if ever, and we will judge each nation based on its specific situation. ” This might solve a lot of issues.

Brother Oz · #10 (**permalink**) 11-05-2007, 06:29 PM

That would seem wise, though it might lose some support. Still, probably less than charges of hypocrisy.