Blog @ MoreWhat.com

From unrest displayed by various factions in Pakistan to the strange relationship between the US and former top dog Musharraf to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto the some-time ally nation is a wild card in foreign affairs.

The story below is typical of those demonstrating that which may frustrate public officials and the public in countries around the world. However, terrorists who view this latest development as positive may change their minds later. US intelligence operatives may lament this decision publicly but keeping a top Taliban commander in Pakistan’s custody may actually expand options available for acquiring necessary information.

How much money will the US have to provide Pakistan for ‘extracting’ intelligence from this individual without all those messy rules some find comforting? Sure, Pakistan is denying extradition to any other country based on perceived rights of the detained. Not likely.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Pakistani Court Blocks Extradition of Top Afghan Taliban Commander

VOA News

A Pakistani court has blocked the extradition of at least five captured Afghan Taliban leaders, including top Taliban commander Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar.

Judge Khawaja Mohammad Sharif issued the order Friday after Islamist rights activist Khalid Khawaja filed a petition with the high court in Lahore. The judge said the militants should not be handed over to any other country.

One day earlier, the Afghan government said Pakistan had agreed to send Mullah Baradar and other militants to Afghanistan.

The Afghan president’s office said Thursday that Pakistan had agreed to give up the militants in exchange for the return of Pakistani prisoners.

Pakistani security forces captured Mullah Baradar in a joint operation with U.S. agents. Pakistan also detained several other top Taliban members in recent weeks.

The United States has urged Pakistan to crack down on Afghan Taliban militants who use northwestern Pakistan as a base for attacks on U.S.-led forces in neighboring Afghanistan.

While the recent decision by the Nobel committee to award the 2009 peace prize to President Obama focused more attention on the US leader no more will be said about it in this post. US diplomatic strategy, success or failure, foreign policy and the role of the US State Dept and White House will be. All the talk about rebuilding America’s image, hope and change, a nuclear free world and ends to conflict needs a reality check. How are things going so far?

Not necessarily in order of importance what is on most peoples’ minds these days in terms of international relations or foreign affairs? From the US perspective the countries of note would include Russia, China, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, North Korea and Iran. Of course the perennial favorites not yet mentioned would be any country in the Middle East. Israel and its neighbors are still without solutions. Russia and China are still vying for top dog honors with the US on the world stage. Upstarts Iran and North Korea at the very least want a seat at the cool kids table. So nothing much has changed.

Here’s a brief recap of events in US diplomatic strategy with a ‘new’ President and Secretary of State.

Still no progress in Palestinian/Israeli peace talks

NECN/ABC) - President Barack Obama’s Mideast envoy, George Mitchell, left the region Sunday after failing again to get Israelis and Palestinians back to the bargaining table. The breakdown of peace talks is taking a toll on Obama’s prestige among Palestinians.

President Obama’s Middle East peace envoy on another trip to the region - more meetings - more handshakes with Israelis and Palestinians - but still no progress, no movement in the peace process.

Not a surprise to see a headline expressing failure in Middle East diplomacy no matter who is involved.

What about Iran?

Putin Says Iran Sanctions Talk Premature

By VOA News
14 October 2009

Russia’s Prime Minister Vladimir Putin says it is premature to discuss sanctions against Iran for its controversial nuclear program.

And the view from the US Secretary of State…..

“I believe if sanctions become necessary, we will have support from Russia,” Clinton told ABC television in an interview on Wednesday.

This is merely a continuation of the impotent international community’s response to Iran’s nuclear weapons program that was essentially confirmed again with yet another lie exposed with admission of the previously hidden enrichment facility already known to the Obama Administration. And no one will visit the plant until later this month. Like that will solve anything.

Which makes this next sham almost laughable if it wasn’t so pathetic.

Obama to Preside at UN Security Council

By Margaret Besheer
The United Nations

The United States has taken over the rotating presidency of the 15-member United Nations Security Council for the month of September. U.S. President Barack Obama and other top U.S. political figures will be at the world body this month to highlight issues of importance to the United States.

Another rhetorical masterpiece expressing the desire for a nuclear free world without the substance to support such a notion. The exclamation point is provided by the appeasement strategy reminiscent of a similar process that helped usher in WWII.

And what was the defining achievement by press accounts for the SoS Hillary Rodham Clinton?

Hillary Clinton Helps Turkey, Armenia Open Border - ABC News

Clinton uses diplomatic muscle in Turkey-Armenia row | Politics …

Turkey, Armenia Agree to Ties; Clinton’s Skill Tested (Update1 …

The Daily Star - Politics - Clinton hails Turkey, Armenia steps …

Clinton Helps Save Historic Turkey, Armenia Accord - International …

A more accurate appraisal of Clinton’s participation may be the following…..

Clinton to Attend Turkey-Armenia Normalization Deal Signing

By David Gollust
State Department

The State Department said Thursday Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will fly to Zurich to attend Saturday’s signing of accords to normalize relations between Turkey and Armenia.

A simple visit to the US State Dept website would bear this out. At least in terms of demonstrating that this State Dept is essentially no different from any other feeble attempt by heads of state to display their conviction to foreign relations or determination to improve conditions in the world. A visit to the website while producing this post featured the following items:

Positive Future for U.S.-Russian Relations

Finding Common Ground With Russia

Secretary Clinton Travels to Europe

U.S. Supports Peace in Northern Ireland

U.S. Supports Emergence of Afghan Government

U.S.-U.K. Advancing Shared Values

U.S.-Ireland Working Together

and travel puff pieces?

So much for the hope and change of a new administration in the US and statements expressed to suggest foreign policy would be successful.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Read a book. It’s possible this blog has never recommended reading a particular book other than Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto. But a recent visit to tsowell.com served up a reminder of a wise choice from many of Thomas Sowell’s suggested reading list. It is not new or the latest bestseller but that is certainly not a reason to discount it. In these times of social and political unrest not to mention terrorism and Jihad the book by Bernard Lewis entitled ‘ What Went Wrong’ is not only relevant but extremely well written and compelling. If you do not care to take this blog’s word for it, being on Sowell’s reading list should suffice.

Like any treatment of the topic discussed by Lewis it is not without its detractors. In the interest of fairness one search engine result that provides the dissenting viewpoint is linked here so you can have one recommendation accompanied by one random review by someone not impressed with the work or the author. It would not be surprising if this dissenting viewpoint is held by someone not fond of criticism toward someone or something they personally value, right or wrong.

A description of the book from Sowell’s site is presented here and hopefully Mr Sowell will not object.

A small book presenting a top scholar’s very readable account of the history that led the Islamic world from its pinnacles of achievement in the past to its present pathology and poisonous and dangerous hatreds.

How about a guess? Terrorists, Jihadis, Muslims and Islam will be offended. The rest of us will not. Give it a read and make up your own mind. Hopefully you have already accepted the earlier recommendation on Levin’s book and read that by now. It would not hurt to follow the link to Sowell’s lists, etc., to find other good reading material.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

During the 2008 US Presidential election campaign many noticed the personal history of candidate Barack Obama appeared cloaked in secrecy as little was uncovered about his earlier days growing up or attending college and the candidate was not offering any clarity on the topic. Surprisingly, the NY Times is offering an account of at least one aspect of student Obama’s thinking on nuclear arms. And Jennifer Rubin offers a report expanding on the concerns that President Obama may still hold these youthful idealistic notions. Unfortunately, Mr Obama may be operating without benefit of the practical realities that typically guide world leaders through the dangerous territory of foreign affairs.

The student was Barack Obama, and he was clearly trying to sort out his thoughts. In the conclusion, he denounced “the twisted logic of which we are a part today” and praised student efforts to realize “the possibility of a decent world.” But his article, “Breaking the War Mentality,” which only recently has been rediscovered, said little about how to achieve the utopian dream.

Twenty-six years later, the author, in his new job as president of the United States, has begun pushing for new global rules, treaties and alliances that he insists can establish a nuclear-free world.

With Iran, North Korea and surely others pursuing nuclear weapons arsenals and Russian leaders expressing concern over US missile defense proposals leading up to current arms negotiations the Obama mindset may be of concern to you. Especially if the new President has an obsession with youthful idealism.

Obama Has Gotten It Wrong for Twenty-Five Years

Jennifer Rubin - 07.05.2009 - 8:31 AM

Those who suspect the president is engaged in a bit of dangerous self-delusion and denial about certain unpleasant realities regarding the threats from rogue states won’t be heartened to read that his current non-proliferation fetish stems, at least according to the New York Times, from his college infatuation with the nuclear freeze movement.

The line below from the Rubin piece should feature prominently with any US position on arms negotiations.

And really, what excuse is there for Obama’s ludicrous worldview? Unlike student Obama, President Obama knows how the Cold War ended. And it wasn’t by disarming America.

The impotent ‘international community’ has done nothing to stop rogue states from pursuing an arms race in a time ideally suited for such a collective effort. That alone should raise suspicion about the intentions of those courting the US on disarmament. Other recent reports are offered below.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Russia Still Opposes US Plan for Missile Shield in Eastern Europe

Russia Wants Deeper Cuts in Numbers of Nuclear Warheads

Next Round of US-Russian Arms Talks Set for June 23

Russia Ready to Reduce Nuclear Arms

Russia, US Begin Talks Over New Arms Control Pact

Russia, US Work on New Missile Pact

Are U.S.-Russian Relations Warming?

Clinton, Russian FM Agree to Improve US-Russian Relations

Resurgent Russia Poses Challenge for Obama Administration

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to analyze the issue of nukes, North Korea and their ability to deliver them or cause other world powers to look impotent. As is the case with most international conflict there is plenty of blame to go around. You can criticize the current and former US Presidential administrations for appearing inept or acting that way. But it is equally fair to distribute criticism to all concerned. That would be the handful of countries engaged or not at one time or another in direct talks with North Korea on the issue of nuclear intentions not so different from that of Iran. It also includes the do nothing approach of the United Nations and members all.

Along with more than several countries in Africa, Iran, North Korea and examples from nearly every continent have presented problems international in scope that major powers and the UN have dropped the ball on numerous times. And then a couple of news reports of the last couple of days emphasize the fiasco that is the response to North Korean nukes.

The United States stressed its resolve to defend allies Japan and South Korea Wednesday, as it dismissed North Korea’s latest threats as “saber rattling” and “bluster.”

That is part of a report from the 27th you can read by clicking on the linked text. But the quoted dismissal of saber rattling and bluster is contradicted by the following story from the 28th.

South Korea and the United States have raised their defense alert levels on the Korean peninsula, a day after the North said it was willing to discard the 56-year old armistice that paused the Korean War. Analysts expect more tension in the days ahead.

This is a perfectly fine example of what is wrong with the relationships and operating performance among friendly and not so friendly countries around this frail planet. From time to time when some of the world’s children continuously demonstrate an inability to play well with others (even given the sad state of affairs in world politics) the rest of the children should be able to agree on an effective remedy to the situation.

When the safety of all concerned can be threatened by a few how much intelligence does it require to negotiate an arrangement that will end the stupidity? The tired old excuses that these matters are more complex than the ordinary citizen understands simply don’t hold water. If it is a matter of waiting to see who blinks first let this ordinary citizen be the first to inform you, that already happened. Now get on with it and solve the problem.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

crossposted to:
Maggie’s Notebook
Conservative Thoughts

This month President Barack Obama caused the eyes of many to glaze over with his wandering message expressing an interest in a world free of nuclear weapons. Those who applauded the announcement were from one of three groups. Those who share membership in the not so exclusive nuclear club of planet Earth or wannabees who are delighted the new American President will try to disarm the US. Or uber liberals with reality issues who still believe surrender and appeasement will bring peace to the world. Or really nice folks who thought it impolite not to applaud the person on stage accepting blame for everything on behalf of the country he represents.

Yo Barry. Here’s a heads up for you. Most people accept the events in history that led to the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, China and France being the original, and for a time only, members of the group known as the Nuclear Club. Well, except maybe for France, but that’s another story. They’re the same ones who support the US strategy in Afghanistan but won’t send troops or ones that can fight. Oh ya, and they’re the ones like some others in the EU who support the G20 idea of providing a trillion in stimulus but are fine with the US contributing more than their share. And apparently, Mr Obama, you agree.

In addition to the original members of the Nuclear Club are India and Pakistan. Just like Iran and North Korea now, no one had a clue how to prevent these two countries from joining. And there are about a dozen other countries included in discussions of who has the ability to go nuclear. (Israel’s ability is assumed but not declared ) So the number is at or approaching a couple of dozen. Are you following this so far, Mr President?

If you understand the previous few paragraphs then why the hell are you making these public statements about a nuclear free world? This is one time most Americans would hope you are offering another promise you will break. Otherwise one can only assume the pressure is getting to you and you’re losing it. If the problem was so simple to solve and all the people of the planet could get along as you and your followers believe, don’t you expect it would have been achieved by now? Has it ever occurred to you that the reason the problem has not been corrected is that no one has the answer yet? It is fair to assume that what was once feared as the ultimate fate of a nuclear armed Earth still remains.

But a likely alternative expectation, given the UN’s typical failure to respond to the DPRK’s missile launch, is that with proper handling avoiding catastrophe can be achieved in much the same way as it was in the past. All parties will be attracted to their nuclear power of choice while the nuke powers will maintain a balance still based on mutual assured destruction if the worst would happen. At some point thereafter this game will be exhausted and other circumstances yet to arrive will cause nations of the world to abandon this stupidity. Not because we will then be wiser but some other equally scary threat will require extraordinary cooperation between all the people on this planet in order to survive. And no, Mr Gore, it’s not Global Scamming Warming. It’s those peaceful Muslims carrying suitcases. (hint, hint)

We may then have a taste of peace long enough to become addicted to its benefits. But it won’t happen due to some idealistic fantasy that we can all get along because that is the way ti is supposed to be. That may come within time but for now you are trying to put the cart before the horse at best or transforming the human race to an endangered species at worst. Starting with the United States for whom you took an oath. It may be time for you to read it again for the first time.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

This front page was printed in September 1938 - one year before the outbreak of World War II. The Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, believed that ‘appeasement’ was the best way to avoid war with Germany. (graphic and caption above from link provided and not part of VOA report (click pic)

U.S. President Barack Obama has tied the future of Iraq to that of the broader Middle East, which he says will include Washington’s “principled and sustained engagement” with Iran and Syria.

Mr. Obama said the U.S. can no longer deal with regional challenges in isolation. He argued Friday during a speech to Marines in North Carolina that Washington must take a “smarter, more sustainable and comprehensive approach.”

While reaching out to Tehran, Mr. Obama added that the U.S. is developing a strategy to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. The Iranian government says its nuclear program has no military component.

Mr. Obama also said the U.S. will refocus on al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan and is actively seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world.

As proof of his commitment. he pointed to the appointment of George Mitchell, Dennis Ross and Richard Holbrooke as special envoys to the region.

He also announced he intends to send veteran diplomat Christopher Hill to Baghdad as U.S. ambassador.

The U.S. president said that everyone - both friends and foes - must know that the end of the Iraq war will bring a new era of American leadership and engagement in the Middle East.

President Obama takes another page from the Ahmadinejad (Columbia U) playbook. For the Iranian it was engage the opponent, your target, your enemy, the infidels. Attempt to persuade them you mean them no harm. For Ahmadinejad it was more a case of the trojan horse. For Obama it is more a case of the appeaser cowering to a sworn enemy of Israel and anyone who defends them. Falls nicely into place with that infidel thing. And just as nicely into Obama’s surrender strategy if you recall the campaign of 2008.

The only thing missing from Obama’s message below is ‘and they all lived happily ever after.’.. And we know the genre of writing from which that fantasy comes. Hope and change will not render it true. This Messiah would need to conjure a miracle or three for that to happen. Pleading shows weakness and no courage of conviction whereas strength through the projection of power and determination based on defending principle does. Count the number of times that appeasing the agenda of rogue nations has been successful in the past.

Russia was not requested to ‘tear down that wall’ during the Cuban missile crisis. Japan wasn’t asked to surrender right after they attacked Pearl Harbor. But President Obama tells the ‘Muslim world’ he intends ‘to deal with Palestinian and Israeli peace.’ He tells people with no interest in peace with Israel that he will work on that. Is that what comes from a Harvard education?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

President to Muslim World: “Americans are not your enemy”

In his first interview with an Arab television station, President Barack Obama offered a bold change to America’s relations with the Muslim world.

“My job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives,” President Obama told Al Arabiya. “My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy.”

In the interview, conducted in the White House map room, President Obama also expressed his commitment to tackling the Middle East peace process immediately.

“Sending George Mitchell to the Middle East is fulfilling my campaign promise that we’re not going to wait until the end of my administration to deal with Palestinian and Israeli peace, we’re going to start now,” he said. “It may take a long time to do, but we’re going to do it now.”

The interview is part of the President’s broader outreach to the Muslim world, which includes a promise to make a major address from the capital of a Muslim nation.

Al Arabiya is a 24-hour Arabic-language news channel based out of Dubai.

US President Obama gives exclusive interview to Al-Arabiya TV

U.S. President Barack Obama says he will work to show the Muslim world that Americans are not their enemy.

In his first formal interview - granted to an Arab television network - the American leader said his job is also to show Americans that people in the Muslim world simply want to live their lives and make better lives for their children.

Speaking on Dubai-based Al-Arabiya television, Mr. Obama pointed out that he has lived in Muslim countries and has Muslim family members.

As for Islamist terrorists, he said their ideas are bankrupt. He said nothing they have done has ensured that a child in the Muslim world is getting a better education, or has better health care.

Mr. Obama also repeated his inaugural address pledge to extend a hand to countries such as Iran if they are - as he said - “willing to unclench their fist.”

He said the United States must be willing to engage in diplomacy with Iran and promised to lay out a general framework and approach over the next several months.

Asked about the president’s comments Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it is up to Iran to demonstrate some willingness to engage meaningfully with the international community.

As for the current standoff between Israel and Hamas, he said “the moment is ripe” for Israelis and Palestinians to achieve a lasting peace, but he added that all parties in the region must play a role in the process.

Mr. Obama said it is not possible to think of the Middle East without looking at the region as a whole, including Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Pakistan, for he said they are all interrelated.

He also said he plans to follow through on a promise to address the Muslim world from a Muslim capital.

A classic case of all parties involved pitching their version of the story. Out of all this what seems accurate or believable? The woman arrested is from Pakistan. She was educated at MIT and Brandeis as a neuroscientist and has a son. She and her son are accused of plotting a terrorist attack. She and/or her son possessed enough evidence on them to convince a US Court to go ahead with the case.

After disappearing the woman surfaced in Pakistan and was arrested. While being held in Pakistan one person arriving at her location left an M14 ‘on the floor’ and she retrieved the weapon and from behind curtains opened fire. She missed but a soldier returned fire hitting her in the abdomen. After surgery, etc., she was brought to the US, is in jail and refusing to appear in Court. Her defense team claims it is because of physical and mental difficulties.

The two odd things noticed while reviewing this story were an apparent typo in a WaPo account that described the soldier’s weapon as an M-4 assumed to be an M-14. To Siddiqui’s attorney: how believable was it that a soldier left a weapon on the floor and that a mere 90 pound woman could pick it up? The sole commentary from this blog on the story reads like this, ‘Hey defense attorney lady, any chance you had to convince me of your client’s innocence disappeared with your ridiculous comments in the press just paraphrased here’.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Below, Al Jazeera chimes in with this video……..

and here is a report on the story from Voice of America

Wisniewski report - Download (MP3)
Wisniewski report - Listen (MP3)

A Pakistani woman who is charged with trying to murder U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan refused to appear for her arraignment in New York City Thursday. Defense lawyers say Aafia Siddiqui is unable or unwilling to submit to a required strip-search due to wounds she suffered when she was arrested nearly two months ago and that she urgently needs medical and psychological care. VOA’s Walter Wisniewski has more.

Aafia Siddiqui

Aafia Siddiqui was absent when prosecutors and defense attorneys gathered in federal court on Thursday. The defense team says the 36-year-old, U.S.-educated scientist is in extremely poor mental and physical health. The lawyers want the court to transfer her from a federal detention center to a hospital, to determine whether she is able to stand trial.

“I believe that she has severe emotional, psychological and medical issues, [and] that human rights require that she be taken out of the Bureau of Prisons and transferred to Bellevue [Hospital], so that she can be evaluated,” said Elizabeth Fink, Siddiqui’s lead defense attorney.

Siddiqui came to the United States as a teenager. She trained as a neuroscientist at two prestigious American universities, married and had three children, then returned to Pakistan in 2002. A year later, she dropped out of sight and was not heard from again until her arrest in mid-July in Afghanistan’s Ghazni province.

The police who arrested Siddiqui called in U.S. soldiers and FBI agents to interrogate the woman the following day. They say their prisoner somehow took a rifle from one of the Americans and opened fire. She missed, but one of the soldiers shot Siddiqui in the abdomen.

After emergency surgery, she was held in Afghanistan for several weeks, then returned to the U.S. and charged with attempted murder and other offenses. Her indictment, which was unsealed earlier this week, links her to unspecified terrorist groups and that, through handwritten notes and computer files, she discussed the feasibility of attacks on U.S. targets — including New York’s landmark Empire State Building.

No one will speak on the record, but the implication is that Siddiqui was a suicide-bomber-in-training, and that she was under the control of terrorists during the nearly five years in which she dropped out of sight.

Defense attorney Elizabeth Fink

Siddiqui’s lawyers tell a markedly different story. They suggest that Siddiqui originally was detained by what attorney Elizabeth Fink calls “the American dark side”. The defense lawyer scoffs at the indictment’s citation of the suspicious documents, and notes that no charges of terrorist activity have been brought against her client. “She’s not being charged with possessing any of those documents. Why was that put there? It was put there so that everybody can think that she’s ‘al-Qaida mom.’”

Although Fink and her colleagues have not seen Siddiqui since August 11, they say she has been left “incredibly damaged” by the events of the past two months. They are seeking psychological tests to determine whether Siddiqui is competent to stand trial. They say the strip-search required at the detention center where Siddiqui is being held is excruciatingly painful because of the severity of her wounds.

U.S. District Judge Richard Berman ordered prosecutors and defense lawyers to try to agree on arrangements for Siddiqui to appear in court in Manhattan, possibly by a videolink from her cell in Brooklyn. Both sides are due to appear in court again on September 22.

Trackposted to The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Right Truth, Dollar Traveler, Shadowscope, , The Amboy Times, Cao’s Blog, Leaning Straight Up, NN&V, Democrat=Socialist, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Allie is Wired, Woman Honor Thyself, DragonLady’s World, Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, The Pink Flamingo, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe

Musharraf Allies Say Talks Could Lead to Resignation, Legal Immunity

By Barry Newhouse
Islamabad
Newhouse report - Download (MP3)
Newhouse report - Listen (MP3)

Allies of Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf say there are ongoing talks with his political opponents about allowing Mr. Musharraf to resign without facing impeachment charges. But VOA’s Barry Newhouse reports from Islamabad that the president’s spokesman continues to deny that Mr. Musharraf plans to step down.

Days before Pakistan’s coalition government says it will reveal several impeachment charges against Mr. Musharraf, some of the president’s allies say there are ongoing talks between the two sides that could allow Mr. Musharraf to quietly resign without facing impeachment or criminal charges.

A spokesman for the president, Rashid Qureshi, is denying that the president plans to step down or is seeking a deal for legal immunity.

But Senator Mushahid Hussein, a senior leader of the president’s Pakistan Muslim League Q party, confirms in an interview with VOA that there are talks under way for some sort of compromise agreement. He says “the next few days will be decisive” in the standoff.

“I don’t speak for the president but I can certainly say there are backchannels between the presidency and the government which are trying to reach an amicable settlement - so that the country can move on,” said Hussein.

Political analysts say a drawn out impeachment struggle against the man who has ruled Pakistan for nearly nine years would dredge up old controversies and consume the government’s attention when the country faces other serious economic and security problems.

But the coalition government, which spent months haggling over its policy toward the unpopular president, last week made unseating Mr. Musharraf its primary goal.

Since then, a series of lopsided no-confidence votes in the country’s four provincial assemblies that included some defections from traditionally pro-Musharraf parties have eroded the president’s political support.

With the two sides discussing terms under which Mr. Musharraf could resign, some Pakistani officials say U.S. diplomats have lobbied for a dignified exit for Mr. Musharraf. The U.S. embassy insisted the issue is an internal matter for the Pakistani people to decide.

Senator Mushahid Hussein called one possible option for Mr. Musharraf, the “Richard Nixon formula,” in reference to the U.S. president who resigned before his likely impeachment in 1974.

“A variation of that could be seen in Pakistan where perhaps there would be a quiet resignation, there would not be any impeachment and Mr. Musharraf would fade quietly into the night to his newly built residence on the outskirts of Islamabad,” he said. “And there would not be any kind of charges or prosecution afterward. People don’t want to see it as any kind of a blood feud - that’s not in the national interest.”

So far, members of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s PML-N party have insisted that the president stand trial for alleged crimes he has committed while in office even if he resigns. The stance of the Pakistan People’s Party on the issue has been unclear.

from MoreWhat.com:

Musharraf was more often than not playin’ ball with the US. As in most cases in the history of our foreign policy, we get the good with the bad. A question about Musharraf might include the obvious how much did he really do to quell terrorism or assist with rounding the bad guys. Did he keep the peace in his country and were Bhutto’s supporters largely made up of wealthy, educated liberals that ignored the less wealthy as much as Musharraf. But the more important questions deal with tensions between Pakistan and India and what may happen to American interests if someone really replaces Musharraf. Be careful what you wish for is a statement that comes to mind.

Stanford Matthews

Just Hours Before Her Death, Benazir Bhutto Expressed Concerns About Curbing Extremism

By Sayed Hassan
Islamabad
27 December 2007

Watch Bhutto Interview report / Windows Broadband - download
Watch Bhutto Interview report / Windows Broadband
Watch Bhutto Interview report / Windows Dialup - download
Watch Bhutto Interview report / Windows Dialup

Hours before her death, former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who was visiting Islamabad. After the meeting, Bhutto told VOA reporter Sayed Hassan that she and Mr. Karzai expressed concerns about curbing extremism in the region.

Benazir Bhutto: “I explained to President Karzai that the Pakistan People’s Party hoped to win the elections and form the government and we look forward to working very closely with Afghanistan. We too believe it is essential for us both of our countries and indeed the large Muslim world to work to protect the interests of the Islamic civilization by eliminating extremism and terrorism. I touched upon the need to - I asked him about madrassas [Islamic schools] in Afghanistan and I said we discussed about madrassas and they have only the traditional madrassas.

You know there are two types of madrassas. One is the traditional madrassas, which teaches Islamic teachings and which are very good and which are very noble and on the other hand there are these training institutes that brainwash young children and turn them into warriors and fighters for no cause- for creating anarchy and chaos but they pose as madrassas which they’re not. So I asked him, he said ‘we don’t have that problem in Afghanistan’, I said well we have that problem in Afghanistan and we discussed about trade in the region.

Trade had gone up really high in 2006. It’s come down now and I suggested that might be due to the fact that there is destabilization going on the frontier province. We’ve had the incident in Swat with Alpuri, the bomb blasts on Eid ul Azha, as I was in Charsadda yesterday’s bomb blasts were in Peshawar. So the destabilization is now by the extremists, is not now relegated to the tribal areas of Pakistan but they have descended into not only the settled areas of frontier province they have descended into Peshawar. So there is an absolute need for both our countries to cooperate closely on terrorism related issues and also on issues of how we can enhance the quality of life of our people by improving economic ties.

I was pleased to read in the newspapers today that Pakistan and Afghanistan are forming a committee for intelligence sharing. I think this is a good and positive move and I mentioned to the Afghan president that we in the PPP were desirous of seeking good relations with Afghanistan as well as with India.

I mentioned that while we were trying to control the extremists and the militants they had turned their guns inward but I said it was still very necessary for us to dismantle these groups; because while some of them may have been formed in a noble cause, for example, some may have taken up the cause of fighting the occupation of Afghanistan or others might have taken up the cause of Kashmir but nonetheless once such people were trained they could always turn their guns on other objects and therefore it was important in the PPP’s view that we should seek peaceful means of conflict resolution so that our people did not suffer, our countries did not suffer and our Islamic civilization did not suffer.”

By VOA News
27 December 2007
Aides say Pakistan’s former prime minister and opposition leader Benazir Bhutto has been assassinated.

Western and Pakistani news agencies said Ms. Bhutto died after sustaining injuries in a suicide attack at election rally near the capital, Islamabad.

Ms. Bhutto had just addressed a gathering in a park in Rawalpindi, near the capital, Islamabad, when a blast went off. There were also reports of gunfire after the explosion, and some media reported Ms. Bhutto died of gunshot wounds to her neck.

At least 15 other people were reported killed in the attack.

Ms. Bhutto returned to Pakistan in October after eight years in exile. She escaped injury in a double suicide attack during her homecoming procession in Karachi that killed around 140 people.

For months, Ms. Bhutto had been in talks with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf for a possible power-sharing deal, strongly favored by the United States. But talks had stalled and Ms. Bhutto was campaigning to run in general elections set for January eighth.

Ms. Bhutto also sought to join forces with another former prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, whose opposition party is also running in the upcoming elections.

Hours before Ms. Bhutto’s death, four people were killed by gunmen who opened fire on supporters of Ms. Sharif during a political rally near Rawalpindi.

Sharif supporters are blaming members of the party that backs President Pervez Musharraf for the violence. Mr. Musharraf’s Pakistan Muslim League-Q party has denied those accusations.

Sharif is banned from seeking a seat himself due to past criminal convictions

By Barry Newhouse
Islamabad
09 November 2007

Newhouse report - Download MP3 (569k)
Listen to Newhouse report

Pakistani forces have stopped former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto from leaving her home to lead a demonstration against the country’s emergency laws. VOA’s Barry Newhouse was at Ms. Bhutto’s Islamabad residence, where she spoke to reporters from behind coils of barbed wire.

Ms. Bhutto had hoped to speak before hundreds of thousands of supporters at a rally in Rawalpindi Friday, but instead addressed journalists and several hundred riot police outside her Islamabad residence.

She said the government had made strenuous efforts to prevent the protest, arresting 5,000 of her supporters, sealing off roads to Rawalpindi and dispatching thousands of troops to stop her from leaving her home.

“To stop one million people, they had to paralyze the whole government of Pakistan in the northern part of the country,” said Ms. Bhutto. “How long can they do this day after day? They can’t.”

Throughout the day, police arrested dozens of Ms. Bhutto’s supporters outside her home but allowed senior leaders of her party to move freely. Ms. Bhutto denied she had been placed under house arrest, but the police barred her from leaving her neighborhood.

Ms. Bhutto says that President Pervez Musharraf’s announcement of elections by February 15 was merely a ploy to quiet dissent. She said there is growing opposition to Mr. Musharraf.

“And I think the regime is trying to break this momentum by making vague promises that will give hope,” she said.

She says unless General Musharraf agrees to step down as army chief, reinstate the constitution, and hold elections on schedule in January, she will not negotiate with him. “The regime has a choice - either paralysis or to stop putting obstacles in our path,” said Ms. Bhutto.

The former prime minister says she still plans to lead a protest march early next week from Lahore to Islamabad. But following the security crackdown Friday on the planned Rawalpindi protest, it is unclear if Ms. Bhutto’s party can carry out that plan.

Mr. Musharraf imposed emergency rule last Saturday. The government has detained more than two thousand opposition figures and critics, and has imposed strict limits on the news media.

The president has said the emergency rule is needed to combat growing violence by Islamic militants. However, witnesses and opposition leaders say most of those detained were moderate members of the community, including judges, lawyers and human rights activists.

World leaders, including President Bush, have called on Mr. Musharraf to end emergency rule, retire from the military and hold elections as originally scheduled in January.

Police in Pakistan are arresting opposition leaders following a declaration of a state of emergency by President Pervez Musharraf. VOA’s Barry Newhouse reports from Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad, that although it is not known how many people are detained, the arrests appear to include even district-level officials.

Security forces surrounded the Supreme Court and detained allies of Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry late on Saturday.

Throughout the night, the crackdown grew to include prominent opposition leaders and political activists. Those arrested included Javed Hashmi, the acting president of the party of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.

Baseer Naveed, a researcher at the Asian Human Rights Commission in Hong Kong, said the detentions appear to be aimed at preventing demonstrations against the government.

“Javed Hashmi is a good agitator and he will come on the streets at any time. He might have led a procession tomorrow towards the Supreme Court. So they are all scared of him. He’s a good agitator,” Naveed said.

Mr. Musharraf suspended the country’s constitution because of what he called rising Islamic militancy and judicial activism. Critics inside and out of the country say his move undermines democracy and will likely inflame protests.

Pakistan People’s Party officials said former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has not been detained and is at her home in Karachi.

Sajjad Bokhari is a PPP spokesman in Lahore. He told VOA that police have detained officials with his party across the country.

“Not only the main leaders, but the leaders at our district level, town level,” Bokhari said. “Last night I received many calls from different districts [saying] that they have been arrested.”

In the capital on Sunday morning, security forces continued to erect barricades on roads near government buildings.

The United States has described the state of emergency as a step backward for democracy and has urged Mr. Musharraf to hold elections as soon as possible.

By Barry Newhouse
Islamabad
04 November 2007

By VOA News
04 November 2007

Pakistan’s government has arrested hundreds of opposition members and says a national election due in January may be delayed under a state of emergency.

Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz told a news conference Sunday that after Parliament ends its term on November 15th, the government could take up to a year to hold a new election.

Among the opposition members arrested Sunday was Javed Hashmi the acting president of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif’s party.  Mr. Aziz told the news conference that up to 45 people were arrested in Islamabad and up to 500 in all of Pakistan.

On Saturday, Pakistan’s president and army chief Pervez Musharraf suspended the country’s constitution, shut down independent broadcasters and removed the country’s top judge. He said the state of emergency is necessary because of rising violence from Islamic militants, and asserted that judicial decisions are demoralizing law enforcement officials, setting known terrorists free, and undermining his efforts to move the country toward democracy.

General Musharraf’s critics say the state of emergency was imposed because the Supreme Court had been scheduled to rule in a few days on the validity of the president’s re-election last month by Parliament.

Saturday, troops entered the Supreme Court in Islamabad and took away Chief Justice Itikhar Chaudhry, whose suspension earlier this year triggered nationwide protests.

Others detained or held under house arrest include the attorney leading the legal challenge to General Musharraf’s re-election, and Imran Khan, the internationally known former cricketer who leads a small opposition party.

General Musharraf appeared on national television Saturday to defend the state of emergency, hours after security forces blocked off key streets around government buildings and imposed tough curbs on the media.