Top Leaderboard, Site wide
August 19, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates






American Catch


Truthdig Bazaar
When I Was a Child I Read Books

When I Was a Child I Read Books

By Marilynne Robinson
$24.00


The Balloonist

By MacDonald Harris and Philip Pullman
$14.95

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Was Musharraf Helped Out the Door?

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Aug 20, 2008

A British official has been accused of meddling in the affairs of the subcontinent by engineering the exit of Gen. Pervez Musharraf from Pakistan’s political scene. Aitzaz Ahsan, a significant figure in Pakistan’s pro-democracy scene, says Sir Mark Lyall Grant of the Foreign Office helped secure immunity from charges in exchange for Musharraf’s resignation.


BBC:

The Pakistani press reported that Sir Mark urged the government in Islamabad to reach a deal with the president by which he would resign and thereby escape prosecution.

“It’s the Brits who have stitched the deal,” Mr Ahsan said.

“Mark Lyall Grant ... won’t put a single man, a Britisher or non-Britisher in England or in the United Kingdom above the law and yet he comes here and puts the president above the law.

“Today giving safe passage out to Musharraf is allowing safe passage in to the next man three years down the line.”

He said that Mr Lyall Grant was a “key figure” in undermining the rule of law.

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By cyrena, August 21, 2008 at 8:11 am Link to this comment

Purple Girl..

•  “At least the Mafia protected the neighborhood while beating the shit out fo people.”

So true so true. Besides, unless one was inclined to interfere with their business, they didn’t have to worry about getting the shit beat out of them. The fringe effects of “private security’ without having to pay for it.

Report this
Purple Girl's avatar

By Purple Girl, August 21, 2008 at 6:31 am Link to this comment

Is this guy deluded?
I have no doubt the UK suffers from the same ‘Above the Law’ corporationist Treason We do!
Everyday we have new information confirming the fact WE are being screwed by this Web of Syndicated Crime Organization!
At least the Mafia protected the neighborhood while beating the shit out fo people.These criminals roll out the red carpet for any one who wants to control the ‘territory’- shit they have already sold Our kids to the Chinese and Saudi’s!And are marching our grandkids towards the auction block as cheap labor indentured slaves.
We Need a Global War on Corporationism- same thing as a dictorial Caste system, but instead of wearing crowns, they wear Logo’s.

Report this

By cyrena, August 20, 2008 at 11:45 pm Link to this comment

•  “Musharraf’s resignation signaled the end of a long and important relationship with the United States. According to New York Times, “ He (Musharraf) largely failed to live up to that commitment, to the increasing frustration of American officials, who invested $12 billion in assistance to Pakistan. Though Mr. Musharraf forged a personal bond with President Bush that assured American support for him even as his public standing declined precipitously, he produced only mixed results for Washington, increasing suspicions that he was playing a double game.”

This is an interesting passage from the quoted material offered by SYED WARIS SHERE, August 20 at 7:23 am.

For one thing, the figure sited as a $12 billion ‘investment’ by American officials should actually be doubled, (last I checked it was $22 billion since October, 2001 – I’ll try to find the reference, but I suspect it’s on a crashed hard drive). I’d agree that the term ‘investment’ by American OFFICIALS would be correct though, even though it was American CITIZENS money. And the ‘investment’ was part of that special bond between Musharraf and Bush et all, not on behalf of America, or even as ‘assistance’ to Pakistan. It was a payoff from one corrupt regime to another corrupt regime. So yeah, he was playing a double, (possibly triple) game, especially if we start dragging a 9/11 money laundering scheme into it.

How anyone could have felt assured that his military coup and military dictatorship including the suspension of the Constitution was only going to be temporary, pretty much amazes me. It was accomplished for the purposes of overthrowing or otherwise destabilizing the Judiciary. (just as ours was long ago, with the placement first of Clarence Thomas, who guaranteed the US Judicial Coup of 2000) and since by the appointment of Roberts and Alito, as well as Muckasey as Attorney General. Ours was not a military coup as was the one orchestrated by the US in Pakistan, via Musharraf, but no dictatorships, (military or otherwise) are ever voluntarily ‘temporary’. Whenl the government is a military dictatorship, and that regime suspends the Constitution, you’ve got mega trouble. They don’t just go ‘reversing it back’ at some point. EVER. They have to be overthrown to get any measure of a democracy back, either by the ballot, (as the Pakistanis were eventually able to do) or by a counter coup of some combination of forces.

And, I don’t think Washington (as in the gangster regime) was all that disappointed in the results of their investment of our money. They claimed it was to fight the war on terror, and we know that is a fictitious and bogus invention. Dick Bush didn’t expect Musharraf to do anything more than he’d already done, including the supposed track-down of OBL and his al-Qaeda buddies, and bush as much as said that himself, when he said it wasn’t that important to find OBL. If OBL is still alive, it would only be because he’s been receiving the best Urologist care that US tax payers money can provide. I think he’s dead though. In that case, Musharraf can now take that guest suite at the bush mansion in Kennebunkport.

•  “…The political wrangling of the last several months has contributed to a slump in Pakistans financial markets, a sudden rise in inflation. Economic policies pursued by his government over the past eight years had brought Pakistan to the brink of a “critical economic impasse”.

No kidding. The exact same thing here. Same source of the crises as well no doubt.

Meantime…back to the topic at hand, “The WEST” has meddled again. I’m convinced that “The WEST” has never stopped meddling in the past 60 years, in the affairs of other nation states.

Report this

By diamond, August 20, 2008 at 3:26 pm Link to this comment

A coup is a coup brother. And assassinating Benazir Bhutto wasn’t exactly bloodless was it? As for the British Secret Service; I’m reading ‘Spycatcher’ at the moment, a memoir by an old spy, Peter Wright, and I can tell you these people in MI5 and MI6 don’t live in the same universe as the rest of us. They’re capable of anything (and I mean anything) and they always look after their own. Musharraf will get away with his crimes. His kind always do. People forget that the Nuremberg trials were unprecedented and the way things are heading they will become unique in the annals of human history and war crimes as the murderers and war profiteers of many other nations walk free while always planning the next war, the next assassination and the next little bit of treason.

Report this

By SYED WARIS SHERE, August 20, 2008 at 8:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Pervez Musharraf’s resignation heralds a new era of more stable, democratic government in Pakistan. Pervez Musharraf, finally bowed to intense pressure and resigned ahead of impeachment proceedings. Musharraf was warned that the prevailing situation was too charged against him that a massive public agitation might grip the country into deep crisis. “It is time for the elected government to show people their ballots were not wasted,” said an editorial in The News, one of Pakistan’s leading daily newspapers. The decline in his power has been on the wane since he stepped down as army chief last year and his allies were defeated in February’s
election. General Pervez Musharraf came to power in a bloodless coup after overthrowing Nawaz Sharif, the then Prime Minister, on October 12, 1999. Musharraf unequivocally became the most powerful man in Pakistan’s history. He promised at the time that military rule would be short-lived, and said the coup was meant to “pave the way for true democracy to flourish in Pakistan.” Musharraf maintained a firm grasp on power all these years. The United States, which supported Musharraf even as his popularity nose-dived in the last dozen months, had moved recently to distance itself from him. Musharraf’s resignation signaled the end of a long and important relationship with the United States. According to New York Times, “ He (Musharraf)
largely failed to live up to that commitment, to the increasing frustration of American officials, who invested $12 billion in assistance to Pakistan. Though Mr. Musharraf forged a personal bond with President Bush that assured American support for him even as his public standing declined precipitously, he produced only mixed results for Washington, increasing suspicions that he was playing a double game.” The political wrangling of the last several
months has contributed to a slump in Pakistans financial markets, a sudden rise in inflation.
Economic policies pursued by his government over the past eight years had brought Pakistan to the brink of a “critical economic impasse”. As reported in the Washington Post, “ Musharraf’s exit, facilitated by an immunity agreement, appeared to augur a new rapport between the country’s newly elected civilian government and the powerful military. But few people here seemed certain the nuclear-armed nation’s episodic clashes between military might and secular
statesmanship were at an end. And the departure of a man who closely allied himself with the United States in anti-terrorism operations opens the question of how his successor will work with Washington and confront the growing insurgency within Pakistan’s borders.” At the home front the governing coalition parties are having difficulties over the reinstatement of 60 judges fired by the outgoing President. The parties have disagreed strongly over the restoration of the judges and in particular the reinstatement of the former chief justice. Reza Rabbani, a leading member of the Pakistan People’s party , one of the two main parties in the coalition, said: “This is the first time in Pakistan’s political history where you have the people winning against establishment institutions.” Pakistan’s army, which has ruled the country for more than half its tumultuous history, had quietly told Musharraf it would not back him if he decided to fight the impeachment, stripping him of the only backing that might have saved him. In the end the new leader of the army, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, tipped the scales against president Musharraf’s departure depriving the West of its most important partner in the campaign against Islamic extremism and leaves a power vacuum at the helm of a mostly Muslim country of 165 million people.  According to political commentators Musharraf’s policies have weakened the federation and eroded the trust of the nation in national institutions. His resignation has robbed the West of a stalwart ally.

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.