Monday, May 09, 2011

Pakistan: The Myth of Sovereignty

Written by Lal Khan
Friday, 06 May 2011



The hoarse bleating and the paranoia unleashed by the media and the intelligentsia in Pakistan complaining about the US operation in Abbotabad as a “breach of sovereignty” is mindboggling to say the least. When did Pakistan ever have genuine and complete sovereignty in its history?

Read the rest here


RENEGADE EYE

41 comments:

Ross Wolfe said...

Pakistan is a miserable, unstable state with startlingly large segments of the population actively colluding with Al-Qaeda and other reactionary Islamicist forces.

-FJ said...

Hey, they feed the Islamicists guns and money from Saudi Arabia to secure their Western borders from the Iranians. Who can blame them for that? Certainly not me.

-FJ said...

Sipah-e-Sahaba

Sipah-e-Sahaba - or the Army of Prophet Mohammad's companions - is a radical group from the majority Sunni sect of Islam.

The group was founded by a Sunni cleric - Maulana Haq Nawaz Jhangvi - in the early 1980s to block the influence of the Iranian Shia revolution in Pakistan.


The next two decades saw an explosion of sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni extremist groups and the death of hundreds of people.

Sipah-e-Sahaba wants Pakistan to be officially declared a Sunni Muslim state.

It has strongholds in southern districts of the populous central province of Punjab and the volatile port city of Karachi.

Maulana Jhangvi was assassinated in a suspected sectarian attack in 1990.

The killing led to the formation of a breakaway and more radical Jhangvi group which was banned last year.

Maulana Azam Tariq, who was assassinated on 6 October 2003, then took charge.

Maulana Tariq had been detained by the authorities a year earlier at the height of violent protests by hardline Islamic groups in support of Afghanistan's Taleban regime.

Tehrik-e-Jafria

Tehrik-e-Jafria - or the Movement of Followers of Shia - was founded in 1979.


Its creation coincided with the enforcement of controversial Islamic laws by the then military ruler of Pakistan, General Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq.

The Islamic revolution in predominantly Shia Iran around the same time gave an added boost to the organisation.

Its leader, Allama Arif Hussain al-Hussaini, was a student of the leader of Iran's Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini.

-FJ said...

When the Pakistani's aren't fighting India, they like to arm-wrestle each other internally for control of the next islamic caliphate.

Ross said...

Ren,

Off-topic, but over at my blog I'd be interested in continuing the conversation about imperialism in light of some of the recent reading I've been doing.

Renegade Eye said...

Ross: See this. The old program of the Pakistan People's Party.

After Benazir Bhutto was killed, areas the IMT control, had no rioting.

Last year the PPP bureaucracy rigged the votes against us. Generally the IMT is in parliament. We maybe were lucky not to be there now.

Farmer John: Zia was part of the days of surrounding Russia with Islamic states.

Pakistan supports the Taliban as part of backup against India.

The Islamists are a minority in Pakistan. The highest vote they ever received was 11%.

Pakistan never completed separating church from state.

-FJ said...

Pakistan never completed separating church from state.

...and given their "founding" history, never will. I mean, if you can't put up with a bunch of nihilistic Buddhists or Hindu's in your government, you aren't likely to tolerate any form of secularism or dissent.

TMI is dreaming if they think they're ever going to change things in Pakistan... not w/o Russian or American military power behind it, anyway.

Renegade Eye said...

FJ: The founders envisioned it as Turkey. That went to hell. The founders didn't see it as it turned out.

A democratic state has to have separation of church and state. That is one of its tasks as settling minority problems, national independence, border problems etc.

The Pagan Temple said...

Isn't Pakistan labeled an Islamic Republic. If so that pretty much takes care of any ideas of separation of religion and state right there.

A big clue might be when they named their capitol city "Islamabad".

-FJ said...

A democratic state has to have separation of church and state. That is one of its tasks as settling minority problems, national independence, border problems etc.

There's more than one way to skin a cat, Renegade Eye. You never read "The Prince" now, did you. And if you didn't, you certainly didn't take it seriously enough.

-FJ said...

Do you know what a satrapy is? Have you ever heard of a phratry? The ten demes of Athens?

-FJ said...

...and ultimately, th keys to all successful societies lie in rights to inter-marriage.

And until the endogamous Muslims become more exogamous, there will never be peace.

-FJ said...

...else the 50 daughters of Danaan ne'er would have fled the from the fifty sons of Aegyptus. ;)

Speedy G said...

o/t - What do you think about this, Ren...

Oh, wait. Socialists can't be imperialists, only capitaists and yanqui's can... by definition. :(

Renegade Eye said...

SpeedyG: Imperialism? Venezuela is not a socialist country, or is Chavez a socialist.

Look up Pérez Becerra.

You have strange ideas about imperialism. Nothing was mentioned about imperialism in the article.

FJ: Nothing demonstrates Trotsky's concept of "combined and uneven development" as Pakistan. Combined and uneven development is as a barefooted boy walking on an unpaved road, talking on a cellphone.

Imperialism divided India and Pakistan, because of the old British divide and rule scheme. Its best hope is a confederation with India.

Pagan: All of Pakistan's history is using Islamists against the socialist threat.

Speedy G said...

Venezuela is not a socialist country, or is Chavez a socialist.

...and Chavez's political party, the PSUV (United Socialist Party of Venezuela) isn't socialist and it's slogan "Socialismo o muerte" (socialism or death) isn't really a slogan either...

ROFLMAO!

Speedy G said...

In the IMT's dictionary...

"...anything that isn't OUR brand of Internationlist cr*p, isn't really socialism or communism"

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and even tell's you its' a duck...

Speedy G said...

As for Pérez Becerra, perhaps he should return the generous donations he has in the past received from Paul Reyes and the FARC before he starts to further profess his innocence. :)

Speedy G said...

Quite a few governments have blocked Becerra/Martinez's Anncole FARC PR website. Apparently his, "I didn't do it" defense is flying in very weak opposition to the judgements of the security agencies in those countries charged with countering terrorism.

Speedy G said...

ps - I wonder what Timochenko, FARC's Head of Intelligence/Counter Intelligence was doing in Venezuela when Becerra/Martinez's plane landed at Maiquetia? Any idea's, Ren? A meeting with Angel, perhaps?

Ross Wolfe said...

...and Chavez's political party, the PSUV (United Socialist Party of Venezuela) isn't socialist and it's slogan "Socialismo o muerte" (socialism or death) isn't really a slogan either...

ROFLMAO!

Oh yes, and, since a country is name the People's Republic of China, it must be a republic.

And even better, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (i.e., North Korea) just MUST be both democratic and republican in its governance, not a backwards dictatorship.

You really are an idiot, Speedy, for even advancing argument of this sort. Sorry. It's the truth.

Speedy G said...

I don't ask you to believe me when you can read the statements from Chavez's own lips.

And if you don't believe him, get the ISS study on FARC's relations with Venezuelan imperialists complete with it's "searchable disk" of Paul Reyes e-mails to seek your own confirmation (or not) as to whether he was either a socialist OR an imperialist. :)

Speedy G said...

...or better yet, read Ren's IMT articles on the subject

Such a revolutionary policy at home should be accompanied by a clear revolutionary policy abroad. Chávez’s appeals to struggle for socialism worldwide have been met with enthusiasm everywhere. The plans to set up a Fifth International to struggle against capitalism and imperialism aroused similar interested and support. But once again, they were watered down, delayed and finally abandoned.

...apparently "watered down socialism" isn't really socialism until it supports International Marxist Imperialistic tendencies. :)

Speedy G said...

o/t - I wonder why Venezuela has one of the highest murder rates in the world....

no more.

Apparently, Tupamaru thugs in the Alexis Vive collective in the 21 de Enero barrio weren't criminal enough for Hugo. ;)

Speedy G said...

Erratum - 23 de Enero.

I always get my Miraflores-based revolutionary January dates mixed up... ;)

The Absolute Marxist said...

Venezuela is not a socialist country, or is Chavez a socialist.

Ren is such a kidder...

The Absolute Marxist said...

Overt evidence of anti-capitalism policies (socialist) in Venezuela.

The Absolute Marxist said...

Nothing says "failure" of a socialist economic policy better than the word "rationing"...

Renegade Eye said...

Ross: LOL.

The FARC should disarm, and hand its weapons to the trade union movement. More unionists are killed in Colombia, than anywhere.

Everytime I read a link, it leads to something different than what Speedy or Absolute say. The adding words that aren't there like imperialist, borders on mind reading or conspiracy.

Ross Wolfe said...

I don't know why you put up with -FJ's (& Speedy's & Absolute's) nonsense. No disrespect whatsoever, but he's a fucking idiot. He has this weird belief that a laissez-faire economy is the only true form of capitalism. Capitalism obtains wherever the majority of the products produced by society are commodities, and in which labor is sold as a commodity. Despite its "socialist" proclamations, Venezuela is (in my opinion) a petrol-capitalist state with big social programs that half the time aren't even funded.

But I made it so that I can moderate his comments so that he doesn't post comment after comment of nonsensical non sequiturs. If he ever makes a point relevant to the topic, I'd be happy to post it, even if I disagreed with it. It's just that he seems incapable of it.

Renegade Eye said...

Ross: The percentage of nationalized to private property is essentially unchanged from before Chavez was in power, because the private sector is growing faster.

Socialism of the 21st century, is a crackpot theory, created by a German intellectual Hans Dieterich. Alan Woods wrote a book, destroying it.

Chavez would be more respected, if he was a socialist. A state ultimately has to serve one class or another.

Farmer comments 20x in a row, answering himself on his own blog as well.

Speedy G said...

A state ultimately has to serve one class or another.

That's not what the fastest growing and 2nd most productive economy in the world's members think. In fact, they've VERY effectively debunked THAT Marxist myth. A state needs to serve the interests of ALL of it's members, not just its' "revolutionary vanguard" (be they of an "intellectual" class or other...) ;)

You're continually falling into the trap of thinking like a "binary" thinker, Ren. You construct all these neat little categories of "my way" and "other". Capitalism is your default "other".

from the Jowett intro to Plato's "Statesman"

For the dialectical art is no respecter of persons: king and vermin-taker are all alike to the philosopher. There may have been a time when the king was a god, but he now is pretty much on a level with his subjects in breeding and education. Man should be well advised that he is only one of the animals, and the Hellene in particular should be aware that he himself was the author of the distinction between Hellene and Barbarian, and that the Phrygian would equally divide mankind into Phrygians and Barbarians, and that some intelligent animal, like a crane, might go a step further, and divide the animal world into cranes and all other animals. Plato cannot help laughing (compare Theaet.) when he thinks of the king running after his subjects, like the pig-driver or the bird-taker. He would seriously have him consider how many competitors there are to his throne, chiefly among the class of serving-men. A good deal of meaning is lurking in the expression—'There is no art of feeding mankind worthy the name.' There is a similar depth in the remark,—'The wonder about states is not that they are short-lived, but that they last so long in spite of the badness of their rulers.'

Speedy G said...

The Left needs scapegoats to justify revolution. Capitalists (and other kulaks) are their perpetual scapegoat.

Speedy G said...

He has this weird belief that a laissez-faire economy is the only true form of capitalism.

Ahhhhh, so you finally understand what it's like to argue with a Marxist who claims that there never was a government in the history of the world that was ever "truely socialist". Touche!

sonia said...

Ross,

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (i.e., North Korea) just MUST be both democratic and republican in its governance, not a backwards dictatorship.

You really are an idiot, Speedy, for even advancing argument of this sort


Names do matter. When Hitler called his particular ideology NATIONAL SOCIALISM, he discredited those words forever. Everyone calling himself a "nationalist" or a "socialist" should be aware of that. Calling your party "socialist" implies that you agree with all the other "socialists" (including Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot) who came before you. If you don't agree, pick another name. Even "royalist" or "reactionary" is less discredited than "socialist".

Of course, North Korea is too insignificant to discredit the word "democratic", but so many dictatorship have called themselves "democratic" (East Germany, etc.), that word too begins to stink.

Speedy G said...

...but to unyieldingly whine and moan and claim that states have NOTHING in common with their names... that there was NOTHING socialist about National Socialism or NOTHING democratic about certain East German Democratic republics, is beyond MORONIC and even MORE idiotic.

Ross Wolfe said...

All right, Sonya, so by that rationale, "Democratic" and "Republic" would be thrown out the door. I.e., the People's Republic of China, United Soviet Socialist Republics, etc.

It's folly to think that a name means all that much in politics. Hitler's National Socialism was diametrically opposed to Bolshevism. He annihilated the Communists. Sure, Ribbentrop made a deal with Molotov for mutual non-aggression, but Hitler didn't give a shit in 1941 with Operation Barbarossa. The only thing that was even remotely "socialist" about the Nazi party was in its SA division, which was essentially neutered after Hitler liquidated its leadership in 1934. This should be obvious to anyone who knows history, but apparently it's not.

Renegade Eye said...

If you believe Obama is a socialist, it only follows you'd believe Chavez is ine too.

The subject is Pakistan, so talk about Venezuela.

The Pagan Temple said...

Yes, Hitler was a socialist. He was exactly what he claimed to be-a NATIONAL SOCIALIST, believing in socialism on a national level as opposed to an international level. Or as Ren likes to say, "socialism in one country".

True, he might not have nationalized all major industry, but is that what socialism is all about? The point is, all national industry was an arm of the state and was continued at the pleasure of, and for the benefit of, the state. Period, end of story.

Nazi Germany was also a welfare state, with cradle to the grave social services, including socialized medicine and an environmentalist policy.

The fact that there were some elements of capitalism was irrelevant. One thing Nazi Germany was not, by any stretch of the imagination, was a free market society.

You guys don't like Hitler because he represented a rival view to your internationalist aims and policies.

Just swallow your pride as the little junior, internationalist Hitlers that you are, and let's move on.

sonia said...

Ross,

Hitler's National Socialism was diametrically opposed to Bolshevism. He annihilated the Communists. Sure, Ribbentrop made a deal with Molotov for mutual non-aggression, but Hitler didn't give a shit in 1941 with Operation Barbarossa. The only thing that was even remotely "socialist" about the Nazi party was in its SA division, which was essentially neutered after Hitler liquidated its leadership in 1934. This should be obvious to anyone who knows history, but apparently it's not.

No, it's not obvious at all. Yes, Hitler annihilated the Communists, but so did Stalin. In fact, Stalin killed far more card-carrying members of the Communist party than Hitler. Trotsky wasn't killed by the Nazis. He was killed by Stalin.

Hitler also slaughtered fellow Nazis, like Ernst Rohm. Does that make him an anti-Nazi ?

Socialism (national or international) is a cannibalistic ideology. You can kill fellow socialists and still remain a socialist.

Castro killed his rival to power, General Ochoa, the hero of the Angolan War, just like Stalin killed his rival to power, Tukhachevski, the hero of Soviet Revolution. In United States, Black Panthers were killing themselves left and right. So did Pol Pot. In Afghanistan in the 1970's, each Communist leader came to power by killing the previous Communist leader.

It's not true at all that "the only thing that was even remotely "socialist" about the Nazi party was in its SA division". Erich Koch, who ruled Ukraine during the Nazi occupation wasn't called "Red Erich" for nothing. He kept all the Soviet kolchozes intact. Earlier, as gauleiter of East Prussia, he tried to collectivize agriculture there as well.

And Nazi Germany has its Five-Year Plan, just like Soviet Union.

The Sentinel said...

I think it has been firmly established on this blog – many times over - that the Nazis implemented some socialist polices, even during the height of the war, and that some of these polices still survive today in former occupied countries such as Holland, Czech Republic and Denmark.