Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Part 4:
Tuesday, 22 February 2011
Monday, 21 February 2011
Sunday, 20 February 2011
Monday, 14 February 2011
The Knights of our Times
Farhatullah Babar, the Presidency’s crier, comes to the centre of the capital to make an announcement: “Hear Ye! Hear Ye! Three years after ‘King’ Zardari pulled his ‘Excalibur’ out of the stone, he is, for the first time, calling all his knights, his most beloved, his most faithful to convene at the round table!”
President Zardari has finally decided to share – not his wealth – but the problems that face Pakistan currently, from its economic woes to that man called Raymond Davis. And he is beckoning all his knights – preferably in their shining armour – to help re-conquer his kingdom.
Camelot was King Arthur’s kingdom, one he inherited by a stroke of luck. Tradition has it that Merlin, the magician, had placed a sword in a stone, saying that whoever drew it out would be king. The sword was yanked out by Arthur.
With a bit of luck, and a sympathy vote bank to boot, the Presidency is Zardari’s. As Merlin’s magic made Arthur king, Zardari was gifted the reigns of the PPP and eventually, this country, by the magic of a will. In the same way that many before Arthur tried to pull out the sword but to no avail; Musharraf’s ouster was attempted by many, but Zardari saw it to fruition.
The call for a round table conference brings to mind the 13 noble knights of Arthur’s round table. In the desi version, King Zardari is a leader of different sorts and his knights an eclectic band of leaders.
King Arthur’s closest ally, friend and confidant was Lancelot. Just like Fazlur- Rehman, he was the first knight to join the round table. Rehman Sahab – known for his swaying towards the ‘ruling’ elite - was the first to join the Zardari camp. Lancelot was seen as the most chivalrous knight, but he also caused the most trouble and eventually led to the downfall of Camelot. Like Lancelot, Maulana never fails in gentleness – it takes an innocent question like why people refer to him as Maulana Diesel to lose his cool! Lancelot was also very willing to help “others”.
Maulana is helpful in various ways. He was an ally of the Musharraf regime even when he was the leader of the opposition. Similarly, Maulana started off as a staunch coalition partner for Zardari but is now leading the religious right against the government. History has it that a mystical figure’s fostering and caring made Lancelot became one of history’s greatest knights. The mysterious elements of our establishment have harboured Maulana for so long that there is little doubt that he will live to be the greatest ‘knight’ of Pakistan. Lancelot was good friends with his co-knight, Sir Gawain, who I believe may hold some semblance to our prime minister.
Traditionally, Gawain is the principal hero and the exemplar of courtesy and chivalry but it is Lancelot who always takes center stage – stealing the limelight from other knights. Maulana Sahab always knows how to gain importance – he was the only knight to have the honour of dining with King Zardari before the round table event! Whereas, Lancelot was the eternal troublemaker, Arthur had Sir Bedivere to fall back on. Bedivere was the most loyal of Arthur’s men and was with him till the very end. Where allies and partners have disappointed King Zardari, Asfandyar Wali Khan has remained his most ardent supporter, helping Zardari gain some credit with an operation in Swat and Malakand. But the best knight proved to be Sir Galahad. All knights were asked to perform the ritual pulling out a sword from stone. Only Galahad was able to, proving that he came in closest to Arthur. Mian Nawaz Sharif can hold some similarity to Sir Galahad – only he can pull the plug on Zardari!
In history, the round table has immense importance. A round table has no head – implying that everyone who sits around it has equal status. King Arthur created this table to prevent quarrels among his knights, none of whom would accept a lower status than the other. King Zardari’s problem is the fact that he wants his knights around him at the round table but still wants to maintain his position as head. However, he doesn’t realise that the table may be his, but its head has always been occupied by someone else. Be it the West, or our powerful establishment, they have always maintained the head position and will continue doing so unless the knights at the round table become one. Some of our knights invited to the round table are heroes and champions of a just cause. However, jealousy, envy and the desire to topple Zardari as head of the table might distract them.
Leaders become only as powerful as the country they rule. It’s not personal gain, wealth or vendetta that makes them true knights. It is the strength that they draw from their people that earns them a place in history. The people of this ‘kingdom’ need true leadership – someone who can swim against the tide, take tough decisions that may not necessarily go down well in their own constituencies.
The knights of our times have failed so far. Only two per cent of Pakistanis pay tax – and that figure is not going to change unless RGST and agricultural tax are imposed. We need visionaries who change the destiny of our people, not those who bow before pressure groups. The religious right should be confronted; what is it about the blasphemy law that compels them to protest? What is it about them that a prime minister with a a two-third majority, or even one who enjoys a unanimous vote of confidence, bends over backwards to satisfy those with a three per cent vote bank. What does it say about your leadership when you are bullied by non-state actors?
And what kind of leaders can’t dare to question why they must always give up a majority share of their budget every year to the most powerful – no questions asked, no explanations required. And what kind of people’s representative looks to the West for their cues?
The idea of the round table is epic. It took petty rivalry, a villainous traitor and grave misunderstandings to break the harmony of this group. It could very well happen that the round table that Zardari has called will make no impact. We are all sceptical about Zardari’s motives – and rightly so – and doubtful of his knights too. But history is often about defying the sceptics.
President Zardari has finally decided to share – not his wealth – but the problems that face Pakistan currently, from its economic woes to that man called Raymond Davis. And he is beckoning all his knights – preferably in their shining armour – to help re-conquer his kingdom.
Camelot was King Arthur’s kingdom, one he inherited by a stroke of luck. Tradition has it that Merlin, the magician, had placed a sword in a stone, saying that whoever drew it out would be king. The sword was yanked out by Arthur.
With a bit of luck, and a sympathy vote bank to boot, the Presidency is Zardari’s. As Merlin’s magic made Arthur king, Zardari was gifted the reigns of the PPP and eventually, this country, by the magic of a will. In the same way that many before Arthur tried to pull out the sword but to no avail; Musharraf’s ouster was attempted by many, but Zardari saw it to fruition.
The call for a round table conference brings to mind the 13 noble knights of Arthur’s round table. In the desi version, King Zardari is a leader of different sorts and his knights an eclectic band of leaders.
King Arthur’s closest ally, friend and confidant was Lancelot. Just like Fazlur- Rehman, he was the first knight to join the round table. Rehman Sahab – known for his swaying towards the ‘ruling’ elite - was the first to join the Zardari camp. Lancelot was seen as the most chivalrous knight, but he also caused the most trouble and eventually led to the downfall of Camelot. Like Lancelot, Maulana never fails in gentleness – it takes an innocent question like why people refer to him as Maulana Diesel to lose his cool! Lancelot was also very willing to help “others”.
Maulana is helpful in various ways. He was an ally of the Musharraf regime even when he was the leader of the opposition. Similarly, Maulana started off as a staunch coalition partner for Zardari but is now leading the religious right against the government. History has it that a mystical figure’s fostering and caring made Lancelot became one of history’s greatest knights. The mysterious elements of our establishment have harboured Maulana for so long that there is little doubt that he will live to be the greatest ‘knight’ of Pakistan. Lancelot was good friends with his co-knight, Sir Gawain, who I believe may hold some semblance to our prime minister.
Traditionally, Gawain is the principal hero and the exemplar of courtesy and chivalry but it is Lancelot who always takes center stage – stealing the limelight from other knights. Maulana Sahab always knows how to gain importance – he was the only knight to have the honour of dining with King Zardari before the round table event! Whereas, Lancelot was the eternal troublemaker, Arthur had Sir Bedivere to fall back on. Bedivere was the most loyal of Arthur’s men and was with him till the very end. Where allies and partners have disappointed King Zardari, Asfandyar Wali Khan has remained his most ardent supporter, helping Zardari gain some credit with an operation in Swat and Malakand. But the best knight proved to be Sir Galahad. All knights were asked to perform the ritual pulling out a sword from stone. Only Galahad was able to, proving that he came in closest to Arthur. Mian Nawaz Sharif can hold some similarity to Sir Galahad – only he can pull the plug on Zardari!
In history, the round table has immense importance. A round table has no head – implying that everyone who sits around it has equal status. King Arthur created this table to prevent quarrels among his knights, none of whom would accept a lower status than the other. King Zardari’s problem is the fact that he wants his knights around him at the round table but still wants to maintain his position as head. However, he doesn’t realise that the table may be his, but its head has always been occupied by someone else. Be it the West, or our powerful establishment, they have always maintained the head position and will continue doing so unless the knights at the round table become one. Some of our knights invited to the round table are heroes and champions of a just cause. However, jealousy, envy and the desire to topple Zardari as head of the table might distract them.
Leaders become only as powerful as the country they rule. It’s not personal gain, wealth or vendetta that makes them true knights. It is the strength that they draw from their people that earns them a place in history. The people of this ‘kingdom’ need true leadership – someone who can swim against the tide, take tough decisions that may not necessarily go down well in their own constituencies.
The knights of our times have failed so far. Only two per cent of Pakistanis pay tax – and that figure is not going to change unless RGST and agricultural tax are imposed. We need visionaries who change the destiny of our people, not those who bow before pressure groups. The religious right should be confronted; what is it about the blasphemy law that compels them to protest? What is it about them that a prime minister with a a two-third majority, or even one who enjoys a unanimous vote of confidence, bends over backwards to satisfy those with a three per cent vote bank. What does it say about your leadership when you are bullied by non-state actors?
And what kind of leaders can’t dare to question why they must always give up a majority share of their budget every year to the most powerful – no questions asked, no explanations required. And what kind of people’s representative looks to the West for their cues?
The idea of the round table is epic. It took petty rivalry, a villainous traitor and grave misunderstandings to break the harmony of this group. It could very well happen that the round table that Zardari has called will make no impact. We are all sceptical about Zardari’s motives – and rightly so – and doubtful of his knights too. But history is often about defying the sceptics.
Sunday, 6 February 2011
Tuesday, 1 February 2011
News Unplugged
I have been in the journalism industry for the last 10 years, but am I a journalist? Can anyone deny that journalists have been used — often willingly — by dictators, democratic governments and the establishment. Each bit of news that we read in print or every current affairs programme that we watch could potentially be serving someone’s agenda.
Here’s an example. Currently, the Arab world is rocking. With revolt and protests. And the American media is going after the ‘real cause’: not the fruit seller who burnt himself alive, but the Arabic channel, Al-Jazeera. The number one channel in the Arab world understands the power of visuals. From the Tunisian fruit-seller burning to Ben Ali’s departure, it covered every protest, and carried each demonstration on-air. It almost turned the revolt in Tunisia to ‘Democracy in the Making.’ A noble cause indeed. But will Al-Jazeera now champion democracy in Qatar too? Maybe not. The rulers of Qatar fund them, and you don’t get on the wrong side of those who show you the money!
People rioting on streets is one thing; creating it into a real sensation is another. Al-Jazeera started endorsing the revolution in Tunisia with the wrong man – the leader of the Muslim brotherhood in Jordan. A group which claims that fundamental Islam is the key; and the armed forces are the only force capable of tackling chaos. Is this the kind of change newsmakers in Qatar have in mind? And Egypt has already been ‘Al Jazeera’d,’ so to speak. Even though the internet is down and phone lines are jammed, the channel continues to embarrass the US media with its detailed live stream coverage.
I don’t claim to know the solutions to the problems of the Arab world. However, when it comes closer to home, I’m getting sensitive. Media gurus in Pakistan are ranting on about the Tunisian change and almost encouraging, if not pushing for the same in our country.
Objective journalism is a myth today. Its whose line you tow that sets the course of this nation. And what a variety of tow-ers we have to choose from – screaming shouting women (not recommended for the faint hearted) to smirky men, to wannabe intellectuals to serious faced, read: seriously paid middle aged men who have tons of ‘experience’ to make up for lack of credibility! One anchor on a particular news channel decided to discuss the judiciary’s role in helping curb corruption. The recent casualty, Moonis Elahi was the topic of discussion. The anchor, forgetting the fact that this case is subjudice and any prediction could be counter-productive, proceeded to talk about his personal experience with Elahi. “He doesn’t appear to be a crook,” he said. Gut feeling takes precedence over facts.
I don’t want to dwell on how the media behaved after Salman Taseer’s assassination but what needs to be reiterated is that, by and large, most newsmakers in Pakistan push a right-wing agenda. Some journalists didn’t stop with the sad demise of Taseer, they continued to wage the holy war after his murder. A few even made the intentional or unintentional mistake of fabricating a story that Taseer and his daughter were pro-Ahmadi in order to stir sentiments. These are the same ‘journalists’ who think the 2005 earthquake was a result of excessive immoral voices reverberating from northern Pakistan. This is the same bunch of people who find it hard to take sides when a suicide bomber blows up in a shopping centre, a five star hotel or even a mosque. You might think that these journalists are people you would never listen to or agree with. But you could surprise yourself. These are your mainstream media gurus, spinning and spewing such facts in the middle of their “unbiased” analysis.
Journalists, senior anchors along with their ‘religious’ scholars and columnists rant on about how our society has been plagued by immorality. One believes the only reason we haven’t been able to develop as a nation is because our Prime Minister’s wife does not cover her head. The comparison was made in reference to the wife of Turkish Prime Minister who does wear a scarf.
Turkey has developed and prospered because of a piece of fabric?! Another reasonably ‘liberal’ host on a mainstream news channel decided to become the judge of Pakistani actress Veena Malik’s character. While he played god, Ms. Malik sat on his show sticking up for herself against a cleric who was convinced of her shady character as he was about her beauty.
There are others who want to take up the issues of the common man. When some anchorpersons adorning expensive clothing and flashy jewellery talk about the scarcity of sugar, it’s cloying enough to give me cavities! And when other ‘responsible’ ones drone on endlessly about the governments corruption figures, you marvel at their math but wonder why they don’t raise questions regarding the impartiality of the judiciary or the role of the army?
We are not just held captive by ‘closet talibans’ or the pro-establishment conservatives – the so called ‘liberal fascists’ also hold us hostage. An English daily went to the extent of publishing a false story about a Fatwa being issued against a certain MNA by a popular mosque’s cleric in Karachi. They want justice for Taseer but at the cost of getting another individual targeted was not such a good idea – especially since the fatwa was never issued. Another advocate of freedom of expression - a Pakistan based media blog – went ahead and published another false fatwa by a Mufti who declared not just Mumtaz Qadri but leading journalists, clerics, lawyers and politicians who hailed Taseer’s assasination “Mufsideen fil arz”. The perpetrators he declared should be punished as provided in Surah Maida – i.e. execution or crucifixion or the cutting-off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile, or, as a last resort, hell.
But as with everything else the sorry state of journalism also has its saviours. Between the liberal vs. right wing divide exist well-intentioned moderates. The problem, however, is to find the right balance. But even these journalists don’t know which route to take. Pakistan is one of the worst countries for journalists - and the fear does not just emanate from its ‘troubled’ areas and extremists - one also needs to be weary of the state and non state actors operating within.
A clash in thinking or a different perspective from them and you could lose your life. Wali Khan Babar is a glaring example.
I cannot vouch for much except my own intentions but I get confused too. Should I do the easy thing? Bashing the government, calling for a Tunisia-like revolution or should I reason with myself. Yes, Pakistan has seen a man torch himself in close proximity of the Presidency and yes, we have the unhappy fruit peddlers too. But we are a democracy, not a police state. The people of Pakistan decided our fate, contrary to common belief, not the West.
We, as members of the powerful media, should hail the principles of free expression. People need to get real news, not what is fed to them. And candid debates about real issues, not propaganda. If the way to liberation goes through television networks, we must choose wisely. Instead of becoming loyal subjects, let’s focus on becoming citizens. The last call is yours. Vote with your remote!
Here’s an example. Currently, the Arab world is rocking. With revolt and protests. And the American media is going after the ‘real cause’: not the fruit seller who burnt himself alive, but the Arabic channel, Al-Jazeera. The number one channel in the Arab world understands the power of visuals. From the Tunisian fruit-seller burning to Ben Ali’s departure, it covered every protest, and carried each demonstration on-air. It almost turned the revolt in Tunisia to ‘Democracy in the Making.’ A noble cause indeed. But will Al-Jazeera now champion democracy in Qatar too? Maybe not. The rulers of Qatar fund them, and you don’t get on the wrong side of those who show you the money!
People rioting on streets is one thing; creating it into a real sensation is another. Al-Jazeera started endorsing the revolution in Tunisia with the wrong man – the leader of the Muslim brotherhood in Jordan. A group which claims that fundamental Islam is the key; and the armed forces are the only force capable of tackling chaos. Is this the kind of change newsmakers in Qatar have in mind? And Egypt has already been ‘Al Jazeera’d,’ so to speak. Even though the internet is down and phone lines are jammed, the channel continues to embarrass the US media with its detailed live stream coverage.
I don’t claim to know the solutions to the problems of the Arab world. However, when it comes closer to home, I’m getting sensitive. Media gurus in Pakistan are ranting on about the Tunisian change and almost encouraging, if not pushing for the same in our country.
Objective journalism is a myth today. Its whose line you tow that sets the course of this nation. And what a variety of tow-ers we have to choose from – screaming shouting women (not recommended for the faint hearted) to smirky men, to wannabe intellectuals to serious faced, read: seriously paid middle aged men who have tons of ‘experience’ to make up for lack of credibility! One anchor on a particular news channel decided to discuss the judiciary’s role in helping curb corruption. The recent casualty, Moonis Elahi was the topic of discussion. The anchor, forgetting the fact that this case is subjudice and any prediction could be counter-productive, proceeded to talk about his personal experience with Elahi. “He doesn’t appear to be a crook,” he said. Gut feeling takes precedence over facts.
I don’t want to dwell on how the media behaved after Salman Taseer’s assassination but what needs to be reiterated is that, by and large, most newsmakers in Pakistan push a right-wing agenda. Some journalists didn’t stop with the sad demise of Taseer, they continued to wage the holy war after his murder. A few even made the intentional or unintentional mistake of fabricating a story that Taseer and his daughter were pro-Ahmadi in order to stir sentiments. These are the same ‘journalists’ who think the 2005 earthquake was a result of excessive immoral voices reverberating from northern Pakistan. This is the same bunch of people who find it hard to take sides when a suicide bomber blows up in a shopping centre, a five star hotel or even a mosque. You might think that these journalists are people you would never listen to or agree with. But you could surprise yourself. These are your mainstream media gurus, spinning and spewing such facts in the middle of their “unbiased” analysis.
Journalists, senior anchors along with their ‘religious’ scholars and columnists rant on about how our society has been plagued by immorality. One believes the only reason we haven’t been able to develop as a nation is because our Prime Minister’s wife does not cover her head. The comparison was made in reference to the wife of Turkish Prime Minister who does wear a scarf.
Turkey has developed and prospered because of a piece of fabric?! Another reasonably ‘liberal’ host on a mainstream news channel decided to become the judge of Pakistani actress Veena Malik’s character. While he played god, Ms. Malik sat on his show sticking up for herself against a cleric who was convinced of her shady character as he was about her beauty.
There are others who want to take up the issues of the common man. When some anchorpersons adorning expensive clothing and flashy jewellery talk about the scarcity of sugar, it’s cloying enough to give me cavities! And when other ‘responsible’ ones drone on endlessly about the governments corruption figures, you marvel at their math but wonder why they don’t raise questions regarding the impartiality of the judiciary or the role of the army?
We are not just held captive by ‘closet talibans’ or the pro-establishment conservatives – the so called ‘liberal fascists’ also hold us hostage. An English daily went to the extent of publishing a false story about a Fatwa being issued against a certain MNA by a popular mosque’s cleric in Karachi. They want justice for Taseer but at the cost of getting another individual targeted was not such a good idea – especially since the fatwa was never issued. Another advocate of freedom of expression - a Pakistan based media blog – went ahead and published another false fatwa by a Mufti who declared not just Mumtaz Qadri but leading journalists, clerics, lawyers and politicians who hailed Taseer’s assasination “Mufsideen fil arz”. The perpetrators he declared should be punished as provided in Surah Maida – i.e. execution or crucifixion or the cutting-off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile, or, as a last resort, hell.
But as with everything else the sorry state of journalism also has its saviours. Between the liberal vs. right wing divide exist well-intentioned moderates. The problem, however, is to find the right balance. But even these journalists don’t know which route to take. Pakistan is one of the worst countries for journalists - and the fear does not just emanate from its ‘troubled’ areas and extremists - one also needs to be weary of the state and non state actors operating within.
A clash in thinking or a different perspective from them and you could lose your life. Wali Khan Babar is a glaring example.
I cannot vouch for much except my own intentions but I get confused too. Should I do the easy thing? Bashing the government, calling for a Tunisia-like revolution or should I reason with myself. Yes, Pakistan has seen a man torch himself in close proximity of the Presidency and yes, we have the unhappy fruit peddlers too. But we are a democracy, not a police state. The people of Pakistan decided our fate, contrary to common belief, not the West.
We, as members of the powerful media, should hail the principles of free expression. People need to get real news, not what is fed to them. And candid debates about real issues, not propaganda. If the way to liberation goes through television networks, we must choose wisely. Instead of becoming loyal subjects, let’s focus on becoming citizens. The last call is yours. Vote with your remote!
Tuesday, 11 January 2011
Assange's Wars
Julian Assange may not be Time magazine’s “Person of the Year,” but he certainly took the world by political storm. Assange is the notorious founder of Wikileaks – the new apple of international media’s eye owing to its recent leak of the Afghan War Diaries and sensitive US diplomatic cables. The result was a loud uproar from US diplomats who had, so to speak, been caught in the act. The US State Department went into war-room mode, readying itself to plug in where diplomacy lay most damaged, and pulling the plug on what had caused the most damage.
In this case, Julian Assange and US intelligence analyst Private Bradley Manning. The unprecedented peek into US diplomacy surrounding the superpower’s relations with Pakistan sent the local Pakistani media into creating its own broadcast pandemonium. “Whoa! Wikileaks,” read the cover of a Pakistani version of an international magazine, and this was a true reflection of Pakistani media’s knee-jerk reaction to Wikileaks. Local newspapers went a step further, creating their own leaks and blaming poor Wiki – but The Guardian was quick in its rebuttal. And the very next day, India-related leaks were gone without a whimper; in their place there was a small apology for “misprinting.”
In the digital world, however, doom and gloom were supreme. Pakistani media gurus looked grim, missing heartbeats with each newly-leaked leak. And soon heads were rolling – fortunately for those “leaking,” not literally. Leading media-men and -women in Pakistan believed every word of the leaked cables. For in Pakistan “seeing is believing” – and if you are seeing what you believe in (read: what serves your agenda), God help us all.
However, the man who seemed to have been the cause of so much noise was unusually quiet – until Nov 30. Suddenly, Julian Assange was not only the new 007 of journalism but “a 39-year-old male from Australia wanted for sex crimes,” as described in the Red Notice issued by Interpol. It is funny how Assange was suddenly top priority.
That opens up many new possibilities, like, how about turning Dick Cheney over to Interpol to face bribery charges in Nigeria or, for that matter, how about issuing a Red Notice for George W Bush for genocide, now that we know that the basis for war in Iraq were not WMDs? Doesn’t two million people dead in Iraq make it a war crime? Or, more locally, how about Interpol speeding up efforts to arrest terror kingpin Dawood Ibrahim? After all, Ibrahim has been identified as belonging to a criminal terrorism syndicate by the US Congress. How about making his arrest a priority this month? If Assange can be brought to court on allegations of violating a “condom law,” surely Dick Cheney, George W Bush and Dawood Ibrahim merit arrest and prosecution. Or will Interpol be focusing solely on sex crimes?
After a fortnight of high drama, Assange was granted bail, but conditions apply: reporting to the police daily and wearing an electronic tag. And the possibility of his extradition to the US has also arisen. That’s an option that Assange vehemently opposes, fearful that the “land of the free” may just set his spirit free! Asssnge is hoping that UK prime minister David Cameron will not bow to US pressure.
But pressure comes in many forms in the US. According to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Wikileaks and its champion has “threatened the US government’s security system.” The Economist warned its readers that the world would probably be a worse place because of Wikileaks. So much for its stance of freedom of speech. “Wikileaks has violated the Espionage Act,” growled US Senator Joe Lieberman. The New Yorker’s George Packer called Assange “super-secretive, thin-skinned and megalomaniacal.” And jumping on the bandwagon was Alaska’s cold former governor Sarah Palin who termed Assange an “anti-American operative with blood on his hands.” The CIA – with a reputation for never “leaking” any secret – and honoured with a few mentions in the Wiki-leaked cables, reacted with a three-letter word: WTF, meaning “Wikileaks Task Force.” According to the CIA spokesman, WTF will “examine whether the leaks could affect the agency’s operations or foreign relationships.
But the CIA has nothing to worry about if you go with what Fareed Zakaria had to say about the leaks. “It’s not so bad,” he writes. “Diplomatic cables made public by Wikileaks show the skills of American diplomats, not their failings.” Hmmm, I was wondering how he manages to get all those interviews of never-seen-anywhere US biggies.
If everyone is entitled to their own opinion on Wikileaks, let me give you mine. Less opinion, more facts. WikiLeaks has made no groundbreaking revelations. None whatsoever. If anything, some scholars and analysts might be thrilled that their comments and analyses today stand so true. Not elementary, dear Watson, just commonsense!
Hasn’t the world always known – but apparently denied – that the funding for Taliban comes from Saudi Arabia? Hasn’t Iran and the world known from the start that the US is cosying up with Saudi Arabia for many reasons, one of them Iran? Why are we in shock to learn that Gen Kayani is happier with Zardari in power compared to Nawaz? And do you really need to be Einstein to know that Nawaz Sharif is anti-establishment? And why the awe over revelations involving
Fazlur Rehman? Maulana Sahib is always toppling over to the other side when the need arises. For a journalist reporting or doing a programme based on facts, it has become impossible to praise Maulana Sahib’s efforts to leave the government, as no one knows when, how and where Maulana Sahib will find a way to get back into the government for the sake of national interest. By the way, we should give the man credit for using this term with more conviction than our generals.
Wikileaks’ cables revealed that in November 2009 Interior Minister Rehman Malik sought an urgent appointment to meet Ambassador Anne Patterson, only to tell her that ISI chief Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha was hatching plots against Zardari, adding that the latter needed political security. Zardari’s paranoia and ISI games are both old news. What’s new, however, is not a leak. A New York court has summoned Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha and Hafiz Saeed, among others, for appearance before the court next month in connection with the Mumbai attacks. The response from Prime Minister Gilani is clear: no force can make the ISI chief appear before a US court. Should the US be getting in touch with Interpol?
Wikileak’s mention of Rahul Gandhi’s warning of a bigger threat to India is definitely worth a mention. “The growth of radicalised Hindu groups, which create religious tensions and political confrontations with the Muslim community,” are the “bigger” threat than those who attacked Mumbai in 2008, warns Gandhi. This is reminiscent of what Arundhati Roy has been saying in relation to Kashmir, Indian “patshalas” and the BJP. But it takes a leak to get noticed.
But I don’t want to burst Assange’s Wikileaks bubble. Definitely not when the poor fellow is already suffering. I do like details that have emerged about what the US really thinks of some leaders. Why would the US care about details like Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi keeping a cadre of four blonde Ukranian nurses. Unless the individual writing that cable was actually wishing he was in Gaddafi’s shoes. Or that Berlusconi was termed by a US diplomat as a useless party animal.
Now, that sounds like a cable written by a party pooper – the US diplomat was obviously not invited. Kim Jong Il is flabby, revealed Wikileaks. Probably written by a US diplomat suffering from an “I hate fat people” syndrome. And the fact that the president of Argentina, Kristina Krichner, is “borderline psychotic.” Mental health is relative, isn’t it?
For once I find myself agreeing with American radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, who declared that Wikileaks has hidden all the good stuff. “Where is the cable revealing that the CIA invented AIDS? Where is Obama’s birth certificate?” he demands. “Where are the cables of other leftwing lies we’ve been hearing about all these years...where’s all the good stuff.” I guess Assange’s recent announcement of publishing hundreds of Israel-related cables might help. Not conservatives, obviously.
My last thought is simple – whether good, bad or ugly – the best-kept not-so-secret secrets have leaked. And they reek. Of jealousy. Of bias. Of hypocrisy. And remind us emotional beings of a simple fact: international relations are based on mutual interest – not on friendship or emotions, or even religion.
And for that, God save the King!
In the digital world, however, doom and gloom were supreme. Pakistani media gurus looked grim, missing heartbeats with each newly-leaked leak. And soon heads were rolling – fortunately for those “leaking,” not literally. Leading media-men and -women in Pakistan believed every word of the leaked cables. For in Pakistan “seeing is believing” – and if you are seeing what you believe in (read: what serves your agenda), God help us all.
However, the man who seemed to have been the cause of so much noise was unusually quiet – until Nov 30. Suddenly, Julian Assange was not only the new 007 of journalism but “a 39-year-old male from Australia wanted for sex crimes,” as described in the Red Notice issued by Interpol. It is funny how Assange was suddenly top priority.
That opens up many new possibilities, like, how about turning Dick Cheney over to Interpol to face bribery charges in Nigeria or, for that matter, how about issuing a Red Notice for George W Bush for genocide, now that we know that the basis for war in Iraq were not WMDs? Doesn’t two million people dead in Iraq make it a war crime? Or, more locally, how about Interpol speeding up efforts to arrest terror kingpin Dawood Ibrahim? After all, Ibrahim has been identified as belonging to a criminal terrorism syndicate by the US Congress. How about making his arrest a priority this month? If Assange can be brought to court on allegations of violating a “condom law,” surely Dick Cheney, George W Bush and Dawood Ibrahim merit arrest and prosecution. Or will Interpol be focusing solely on sex crimes?
After a fortnight of high drama, Assange was granted bail, but conditions apply: reporting to the police daily and wearing an electronic tag. And the possibility of his extradition to the US has also arisen. That’s an option that Assange vehemently opposes, fearful that the “land of the free” may just set his spirit free! Asssnge is hoping that UK prime minister David Cameron will not bow to US pressure.
But pressure comes in many forms in the US. According to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Wikileaks and its champion has “threatened the US government’s security system.” The Economist warned its readers that the world would probably be a worse place because of Wikileaks. So much for its stance of freedom of speech. “Wikileaks has violated the Espionage Act,” growled US Senator Joe Lieberman. The New Yorker’s George Packer called Assange “super-secretive, thin-skinned and megalomaniacal.” And jumping on the bandwagon was Alaska’s cold former governor Sarah Palin who termed Assange an “anti-American operative with blood on his hands.” The CIA – with a reputation for never “leaking” any secret – and honoured with a few mentions in the Wiki-leaked cables, reacted with a three-letter word: WTF, meaning “Wikileaks Task Force.” According to the CIA spokesman, WTF will “examine whether the leaks could affect the agency’s operations or foreign relationships.
But the CIA has nothing to worry about if you go with what Fareed Zakaria had to say about the leaks. “It’s not so bad,” he writes. “Diplomatic cables made public by Wikileaks show the skills of American diplomats, not their failings.” Hmmm, I was wondering how he manages to get all those interviews of never-seen-anywhere US biggies.
If everyone is entitled to their own opinion on Wikileaks, let me give you mine. Less opinion, more facts. WikiLeaks has made no groundbreaking revelations. None whatsoever. If anything, some scholars and analysts might be thrilled that their comments and analyses today stand so true. Not elementary, dear Watson, just commonsense!
Hasn’t the world always known – but apparently denied – that the funding for Taliban comes from Saudi Arabia? Hasn’t Iran and the world known from the start that the US is cosying up with Saudi Arabia for many reasons, one of them Iran? Why are we in shock to learn that Gen Kayani is happier with Zardari in power compared to Nawaz? And do you really need to be Einstein to know that Nawaz Sharif is anti-establishment? And why the awe over revelations involving
Fazlur Rehman? Maulana Sahib is always toppling over to the other side when the need arises. For a journalist reporting or doing a programme based on facts, it has become impossible to praise Maulana Sahib’s efforts to leave the government, as no one knows when, how and where Maulana Sahib will find a way to get back into the government for the sake of national interest. By the way, we should give the man credit for using this term with more conviction than our generals.
Wikileaks’ cables revealed that in November 2009 Interior Minister Rehman Malik sought an urgent appointment to meet Ambassador Anne Patterson, only to tell her that ISI chief Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha was hatching plots against Zardari, adding that the latter needed political security. Zardari’s paranoia and ISI games are both old news. What’s new, however, is not a leak. A New York court has summoned Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha and Hafiz Saeed, among others, for appearance before the court next month in connection with the Mumbai attacks. The response from Prime Minister Gilani is clear: no force can make the ISI chief appear before a US court. Should the US be getting in touch with Interpol?
Wikileak’s mention of Rahul Gandhi’s warning of a bigger threat to India is definitely worth a mention. “The growth of radicalised Hindu groups, which create religious tensions and political confrontations with the Muslim community,” are the “bigger” threat than those who attacked Mumbai in 2008, warns Gandhi. This is reminiscent of what Arundhati Roy has been saying in relation to Kashmir, Indian “patshalas” and the BJP. But it takes a leak to get noticed.
But I don’t want to burst Assange’s Wikileaks bubble. Definitely not when the poor fellow is already suffering. I do like details that have emerged about what the US really thinks of some leaders. Why would the US care about details like Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi keeping a cadre of four blonde Ukranian nurses. Unless the individual writing that cable was actually wishing he was in Gaddafi’s shoes. Or that Berlusconi was termed by a US diplomat as a useless party animal.
Now, that sounds like a cable written by a party pooper – the US diplomat was obviously not invited. Kim Jong Il is flabby, revealed Wikileaks. Probably written by a US diplomat suffering from an “I hate fat people” syndrome. And the fact that the president of Argentina, Kristina Krichner, is “borderline psychotic.” Mental health is relative, isn’t it?
For once I find myself agreeing with American radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, who declared that Wikileaks has hidden all the good stuff. “Where is the cable revealing that the CIA invented AIDS? Where is Obama’s birth certificate?” he demands. “Where are the cables of other leftwing lies we’ve been hearing about all these years...where’s all the good stuff.” I guess Assange’s recent announcement of publishing hundreds of Israel-related cables might help. Not conservatives, obviously.
My last thought is simple – whether good, bad or ugly – the best-kept not-so-secret secrets have leaked. And they reek. Of jealousy. Of bias. Of hypocrisy. And remind us emotional beings of a simple fact: international relations are based on mutual interest – not on friendship or emotions, or even religion.
And for that, God save the King!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)