quote:- Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf announced his resignation Monday after weeks of pressure to relinquish power.
Musharraf told the nation in a televised address that he would step down -- nearly nine years after he seized power in a bloodless coup in 1999.
"I don't want the people of Pakistan to slide deeper and deeper into uncertainty," Musharraf said.
"For the interest of the nation, I have decided to resign as president," he said. "I am not asking for anything. I will let the people of Pakistan decide my future."
I didn't think he'd do it. I wonder what happens in Pakistan now.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
No matter how 'bad' things may or may not be under Musharraf this is possible the worst thing to happen, my friend Daniel wrote a paper on Pakistan social-economic future and things look pretty bad long term for stability theres a non trivial chance that Pakistan could disintegrate, which goes from bad to worse when you realize that those Pakistani made nuclear warheads could end up in the wrong hands.
IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure Mr Harper will be glad to send troops to maintain Musharraf in power if only he becomes aware of the trenchant insights contained in dano's paper. Perhaps you should send him a letter. Be sure to address it in crayon, that always cheers people up.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
May not be an expert opinion but it is nontheless an informed researched opinion.
IP: Logged |
posted
To be fair, Pakistan is pretty much a failed nation state. I'm not sure how Musharraf's resigniation (IF it actually happens) will affect the balance of power, but I doubt it can make things much worse. There's not a lot of room to fall.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
It seems to be a standard state, with hints of Democracy, that has a violent wild frontier that is beyond its ability to control--picture US in 1885. Sure, the "territories" were not controlled by the government very well, but the rest of the country wasn't "failed".
It has problems. It, like Turkey, has a large religious and conservative country side and an overcrowded by mostly secular city. There are conflicts, but this resignation is good for two reasons.
1) The military did not have to shoot its way into making the political decisions as it has done in the past.
2) The politicians who's main goal was ousting Musharraf can now focus on fixing the country's problems.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The government has been overthrown 3 times by the military in the country's short history - I think it's been under military dictatorship for 35 or so years in total out of 62. Free elections are currently nonexistent, and opposition leaders are regularly killed or jailed.
Maybe things will get better with Musharraf gone, but I'm currently willing to throw it into the "failed state" pile.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Friends in another country aren't necessarily experts on the country. I wouldn't trust most of the USA to give an opinion on the state of this country, and their opinion certainly doesn't make it an informed paper.
Posts: 1591 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: The government has been overthrown 3 times by the military in the country's short history - I think it's been under military dictatorship for 35 or so years in total out of 62. Free elections are currently nonexistent, and opposition leaders are regularly killed or jailed.
Maybe things will get better with Musharraf gone, but I'm currently willing to throw it into the "failed state" pile.
Okay first of all dictatorship is not synonymous or correlated with being a failed state. Nazi Germany were well Nazi's and they weren't a failed state.
quote:A failed state is a state whose central government is so weak or ineffective that it has little practical control over much of its territory. The level of control required to avoid being considered a failed state varies considerably amongst authorities. Furthermore, the declaration that a state has "failed" is generally controversial and, when made authoritatively, may carry significant geopolitical consequences.
posted
Well, let's not go overboard. It's quite possible dano received an 'A' for his paper. I'm sure the PM would be impressed by that. You should make a note of it when you send him that letter.
Anyway. The point we are subtly making, Blayne, is that undergraduate papers are not generally considered very powerful arguments. (I do hope it's undergraduate, at least. If it's high school, well, really now.) Undergraduate papers are assigned to teach the rudiments of the process of research and of presenting conclusions, not to do the real thing. The real thing takes more time than a semester, for one thing, and is peer reviewed, for another. It also generally does not rely on anecdotes from refugees or expats; very often there is field work in the country concerned, interviewing people from several factions including the one in power and, if possible, the one bombing things. There is living in several cities and villages, to get a feel for how people react to official news and to rumours, and for that matter to see what the official news and the rumours are. Which is not, you should note, the same as what gets posted on Wiki.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:(I do hope it's undergraduate, at least. If it's high school, well, really now.)
Let's not forget nationality, either. I mean, if the author is Chinese (mainland), Russian, or Pakistani, it's more credible. If the author is American, British, or French...well, that probably bumps credibility up or down from doctorate thesis or high school test essay.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eh, I dunno. Less personal familiarity, but possibly also less bias. And sometimes an outsider sees more clearly.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
