|
New Trouble in Pakistan
While the press repeated Saakashvili laments about 100,000 internal refugees in Georgia, most of which were from Gori and are now back to their homes, a bigger crisis got little notice in the ‘western’ media:
Authorities in northwest Pakistan are urgently seeking millions of dollars to help up to 300,000 people who have fled from fighting between government forces and militants.
… Pakistani troops launched an offensive against militants in the Bajaur region on the Afghan border early this month. The region is a haven for al Qaeda and Taliban fighters.
The Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) umbrella group involved in the fighting has offered a ceasefire but it is unclear if the government or the army will talk with them at all. After the suicide attack on an ammunition factory on Friday, the government, with applause from the U.S., banned the TTP as a ‘terrorist organization’.
Sice today it is even unclear if there is a government in Pakistan at all. Nawaz Sharif’s PML-N party just left the governing coalition with Asif Zardari’s PPP. The main issue between them is still the restoration of the judges kicked out by former military dictator and president Musharraf. Zardari fears that those judges would again pursue corruption charges against him.
It is yet unknown how any vote for a new President, which should take place within the next four weeks, could happen or how the usual government business can proceed. The best for now to to overcome the blocked situation would be new elections in Pakistan. But as Sharif’s PML-N would likely win those in a landslide, Zardari will do everything possible to prevent a new round of voting.
Meanwhile the killing goes on and, unlike in Georgia, the U.S. planes that might come to the Bajaur region will not carry help for the refugees.
b, and all the rest, my take on the NYT article:
This article, by the NYT reporters Helene Cooper and Mark Mazzetti, is a classic in its own right.
Its task is not to inform the reader, but to send a message from one faction of the ruling gang to the other. The opening paragraph:
Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador to the United Nations, is facing angry questions from other senior Bush administration officials over what they describe as unauthorized contacts with Asif Ali Zardari, a contender to succeed Pervez Musharraf as president of Pakistan.
says everything of import in the article, Khalilzad has contacts with Zardari that are outside normal channels. Someone is pissed.
The Cheney administration does almost everything out of channels, but usually doesn’t like to talk about it. Khalilzad’s actions, as described, are normal. ‘Channels’, for the empire of supermen, is a myth you have to overcome. Action is what counts, not foolish concerns about protocols and chains of command.
The source is, naturally, anonymous, but one State Department official is put on the front lines:
“Can I ask what sort of ‘advice and help’ you are providing?” Mr. Boucher wrote in an angry e-mail message to Mr. Khalilzad. “What sort of channel is this? Governmental, private, personnel?” Copies of the message were sent to others at the highest levels of the State Department; the message was provided to The New York Times by an administration official who had received a copy.
Then we learn who is behind Mr. Boucher’s expression of displeasure:
Administration officials described John D. Negroponte, the deputy secretary of state, and Mr. Boucher as angry over the conduct of Mr. Khalilzad because as United Nations ambassador he has no direct responsibility for American relations with Pakistan. Those dealings have been handled principally by Mr. Negroponte, Mr. Boucher and Anne W. Patterson, the American ambassador to Pakistan. Mr. Negroponte previously was the United Nations ambassador, and Ms. Patterson the acting ambassador.
So this is a struggle between Khalilzad and Negroponte over running the Pakistan shipwreck. Negroponte just fired a shot, by means of the NYT, at Khalilzad. Once again, out of channels. Why, an innocent might ask, do we have a Secretary of State, if not to determine with the President the nation’s policy towards Pakistan, and to manifest it through the diplomats under her direction?
Well, the Secretary of State is not mentioned in the article. If Cooper and Mazzetti asked any questions about this affair to Condi, they are not reported. If they didn’t, well why not? Well, as I said above, the purpose of the article is “to send a message from one faction of the ruling gang to the other”. Stenography, as practiced by C&M and the other jokers at the Gray Lady, doesn’t permit question outside the defined area at issue. Condi is not part of this discussion, capisch’?
Just as an added fillip, the article mentions that Khalilzad irks others:
because of speculation that he might seek to succeed Hamid Karzai as president of Afghanistan
Better watch out Zalmay, your wish just might come true. Visions of Alexander Burnes!
—
freed from spam trap – b.
Posted by: Dick Durata | Aug 26 2008 6:33 utc | 7
|