BALKAN INTRIGUES


Balkan intrigues
Source: Pravda.Ru
The latest country to find its place on the map is sending shockwaves around the world.
Kosovo’s declaration of independence 17 February brings the number of statelets born out of the former Yugoslavia, population 23 million, to seven — Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, and now Kosovo, which boasts an impressive two million.
Statistics are trotted out to justify independence from Serbia. Ninety per cent of residents are Albanian, it is said, though this excludes 250,000 Serbs who fled when the NATO invaded. Some 120,000 plucky Serbs remained and a brave 18,000 have trickled back in recent years — under armed escort — to hostile neighbourhoods, to reclaim homes seized by Albanian squatters when NATO troops occupied the province. But demographic shifts are no reason to dismember a country.
The province was the heartland of the Serbian Kingdom in the 13th century until conquered by the Ottomans in the 15th century, and only by the end of the 19th century did it have a slight majority of ethnic Albanians for the first time. It suffered mass population transfers of both Serbs and Albanians over the years and finally achieved quasi-state status within the Yugoslav Federation by the 1960s. In the 1970s, the demographic balance was 75-25 Albanian-Serbian. Milosevic owed his rise to the presidency to his defence of Serbs in Kosovo after the death of President Josip Broz Tito in 1980, whose motto was “a weak Serbia means a strong Yugoslavia.” Kosovo’s nationalists were demanding full republican status within the federation by then, and in 1990 its parliament even declared independence (only recognised by, surprise, Albania). This dissolving of the delicately balanced federation would have been suicide and the movement was suppressed, as similar movements have been in Spain, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and many, many other countries, with nary a whisper of protest by the “international community”.
Milosevic’s attempt in the 1990s to resettle Serbian refugees from civil wars in Croatia and Bosnia prompted the formation of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) in 1995, a rag-tag rebel group financed by drug, arms and human trafficking, which made it to the US State Department’s prestigious list of international terrorist organisations in 1998 — Osama bin Laden made three visits to Kosovo 1994-96, but which the West nonetheless supported in the “liberation” of Kosovo in 1998-99. The denouement — Milosevic being served up to the International Criminal Court by Serbia’s current prime minister, Vojislav Kostunica — did nothing to reverse what was by now a clear policy by the West to carve a new, compliant state out of the remains of Yugoslavia.
As for who threatened who in the lead-up to the current declaration of independence, the 10,000 casualties of the upheaval of 1998-99 included Serbs, Albanians and Roma, with no one group faring much better than the other, and despite intensive efforts by NATO forces, no proof of mass murder of Albanians — the excuse used to justify the NATO bombing — was ever found. Eerily similar to the aftermath of the US pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, in search of non-existent weapons of mass destruction. In any case, with the invasion, it was the Serbs who ended up fleeing rather than the Albanians. The last major outbreak of violence was in 2004 and was against the Serbs.
Kostunica argues that the Serbs should not be held to account for Milosevic’s supposed sins, that self-rule for Kosovo within a federation is an acceptable compromise, that creating such a statelet benefits no one, least of all ordinary Kosovars, and merely acts as a dangerous precedent on the world stage, but only Russia, China and a few others appear to be listening. He vowed the nation would never accept this “gross violation of international law” and angrily pointed the finger at the US, which was “ready to violate the international order for its own military interests”. Even pro-Western Serbian President Boris Tadic said, “I will never give up the fight for our Kosovo.” Russian UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin called for the United Nations to annul the move, demanding an emergency meeting of the Security Council 18 February. No resolution on Kosovo’s independence was made, with members China, Russia and Indonesia making it clear this was a stillborn child as far as they were concerned.
Western hypocrisy is so thick it can be cut with a knife: EU officials issued a statement acknowledging Kosovo’s independence declaration without explicitly endorsing it, thanks to Spain’s distaste. NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said the alliance would respond “swiftly and firmly against anyone who might resort to violence.” US President George W Bush in Tanzania produced his usual inimitable sound-byte: “The Serbian people can know that they have a friend in America.” The US was low-key, calling on all parties to “exercise the utmost restraint and to refrain from any provocative act”, though it provocatively proceeded to recognise the new republic, along with Britain and France.
But then, why bother to toot one’s horn? US Albanian immigrants did that in any case, streaming into Pristina to dance in frenzied jubilation. Beating drums, waving flags, shooting guns in the air and throwing firecrackers, they chanted: “Independence! Independence! We are free at last!” An outpouring of adulation for the US was evident everywhere, in sharp contrast to the despair, anger and disbelief that gripped Serbia and its ethnic enclaves in northern Kosovo.
Europe has been busy in the Balkans since it helped destroy the Ottoman Empire a century ago. Most recently it welcomed Slovenia to its fold in 2004 and promises Croatia membership next year. NATO has been flexing its muscles, too, having swallowed up Slovenia in 2004 and promising Croatia membership this year. The plan is to bribe Serbia into acquiescing to the loss of Kosovo by giving it a nice, wet Euro-kiss. While Serbia is wise to NATO, it is not clear if its wrecked economy and exhausted people will give in to the lure of euros. In addition to the 16,000 NATO troops, the EU has parachuted in 2000 police, judges and administrators into Kosovo, but insisted Kosovo’s independence will be severely circumscribed. A wise move, that, considering the KLA and Kosovo’s reputation for terrorism and all kinds of trafficking, and the new prime minister’s deep mafia connections. In a faux show of magnanimity, the KLA political leader and Kosovo’s Prime Minister, Hashim Thaci, called on displaced Serbs living outside Kosovo to return, guaranteeing them full rights. Thaci was a founding member in 1993 of the Marxist-Leninist oriented People’s Movement of Kosovo, which advocates Pan-Albanianism; his sister just happens to be married to Sejdija Bajrush, the top Albanian mafioso.
The fallout from this latest chapter of Balkan intrigues is already accelerating. At least three shiny new border posts have been burned down and three bombs exploded near Organisation of Security and Cooperation in Europe offices in northern Kosovo. Demonstrators there demanded that the Serbian army mobilise to keep their territories, which make up 15 per cent of Kosovo, part of Serbia. The northern part of Kosovo already has parallel institutional structures and does not recognise the authority of the Kosovo government. Misha Glenny, an expert on the Balkans, warns, “Whatever the outcome of Kosovo’s independence, everyone knows we are heading for de facto partition. But no one is willing to admit it.” Serbian police officers have deserted the multi-ethnic Kosovo police force and given their allegiance to Belgrade.
Next door, Serbian separatists in the Muslim-Croat Federation have stepped up their threats to secede from Bosnia. Macedonia, which has the misfortune of bordering Kosovo, Albania and Serbia, and has a substantial restive Albanian minority to boot, will wait for at least 15 EU countries to recognise Kosovo first. Biljana Vankovska from the Institute for Peace and Defence Studies in Skopje said, “the perspectives of the Kosovo market are a cold comfort for Macedonia’s economy.” Serbian President Boris Tadic says that Serbia will recall its ambassadors from countries that recognise an independent Kosovo, which already include the US, UK, Germany and France. Spain, Greece, Cyprus, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Romania are not planning to recognise Kosovo any time soon. Even Poland is having doubts.
Kosovo’s independence will inevitably lead to separatist efforts by other dissatisfied territories around the world. The very day of the declaration, presidents of two Georgian breakaway provinces — Abhazia’s President Sergei Begapsh and South Ossetia’s President Eduard Kokoity — met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, and received a commitment for continued support. All residents of Abkhazia and South Ossetia were granted Russian citizenship after heavy-handed Georgian attempts to cow the independent-minded territories in the 1990s. “We are told all the time: Kosovo is a special case,” Putin said recently. “It is all lies. There is no special case and everybody understands it perfectly well.” After his official meeting with Lavrov, Bagapsh said, “Abkhazia will soon ask the Russian Federal Assembly and the UN Security Council to recognise its independence.”
Despite the tragedy of Chechnya, such enthusiasm to team up with Russia by Muslim border states suggests that religion is really not the issue here at all. There are also Trans-Dniester, sandwiched between Ukraine and Moldova, Nagorno-Karabakh, the breakaway Armenian district in Azerbaijan, and farther afield, Taiwan, Kurdistan, Baluchistan, the Tamil Tigers, and many, many other would-be countries and terrorist groups all of which have gained a new lease on “independence” from this latest Balkan intrigue.
Eric Walberg For Pravda.ru

DEMOCRACY IS THE BEST REVENGE !!!!!!!!!!!!

Democracy is the best revenge
M Waqar USA
First of all I congratulate all democratic and liberal forces, who were united and voted against the arrogant and illegal regime of Musharraf. It is a great day of joy and relief, Democracy is the best revenge,” the well-said quote of Benazir Bhutto has been reinforced today. In her death, Benazir wreaked even greater havoc on Musharraf and company. On Monday, from her grave, she beat all the cronies and flunkies of Musharraf into oblivion. Her murder and the vow by the PPP to take revenge through democracy, have now been fulfilled. Today the so called champions of democracy and Islam, shoe- lickers of military dictator like, Pervaiz Elahi, Sheikh Rashid, Ejaz-ul-Haq, Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain are hiding themselves behind the curtains of power as they have been known to do in when faced with true democracy. MQM, PML(Q), MMA has damaged Pakistan integrity by supporting Musharraf's undemocratic actions. Chaudhry Shujjat is such a cunning person that for winning election he was trying to get Lal Masjid imam Aziz out of prison, these Chaudhries of Punjab have very rude awakening now and I hope they realize that its not worthy to be a puppet of a military dictator. This election has also been a denunciation of agency-sponsored politics. The nation faces innumerable problems and the road ahead is not easy but Pakistan's journey forward would become much easier if Mr. Musharraf sees the writing on the wall and leaves. He must do the decent thing and quit. A silent revolution of the silent majority has struck Pakistan and the otherwise voiceless people have said a big but decisive “No” to the political parties loyal to Musharraf. To be frank, Musharraf has lost, who took power and claimed that he is a liberal, secular and loves ATTA_TURK, he took billions of dollars from USA but also supported militants or did not do anything against those in his Govt and military who were supporters of ignorant Taliban and other militants. I think Musharraf was a double agent, working with the US in the search for Bin Laden and working with Al Qaeda to keep Bin Laden and his company safe. I am sure that Mush knows who killed Benazir, who are responsible for suicide attacks, who is killing innocent Pukhtoons, it seems like his agencies are responsible for suicide attacks, if there were any real groups involve in these crimes against humanity then it would happen during elections too. Musharraf has brought the country to complete destruction and dismemberment. He has destroyed all democratic institutions, he shredded the constitution of the country with power grabbing amendments. he is following the policies of terrorists MQM. It is still time for Mr Musharraf to apologize to Mr. Justice Bhagwan Das and Mr Justice Iftikhar Chowdhry. Musharraf is a cunning untrusty individual who has no moral values and he has later declared martial law on Nov 3, 2007 in order to remove not only the supreme court chief justice but 3 other chief justices including 60 superior court judges. Musharraf needs to step down. He's lost the political capital to be effective. The Pakistani nation today proved to the world that they are a self-decisive and independent nation, they are liberals, they are not pro-talibans. Once Musharraf had said "Last blow will be mine" but he was wrong. The last blow he got today, and this blow was from people power, the power of people can’t be crushed by any strong Army, all those who won this election must prove their credibility. They should reject General culture, extremism, corruption, nepotism, VIP culture and all evils, which the whole nation is dressed in. They should show positive attitude to each other and should prove to the world that they are sensible and serious nation and they deserve to be democratic nation because nation has reached to this success after a very long struggle. Our politicians should not waste this opportunity again, if they loose this opportunity then remember people have other ways to take revenge and that revenge will be revolution and firing squads for failed politicians. Two important things education and getting rid of corruption must be on top of their agenda. Its time to educate people, The trusts and confidence reposed in the politicians by the people now demand from them to behave and behave democratically, move sensibly, focus on the issues positively, shun from politics of revenge and muster all of their efforts for rallying round all segments of the society and taking them together for the resolutions of the burning issues on top priority. I hope politicians like Nawaz and Zardari learned their lessons and they will not repeat the mistakes of past, true essence of democracy is the independence of judiciary, the legislative branch and the executive branch. Army should never be allowed to meddle in civilian affairs. I wonder which general will stage Pakistan's next coup... Democratic elections come and go but Pakistani generals are always ready to remove inconvenient civilians who have the temerity to think they are in charge, so winner of this election must get their acts together and work for the interests of country, keep in mind, Pakistan’s two neighbors China and India will be super powers by the year 2050, its up to people and politicians what they want to do, make Pakistan a super power or make it a country like Somalia or Kenya or break it in pieces. I salute to the people of great pukhtoonistan, who totally rejected militants, extremists and those mullahs who always support military dictators. I congratulate ANP and agree with the statement of its leader Asfandyar, that the Pashtuns, by electing the ANP, had given a clear message to the establishment and world powers that they were not extremists. “We will also try to give an impression that no one is slave or master but all four provinces are like four brothers in this country, I hope ANP make Pukhtoonistan the most educated, rich and advance place for whole world. Those who are involve in suicide attacks are not pushdowns but are agents of puktoon’s enemies. Media also played important role against the illegal policies of dictator Mush and his cronies. Frontier Post also kept its tradition of challenging dictators and printed news, articles and letters and kept readers well informed. I hope media will continue its positive coverage and new Govt in Islamabad should also remember that its 2008, now there are more media tools then just one govt run TV channel. If the elected politicians follow the path of corruption and arrogance they will never survive more than six month in power, the people are watching you closely if you stray you will be in dumps soon. If Nawaz Sharif and Zadari successfully form a coalition, then Pakistan will, at long last, have turned there corner and embarked on a new era, only if they are sincere this time and National Assembly will not become subzi mundi. Benazir Bhutto had sacrificed her life for paving way for democracy in Pakistan. This golden opportunity should not be wasted by the new leadership who should steer Pakistan from existing troubles and create friendly atmosphere with all countries and not waste money in fighting. The funds can be better utilized for the welfare of poor Pakistanis. All the best for the people of pakistan who had courageously voted in this election. These political parties also needs to have democratic elections within their own ranks and get rid of family owned political parties. Quote: ‘’Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard. H L Mencken

PAKISTAN ELECTIONS

Musharraf Powerless, Islamists Defeated
What happened in the Pakistani elections?By Nicholas SchmidlePosted Tuesday, Feb. 19, 2008, at 6:36 PM ET
Heading into Monday's parliamentary elections, Pakistan desperately needed good news. Bombs, protests, and President Pervez Musharraf's authoritarian impulses have made almost daily headlines and created the impression of a country spiraling toward chaos. Last year, Islamic militants detonated, on average, one suicide bomb per week in Pakistan, including the attack that killed more than 140 people at Benazir Bhutto's homecoming in October and the one that assassinated her in December. As the pro-Taliban insurgency gathered strength this winter, a bloody Election Day seemed inevitable. But Monday's poll results, while consistent with Pakistan's recent history in their pure unpredictability, finally gave people a taste of good news. Besides being largely free of violence (two dozen died in isolated skirmishes, but suicide bombers stayed away), voters rejected the two players in Pakistani politics that scare—and confuse—Americans most: Musharraf and the Islamists.
The elections proved nearly everyone—including me—terribly wrong. They also illustrated the complexity and dynamism of Pakistani society. I lived in Pakistan for the last two years and watched the run-up to the elections closely, beginning with the suspension of the chief justice of the supreme court in March 2007, through the state of emergency in November, and the media restrictions that followed. After traveling to every province and speaking to hundreds of people, I grew convinced that a free and fair election was impossible. Musharraf simply couldn't afford to lose. And yet, without an institutional base of support in the army (he officially retired in late November) or a political base in his faction of the Pakistan Muslim League (Q), he knew he would do just that in transparent polls.
The PML (Q) finished third, behind Bhutto's Pakistan Peoples Party and Nawaz Sharif's faction of the PML, making Musharraf effectively appear more powerless than ever. As president, he can still dissolve parliament whenever he wants, but the parliament also has the ability to impeach him. He is in a less than desirable position.
How could Musharraf have let this happen? It wasn't just lesser-known figures in his party who lost their seats; big personalities fell, too. Sheikh Rashid, the mustachioed, cigar-smoking Musharraf confidant who served as both minister of information and minister of railways during the last government, lost in Rawalpindi, the first defeat of his 30-year political career. Similarly, the president of the PML (Q) was defeated. "This election will come down to whether you are for or against Musharraf," a party worker told me at a PPP rally outside Islamabad in December. He couldn't have been more correct.
While the opposition parties campaigned on the shortcomings of Musharraf's regime (inflation, food shortages, deteriorating law and order), Musharraf's cronies weren't adept enough to recognize that public opinion had turned against them, and they continued to tell poor, hungry, downtrodden Pakistanis of all the good that Musharraf had done for them. According to Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., who was in Islamabad observing the elections, Musharraf admitted that "people have spoken, results are clear, and [I am] prepared to abide by and cooperate with whatever the ensuing coalition government comes forth with." That could eventually include a one-way ticket out of Pakistan.
Perhaps the most significant development of the election was the drubbing received by the Islamist parties. In 2002, a six-party coalition known as the Muttahida-Majles-e-Amal, or MMA, won more than 10 percent of the popular vote and grabbed more than 60 seats in the 342 National Assembly. The presence of the Islamists in parliament frightened Western governments, which feared that the mullahs would increase their share of power with each election. Monday's results showed that the MMA's rise was better understood as a political hiccup rather than the vanguard of a mass movement. As of late Tuesday, the MMA had won just five seats. Maulana Fazlur Rahman, the head of the Islamist alliance, lost in his hometown to a thirtysomething law school graduate from the PPP.
Does this mean the end of Islamism in Pakistan? Not quite. In fact, while the defeat of Musharraf's political allies in the PML (Q) signals a new political leadership in Islamabad, the defeat of the MMA could also signal a new political and religious leadership in the troubled areas along the border with Afghanistan. In the North West Frontier Province, where the MMA formed the provincial government last term, the Islamists' vote bank was a combination of die-hards who desired the creation of an Islamic state and those less ideologically driven who were attracted to the MMA's promises of justice, economic renewal, and security. This time around, the latter voted for the Awami National Party. The former, such as Iqbal Khan of the Swat Valley, joined the Taliban.
Last October, Khan invited me to his home for dinner, where he proudly displayed a bookcase full of al-Qaida paraphernalia—letters from Mullah Omar, video messages from Osama Bin Laden, and a backpack that Ayman al-Zawahiri apparently left behind after a visit. He, like all his neighbors in their remote village, voted for the MMA in 2002, hoping the Islamists in parliament would fulfill their pledge to implement sharia law. But when they not only failed to do that but were increasingly viewed as being just as corrupt as their predecessors, Khan and his cohorts withdrew their support from the politicians and shifted their allegiances to the militants.
Though Khan has since been arrested, hundreds of other pro-Taliban militants are still lurking inside the Tribal Areas and in the Swat Valley. On Feb. 6, 2008, the Pakistani government and the Taliban agreed to a cease-fire, which many believe explains the lack of twisted cars, bloody limbs, headless bodies, and other suicide bombing debris on Election Day. But what did the Taliban get in return? Their ambitions are, in many cases, confined to the establishment of Taliban-ruled enclaves. For, unlike in Afghanistan a decade ago, when the Taliban piled into pickup trucks and overran the government in Kabul, the Pakistani Taliban faces a significantly stronger army and state to conquer. Nawaz Sharif already announced that he favors dialogue, rather than confrontation, with the Taliban. None of the other candidates has offered a compelling counterinsurgency strategy.
Monday's election reminded observers that, besides being considered the "world's most dangerous country," Pakistan could also be described as the world's most unpredictable country. It remains to be seen how long it can ride this wave of good news. Nicholas Schmidle, a former fellow of the Institute of Current World Affairs, lived in Pakistan from 2006 through January 2008. He is writing a book about his experience in Pakistan.



SWAT…..TALIBANIZATION OF PARADISE.
Shaheen Buneri,
THE JERUSALEM POST

MINGORA, Pakistan - Until recently, the Swat Valley was peaceful and beautiful, a land of roses, gushing rivers and Buddhist stupas, an idyllic spot for glorious Pashtun traditions of love, peace and hospitality. Once a paradise on earth - all that is now lost.
"There was a time when women and girls from the valley traveled from Mingora town all the way by foot over the high and legendary Mountains of Elum to the mausoleum of the famous saint Pir Baba in downtown Buner, there to offer prayers for finding a sweetheart or to sing sad songs telling of separation. We were poor but happy then. God only knows who cast an evil eye on our land and turned it into hell," said Shaukat Sharar, a local intellectual from Mingora, capital of the Swat district in northern Pakistan.
TNSM-the first pro-Taliban movementThe Swat Valley, which fell to pro-Taliban fighters in July, was perhaps the most beautiful valley in South Asia. The people were liberal in attitude and in their way of life.
The people worked their orchards and rice fields, reaping enough corn and cash to live with honor, dignity and hope. There was Music Street, where beautiful Swati girls once danced to the tune of artistically rich Pashto music, to the delight of visitors. Even the former wali (ruler) of Swat State married a famous dancer to bless her community with respect for traditional Pashtun society.
Then in 1992, Maulana Sufi Muhammad, an extremist cleric, launched the Tehrik-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Muhammadi Movement (Movement for the Enforcement of the Islamic Legal System, or TNSM) in the Malakand region.
His followers occupied government buildings and schools to pressure the government to accept their demands, blocked the main Peshawar-Mingora highway and killed a member of the provincial assembly and scores of people in adjoining districts.
In 1994, then-Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto's government curbed the movement, but to appease its followers, introduced the Nizam-e-Adal Regulation (an Islamic judicial system) in Malakand. However, TNSM leaders, suspicious of the government, persisted in their struggle to introduce "a true Islamic order" to the region.
On September 6, 1998, the TNSM threatened to attack American property and to abduct American citizens in Pakistan unless the United States apologized to the Muslim world for the August 1998 missile strikes on Afghanistan.
"When the US attacked the Taliban government in neighboring Afghanistan in 2001 the hardline clerics in the TNSM leadership started recruiting people for jihad against the infidels [the US and its allies] on Afghan soil. Some 10,000 people with old fashioned guns in their hands were taken to the border to fight the hi-tech war planes of the United States," recalled Shah Dauran, a local resident.
Qazi Ihsanullah, a TNSM spokesperson, said in Bajaur on October 27, 2001: "We will resist if the authorities try to stop us. The jihad will start here... Initially [Taliban leader] Mullah [Muhammad] Omar advised us to wait and come to Afghanistan only when necessary, but we have told them that we will stay in Afghanistan as a reserve force."
Muhammad Iqbal, a 40-year old leader of the movement, said that when Maulana Sufi Muhammad gave the call, supporters collected 60 truck-loads of food and clothes and 1.7 million rupees to give to senior Taliban commanders in Qandahar, Afghanistan.
But Sufi Muhammad's fighters were untrained and ignorant in the ways of modern warfare and most of them were killed or arrested by the Northern Alliance forces. With some other TNSM leaders, Maulana Sufi Muhammad was arrested by Pakistan security forces on January 15, 2002, and sent to jail. After seven years in prison he was released recently by the government and admitted to hospital in Peshawar for treatment of diabetes.
President Pervez Musharraf's government has also banned the movement, which it defines as a terrorist organization. Though TNSM has been dormant for the past seven years, its leadership formed another armed movement under the leadership of Maulana Fazlullah, Maulana Sufi Muhammad's son-in-law, who is a strong opponent of Western sociopolitical ideals.
From tourism to terrorismFollowing the arrest of his spiritual leader and father-in-law, Maulana Fazlullah, 31, gave the movement new impetus in a novel and effective manner. He launched a network of illegal FM radio channels throughout the Swat Valley and began broadcasting fiery speeches denouncing education for girls, prophylactic anti-polio drops, music shops, and the pro-American policies of Musharraf. In a June 2007 interview, the firebrand cleric told me that following his advice people had burned TV sets, VCRs and computers worth a million rupees. "This was the first blow to the region's liberal values and the first step toward obscurantism," Khurhsid Khan, coordinator of a local NGO, said.
The radio broadcasts gradually spread to a radius of 40 kilometers and thousands of people used to listen to it with great veneration after their night prayers. Harnessing the air waves like this brought change. Parents stopped sending their girls to school. The illiterate women of the region, who saw Maulana Fazlullah as a true leader of Islam, donated their gold jewelry to build Imam Dheri a religious seminary on the bank of the River Swat. The use of anti-polio vaccine for children was also accused of being "un-Islamic" by Maulana Fazlullah.
In October 2006, Pakistan's air strike on a religious seminary in Bajaur Tribal agency, which the locals believed was carried out by US forces, killed 82 people including its administrator Maulvi Liaqat Ali. Laiqat Ali was very close to Maulana Fazlullah. After the incident, Maulana Fazlullah embarked on a campaign arousing the people to join him fight the invading US forces.
"We will teach them a lesson. We will avenge them for killing our brothers and sisters in Afghanistan and Bajaur Agency," he said in one of his broadcasts straight after the incident.
In July 2007, when the Pakistan government launched Operation Silence against the Hafsa Seminary in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, Maulana Fazlullah seized it as an opportunity to strengthen his support base and called on the people to take arms and fight the US and its allies.
Bombs in girls' schools and shops selling CDs, and suicide attacks on police and security forces became the order of the day. Maulana Fazlullah's "Shaheen Force," commanded by Siraj-ud-Din and supported by foreign fighters, took over schools, hospitals and government offices in the upper Swat valley. The Pakistani flag was replaced by the black and white flag of the movement.
The caretaker government at the time dispatched 25,000 regular army forces to confront Maulana Fazlullah fighters in Swat. Central government officials said that prior to this the ruling six-party religious alliance of North West Frontier Province had opposed military action, but was now determined to fight until the valley was cleared of militancy.
Paradise lostIn the clash that followed the security forces suffered massive casualties and at least 13 Pakistani security personnel were beheaded in the Matta and Charbagh areas of the district. Of the valley's 1.5 million population some 400,000 were displaced by the fighting. Tellingly, in Jehandabad, the fighters blew up a 700 year-old statue of Buddha, symbol of peace and humanity.
Zahid Khan, president of the Swat Hotels Association, said that 1,200 hotels had closed down in the area with owners suffering losses of 4 billion rupees.
The government claimed the area had been cleared of rebels and the FM radio station of Maulana Fazlullah shut down. But, after a few days' break, Maulana Fazlullah was back to broadcasting, and threatened security forces with dire consequences for killing his men and occupying the seminary he had built at a cost of 8m. rupees.
"They say we are hiding. That is wrong. We are not hiding; this is just a war strategy. We will teach them a lesson as our brothers did to the forces of the USSR in Afghanistan," he announced in his new radio broadcasts.
The past five months of fighting between Pakistani security forces and the extremists have rendered the whole area a virtual hell, where fear prevails and the locals have serious reservations about the military action. They say the government has proved itself unable to nip the evil in the bud. "First they allowed Maulana Fazlullah to recruit and train people. He was a minor leader then, but the government allowed him to become a monster. Now they are not able to rein in him," said Sher Ali, a college professor in Mingora.
Zia-ud-Din, secretary of the Swat Private Schools Association, said thousands of students were not attending class due to the school closures. "They are frightened, lost and utterly confused. Many of the children are suffering from psychological trauma," he reported.
Local people want to see something positive come out of the military operation, which has led to the deaths of many civilians and destroyed the local infrastructure. However, realities on the ground indicate that this lyrical valley, home to the Gandahara civilization, is lost forever. The current wave of violence in other parts of the country is darkening the gloom still further.
Is the US planning to attack Pakistan?The spread of terrorism by pro-Taliban fighters from Waziristan to the Swat Valley has prompted the US to attack al-Qaida targets in Pakistan. In 2007, Frances Townsend, homeland security adviser to President George W. Bush, told CNN that if the United States had "actionable targets, anywhere in the world," including in Pakistan, "we would pursue those targets."
"There are no options that are off the table," she said.
Responding to US officials' concerns about Pakistan nuclear installations and the spread of militancy, Musharraf warned in an interview that any unilateral attacks by the US against al-Qaida and Taliban fighters in his country's tribal areas would be treated as an invasion.
Political analysts say that US attacks on al-Qaida targets in Pakistan would exacerbate the already volatile situation in the region and would send current opponents of militancy into al-Qaida's arms.
The religious political party alliance, Mutahida Majlas-e-Amal, won a landslide victory in the last elections by exploiting anti-American sentiments in Balochistan and North West Frontier Province.
"Any such act would further inflame the situation. It would destabilize the whole region. Peace efforts in Afghanistan would be derailed if the US attacks Pakistan," said Khadim Hussain Amir, a political analyst and professor at Bahria University in Islamabad.
Khadim Hussain added that the US has economic and strategic interests in the region and that the Pakistan military wished to protect these interests.
"President Bush says that al-Qaida's war is against American freedom and democracy while al-Qaida and Taliban say that the US war on terrorism is actually a war against Islam. On the other hand, nationalist forces think the aim of the current war is the genocide of the Pashtun [ethnic Afghan] people. These are the ideological foundations of the present crisis. In my view this war is against the people and their resources just to promote capitalist interests. Militancy and militarism both end in the large scale sufferings of the already marginalized people," said Khadim.
In Khadim's opinion, political parties, especially secular and progressive ones, can and must play a role to advance the peoples' agenda by creating the space for negotiation and dialogue among all stake holders - including the US.

WHEN WOMEN RULE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When Women Rule
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF(NYT)
While no woman has been president of the United States — yet — the world does have several thousand years’ worth of experience with female leaders. And I have to acknowledge it: Their historical record puts men’s to shame.
A notable share of the great leaders in history have been women: Queen Hatshepsut and Cleopatra of Egypt, Empress Wu Zetian of China, Isabella of Castile, Queen Elizabeth I of England, Catherine the Great of Russia, and Maria Theresa of Austria. Granted, I’m neglecting the likes of Bloody Mary, but it’s still true that those women who climbed to power in monarchies had an astonishingly high success rate.
Research by political psychologists points to possible explanations. Scholars find that women, compared with men, tend to excel in consensus-building and certain other skills useful in leadership. If so, why have female political leaders been so much less impressive in the democratic era? Margaret Thatcher was a transformative figure, but women have been mediocre prime ministers or presidents in countries like Sri Lanka, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, the Philippines and Indonesia. Often, they haven’t even addressed the urgent needs of women in those countries.
I have a pet theory about what’s going on.
In monarchies, women who rose to the top dealt mostly with a narrow elite, so they could prove themselves and get on with governing. But in democracies in the television age, female leaders also have to navigate public prejudices — and these make democratic politics far more challenging for a woman than for a man.
In one common experiment, the “Goldberg paradigm,” people are asked to evaluate a particular article or speech, supposedly by a man. Others are asked to evaluate the identical presentation, but from a woman. Typically, in countries all over the world, the very same words are rated higher coming from a man.
In particular, one lesson from this research is that promoting their own successes is a helpful strategy for ambitious men. But experiments have demonstrated that when women highlight their accomplishments, that’s a turn-off. And women seem even more offended by self-promoting females than men are.
This creates a huge challenge for ambitious women in politics or business: If they’re self-effacing, people find them unimpressive, but if they talk up their accomplishments, they come across as pushy braggarts.
The broader conundrum is that for women, but not for men, there is a tradeoff in qualities associated with top leadership. A woman can be perceived as competent or as likable, but not both.
“It’s an uphill struggle, to be judged both a good woman and a good leader,” said Rosabeth Moss Kanter, a Harvard Business School professor who is an expert on women in leadership. Professor Kanter added that a pioneer in a man’s world, like Hillary Rodham Clinton, also faces scrutiny on many more dimensions than a man — witness the public debate about Mrs. Clinton’s allegedly “thick ankles,” or the headlines last year about cleavage.
Clothing and appearance generally matter more for women than for men, research shows. Surprisingly, several studies have found that it’s actually a disadvantage for a woman to be physically attractive when applying for a managerial job. Beautiful applicants received lower ratings, apparently because they were subconsciously pegged as stereotypically female and therefore unsuited for a job as a boss.
Female leaders face these impossible judgments all over the world. An M.I.T. economist, Esther Duflo, looked at India, which has required female leaders in one-third of village councils since the mid-1990s. Professor Duflo and her colleagues found that by objective standards, the women ran the villages better than men. For example, women constructed and maintained wells better, and took fewer bribes.
Yet ordinary villagers themselves judged the women as having done a worse job, and so most women were not re-elected. That seemed to result from simple prejudice. Professor Duflo asked villagers to listen to a speech, identical except that it was given by a man in some cases and by a woman in others. Villagers gave the speech much lower marks when it was given by a woman.
Such prejudices can be overridden after voters actually see female leaders in action. While the first ones received dismal evaluations, the second round of female leaders in the villages were rated the same as men. “Exposure reduces prejudice,” Professor Duflo suggested.
Women have often quipped that they have to be twice as good as men to get anywhere — but that, fortunately, is not difficult. In fact, it appears that it may be difficult after all. Modern democracies may empower deep prejudices and thus constrain female leaders in ways that ancient monarchies did not.

Pakistan....ON EDGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!




'); // 19849
nowMilli = (-1*24*60*60*1000)+ new Date().valueOf();
tomorrow=new Date(nowMilli);
tomorrow.setHours(0);
tomorrow.setMinutes(0);
tomorrow.setSeconds(0);
tomorrow.setMilliseconds(0);
document.cookie = 'LastPage=other' +'; expires=' +tomorrow.toGMTString() +'; path=/; domain=.economist.com; ';
} else {

// CC18658
document.write(''); //

}

// -->

= 0) || navigator.userAgent.indexOf("WebTV") >= 0) {

if(document.cookie.indexOf('LastPage=homepage') != -1 && 'yes' == 'yes') {
document.write(''); //
nowMilli = (-1*24*60*60*1000)+ new Date().valueOf();
tomorrow=new Date(nowMilli);
tomorrow.setHours(0);
tomorrow.setMinutes(0);
tomorrow.setSeconds(0);
tomorrow.setMilliseconds(0);
document.cookie = 'LastPage=other' +'; expires=' +tomorrow.toGMTString() +'; path=/; domain=.economist.com; ';
} else {

document.write('
'); //

}

}
// -->



function getTitle()
{
return


'); // 19849
nowMilli = (-1*24*60*60*1000)+ new Date().valueOf();
tomorrow=new Date(nowMilli);
tomorrow.setHours(0);
tomorrow.setMinutes(0);
tomorrow.setSeconds(0);
tomorrow.setMilliseconds(0);
document.cookie = 'LastPage=other' +'; expires=' +tomorrow.toGMTString() +'; path=/; domain=.economist.com; ';
} else {

// CC18658
document.write(''); //

}

// -->

= 0) || navigator.userAgent.indexOf("WebTV") >= 0) {

if(document.cookie.indexOf('LastPage=homepage') != -1 && 'yes' == 'yes') {
document.write(''); //
nowMilli = (-1*24*60*60*1000)+ new Date().valueOf();
tomorrow=new Date(nowMilli);
tomorrow.setHours(0);
tomorrow.setMinutes(0);
tomorrow.setSeconds(0);
tomorrow.setMilliseconds(0);
document.cookie = 'LastPage=other' +'; expires=' +tomorrow.toGMTString() +'; path=/; domain=.economist.com; ';
} else {

document.write('
'); //

}

}
// -->



function getTitle()
{
return 'On edge';
}

function toggle(embed){
if(document.getElementById(embed).style.display == 'none'){
document.getElementById(embed).style.display = 'block';
}else{
document.getElementById(embed).style.display = 'none';
}
}

Pakistan On edge
Jan 31st 2008 | LAHORE From The Economist print editionIf he rigs, he may have to rig big
Get article background
THE army is battling a Taliban insurgency in the tribal areas of the Afghan border, in which hundreds have been killed in recent weeks. In the cities, activists shouting “Go, Musharraf, Go!” are up in arms about alleged pre-election rigging of the vote due on February 18th. Yet Pakistan's increasingly edgy president, Pervez Musharraf, went on a ten-day European jaunt to tell the West why he is still Pakistan's best bet in the “transition to democracy” and the “war against terror”.
In London he berated a respected Pakistani journalist who dared question his government's efficacy and sincerity in combating extremism. Later he said Pakistanis should thrash such journalists if necessary for being “unpatriotic”, triggering a spate of angry comments.
Mr Musharraf's war is not going well. The “Pakistani Taliban” have merged under Baitullah Mehsud, a warlord accused by the government of ordering the murder in December of Benazir Bhutto, a former prime minister. The Pakistani authorities signed a controversial peace deal with Mr Mehsud in 2005. But he used the lull to expand his army of Taliban and suicide-bombers in the tribal area of South Waziristan. Late last year an allied Taliban faction tried to seize large tracts of the Swat valley in the North-West Frontier Province. Mr Musharraf sent the army into Swat and bombed Mr Mehsud's hideouts in Waziristan. Mr Mehsud's followers retaliated by seizing a small town, and cutting off the road to Waziristan. The army is now fighting “miscreants” all over the tribal areas.
Aftab Ahmed Khan Sherpao, the former home minister, admits that the government failed to take “swift and decisive action” against the Taliban. He says the Taliban are well-financed, organised and motivated, and stopping their rise needs the backing of “political parties, civil society, [and] religious leaders”.
This is just what Mr Musharraf does not have. He is hugely unpopular and all the opposition parties want him out. Most Pakistanis also see this as America's war. This has made it hard to yield to American pressure to put its own boots on the ground in Waziristan against the Taliban. The Americans are providing aerial intelligence, counter-insurgency training and weaponry. Only rarely do the Pakistanis ask for missile attacks from American drones on targets in the border regions.
Meanwhile, it is still not certain that the elections postponed to February 18th will be held. The government has warned political leaders that they are on extremist hit lists. So security worries are curbing campaigning. Most politicians are relying on the electronic media. But the channels are shackled by new gagging laws and cannot give proper coverage to opposition rallies and protests. The air is also thick with allegations of pre-election rigging. Mr Musharraf has refused to nominate a neutral election commission or suspend the progovernment local mayors, who wield enormous influence.
Indeed, with various polls showing the popularity of his party plummeting, everyone believes that Mr Musharraf will have to rig the elections in a big way. His nemeses are the slain Bhutto's widower, Asif Ali Zardari, at the head of her party, which is riding a wave of sympathy, and Nawaz Sharif, the prime minister he overthrew in 1999. Last month Mr Musharraf told Pakistani newspaper editors that he foresaw a greater crisis after the elections—if the opposition parties did not accept the results, or ganged up on him in the new parliament. But unless he strikes a deal soon with one of his foes, one of these outcomes seems hard to avoid.
Copyright © 2008 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.
document.write
(
''
)

var axel = Math.random()+"";
var a = axel * 10000000000000;
document.write('');


var axel = Math.random()+"";
var a = axel * 10000000000000;
document.write('');


var axel = Math.random()+"";
var a = axel * 10000000000000;
document.write('');










;
}

function toggle(embed){
if(document.getElementById(embed).style.display == 'none'){
document.getElementById(embed).style.display = 'block';
}else{
document.getElementById(embed).style.display = 'none';
}
}

Pakistan On edge
Jan 31st 2008 | LAHORE From The Economist print editionIf he rigs, he may have to rig big
Get article background
THE army is battling a Taliban insurgency in the tribal areas of the Afghan border, in which hundreds have been killed in recent weeks. In the cities, activists shouting “Go, Musharraf, Go!” are up in arms about alleged pre-election rigging of the vote due on February 18th. Yet Pakistan's increasingly edgy president, Pervez Musharraf, went on a ten-day European jaunt to tell the West why he is still Pakistan's best bet in the “transition to democracy” and the “war against terror”.
In London he berated a respected Pakistani journalist who dared question his government's efficacy and sincerity in combating extremism. Later he said Pakistanis should thrash such journalists if necessary for being “unpatriotic”, triggering a spate of angry comments.
Mr Musharraf's war is not going well. The “Pakistani Taliban” have merged under Baitullah Mehsud, a warlord accused by the government of ordering the murder in December of Benazir Bhutto, a former prime minister. The Pakistani authorities signed a controversial peace deal with Mr Mehsud in 2005. But he used the lull to expand his army of Taliban and suicide-bombers in the tribal area of South Waziristan. Late last year an allied Taliban faction tried to seize large tracts of the Swat valley in the North-West Frontier Province. Mr Musharraf sent the army into Swat and bombed Mr Mehsud's hideouts in Waziristan. Mr Mehsud's followers retaliated by seizing a small town, and cutting off the road to Waziristan. The army is now fighting “miscreants” all over the tribal areas.
Aftab Ahmed Khan Sherpao, the former home minister, admits that the government failed to take “swift and decisive action” against the Taliban. He says the Taliban are well-financed, organised and motivated, and stopping their rise needs the backing of “political parties, civil society, [and] religious leaders”.
This is just what Mr Musharraf does not have. He is hugely unpopular and all the opposition parties want him out. Most Pakistanis also see this as America's war. This has made it hard to yield to American pressure to put its own boots on the ground in Waziristan against the Taliban. The Americans are providing aerial intelligence, counter-insurgency training and weaponry. Only rarely do the Pakistanis ask for missile attacks from American drones on targets in the border regions.
Meanwhile, it is still not certain that the elections postponed to February 18th will be held. The government has warned political leaders that they are on extremist hit lists. So security worries are curbing campaigning. Most politicians are relying on the electronic media. But the channels are shackled by new gagging laws and cannot give proper coverage to opposition rallies and protests. The air is also thick with allegations of pre-election rigging. Mr Musharraf has refused to nominate a neutral election commission or suspend the progovernment local mayors, who wield enormous influence.
Indeed, with various polls showing the popularity of his party plummeting, everyone believes that Mr Musharraf will have to rig the elections in a big way. His nemeses are the slain Bhutto's widower, Asif Ali Zardari, at the head of her party, which is riding a wave of sympathy, and Nawaz Sharif, the prime minister he overthrew in 1999. Last month Mr Musharraf told Pakistani newspaper editors that he foresaw a greater crisis after the elections—if the opposition parties did not accept the results, or ganged up on him in the new parliament. But unless he strikes a deal soon with one of his foes, one of these outcomes seems hard to avoid.