Foreign affairs
Now, the question comes again: should any “free” country try to help countries under military or theocratic regime to change things?
First of all, it is certain that any leader that is supported or approved or accepted by another country has high chances to be treated as a dictator and he might behave as such. They may think that they act for the greater good, so anything is excused. I’ve never referred to the case of Iraq and I was very young when Saddam Hussein had the power, so I can’t remember details, but now that I read about the situation in Pakistan, it rings a bell.
General Pervez Musharraf seized power in a bloodless coup in 1999 which was widely condemned and which led to Pakistan's suspension from the Commonwealth until 2004. But he shook off his pariah status and gained foreign acceptance after he backed the US-led campaign against terror following the attacks on America on 11 September 2001. The president has waged a campaign against Islamic extremists, banning several groups. But his stance against militancy has not been well received in some quarters; the general has survived a number of assassination attempts. In 2002 General Musharraf awarded himself another five years as president, together with the power to dismiss an elected parliament. The handover from military to civilian rule came with parliamentary elections in November 2002, and the appointment of a civilian prime minister. (BBC webpage)
It is true that he might sound promising in the battle against the extremist Islamists and it is extremely important that it comes from the inside. They don’t need to give an excuse to anyone for interference. But in the same time, he is accused for totalitarian attitude, he considers himself above the law, he will not let his opposition have a say and he has wrongfully accused American organizations for abducting citizens which were against his regime. Considering that his opposition is mainly the Muslims, I can’t help thinking that it is absolutely normal that he would encounter a lot of enemies. On the other hand, it seems that he is handling the situation extremely badly and he will never succeed in any higher cause he might have and all the Pakistani worship his Supreme Court Chief, and the man who opposed him, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry as a hero.
It all sounds like he seeked the americans’ support but he totally ignored the people. I think I have serious issues with the US foreign policy. I don’t think it should openly support a foreign president, because the results can be what happens now in Pakistan. And it should not ask for specific missiles to be installed in Eastern Europe because Russia’s response will rightfully be hostile.
I also think that no matter how much I oppose Islam (and any similar religion) for being totally inconsiderate to the individual, I also oppose any form of oppression, no matter how it is served. And I want to give right to the people not because might makes right, but because I aknowledge the human desire to learn and that given time everyone has the potential to understand.
First of all, it is certain that any leader that is supported or approved or accepted by another country has high chances to be treated as a dictator and he might behave as such. They may think that they act for the greater good, so anything is excused. I’ve never referred to the case of Iraq and I was very young when Saddam Hussein had the power, so I can’t remember details, but now that I read about the situation in Pakistan, it rings a bell.
General Pervez Musharraf seized power in a bloodless coup in 1999 which was widely condemned and which led to Pakistan's suspension from the Commonwealth until 2004. But he shook off his pariah status and gained foreign acceptance after he backed the US-led campaign against terror following the attacks on America on 11 September 2001. The president has waged a campaign against Islamic extremists, banning several groups. But his stance against militancy has not been well received in some quarters; the general has survived a number of assassination attempts. In 2002 General Musharraf awarded himself another five years as president, together with the power to dismiss an elected parliament. The handover from military to civilian rule came with parliamentary elections in November 2002, and the appointment of a civilian prime minister. (BBC webpage)
It is true that he might sound promising in the battle against the extremist Islamists and it is extremely important that it comes from the inside. They don’t need to give an excuse to anyone for interference. But in the same time, he is accused for totalitarian attitude, he considers himself above the law, he will not let his opposition have a say and he has wrongfully accused American organizations for abducting citizens which were against his regime. Considering that his opposition is mainly the Muslims, I can’t help thinking that it is absolutely normal that he would encounter a lot of enemies. On the other hand, it seems that he is handling the situation extremely badly and he will never succeed in any higher cause he might have and all the Pakistani worship his Supreme Court Chief, and the man who opposed him, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry as a hero.
It all sounds like he seeked the americans’ support but he totally ignored the people. I think I have serious issues with the US foreign policy. I don’t think it should openly support a foreign president, because the results can be what happens now in Pakistan. And it should not ask for specific missiles to be installed in Eastern Europe because Russia’s response will rightfully be hostile.
I also think that no matter how much I oppose Islam (and any similar religion) for being totally inconsiderate to the individual, I also oppose any form of oppression, no matter how it is served. And I want to give right to the people not because might makes right, but because I aknowledge the human desire to learn and that given time everyone has the potential to understand.