Bhutto assassinated

· Shot twice, then bomb exploded
· Riots across country
· Fears over election

Declan Walsh in Karachi
Friday December 28, 2007
The Guardian

The assassination of Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto last night triggered violent convulsions across the country, casting grave doubts on elections scheduled for January 8 as well as marking a dark finale to a tragedy-strewn life.

Angry scenes were replicated in cities across Pakistan, where enraged supporters rioted in the streets, burned trains and businesses, and attacked policemen. Gunfire rang out on the streets of Karachi, the port city where Bhutto spent much of her life.

Article continues

---

---

Two months after her triumphant return from exile, a lone gunman fired several shots at Bhutto as she left an election rally in Rawalpindi, hitting her in the neck and chest. Seconds later a fireball caused by a suicide bomb engulfed her vehicle and killed at least 20 supporters.

The former prime minister was rushed to a nearby hospital where distraught supporters burst through doors, smashed windows and tried to storm into the operating theatre where surgeons struggled to save her life. She was proclaimed dead shortly afterwards.

Initial suspicions for the attack fell on the Islamist militants who had previously threatened to kill the 54-year-old scion of Pakistan's greatest political dynasty. In October Bhutto survived a massive suicide attack on her homecoming parade in Karachi that killed 140 people.

But angry accusations were also flung at fundamentalist sympathisers within Pakistan's military apparatus, who Bhutto had earlier claimed wanted to see her dead.

The assassination is the climax of an extraordinary series of crises to have rocked Pakistan over the past nine months as President Pervez Musharraf sought to consolidate his grip on power.

The last comparable convulsion was the war that led to the secession of East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, in 1971.

In a brief televised address Musharraf declared three days of mourning. "This is the work of those terrorists with whom we are engaged in war," he said. "We will not rest until we eliminate these terrorists and root them out."

The ramifications are likely to be immediate and grave. Analysts said Musharraf may seize on the turmoil to postpone the January polls and possibly reimpose the emergency rule he established on November 3 but lifted shortly before Christmas.

The UN security council called an emergency meeting to discuss the situation in the nuclear-armed country, which has seen sieges, suicide bombings, high political drama and a worrying surge in Islamist violence over the past 12 months.

Alarmed western leaders mixed condemnation and tributes with calls for restraint and a continuation of Pakistan's fragile political process. Gordon Brown hailed Bhutto as "a woman of immense personal courage and bravery".

The prime minister said: "She risked everything in her attempt to win democracy in Pakistan. Benazir Bhutto may have been killed by terrorists, but the terrorists must not be allowed to kill democracy in Pakistan."

A sombre President George Bush, speaking near his ranch in Crawford, Texas, condemned the killing as a "cowardly act by murderous extremists who are trying to undermine Pakistan's democracy". He called on Pakistanis to "honour Benazir Bhutto's memory by continuing with the democratic process".

The Indian prime minister, Manmohan Singh, said the subcontinent had "lost an outstanding leader". The Italian premier, Romano Prodi, called her "a woman who chose to fight her battle until the end".

Bhutto's violent death echoed that of her father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, a prime minister deposed by a military dictator in 1977 and hanged two years later. Her two brothers were killed in murky circumstances in the following years.

Bhutto was attacked as she left Liaqat Bagh, a public park in Rawalpindi where she addressed thousands of supporters at an election rally yesterday afternoon.

Officials said she was driving out of the park, standing inside her bulletproof vehicle and waving to supporters, with the top half of her body protruding from the sunroof, when the killer struck.

Several gunshots rang out and Bhutto crumpled into the jeep. Seconds later a huge blast rocked the vehicle, showering it with shrapnel. Rescuers found Bhutto lying in pool of blood on the back seat.

Senior party official Amin Fahim, who had been sitting beside her, said he heard "between three and five shots". Sherry Rehman, who was travelling in the vehicle behind, said: "She fell back into the vehicle and everything was splattered with blood. I don't even know if she made it alive to the hospital."

Some said Bhutto had been shot before the blast. Amir Qureshi, a bodyguard from Bhutto's youth wing who had been jogging alongside her car, said he heard two volleys of gunshots.

She was shot first in the neck, then in the head, he said, speaking to the Guardian from his hospital bed, where he was being treated for leg wounds. "This is a black day not only for Pakistan but also the rest of the world," he said.

There were chaotic scenes of anger and grief at the Rawalpindi hospital where an unconscious Bhutto received emergency treatment. Thousands of supporters crushed through glass doors; some tried to break into the operating room. Outside some men wept and crumpled to the ground, others yelled "Musharraf is a murderer" or "Long Live Bhutto".

Opposition leader Nawaz Sharif, also recently returned from exile, rushed to the hospital where he sat by Bhutto's body. "Benazir Bhutto was also my sister, and I will be with you to take the revenge for her death," he said later, his eyes at times filling with tears. "Don't feel alone. I am with you. We will take the revenge on the rulers."

Earlier, a Sharif rally in Rawalpindi had come under fire from a gunman, who killed at least four people and wounded several more. Musharraf's PML-Q party denied accusations that its supporters were responsible. Sharif told the BBC: "I think perhaps none of us is inclined to take up the elections. We'll have to sit down and take a very serious look at the current situation."

The killing of Bhutto pushes Pakistan into uncharted waters, calling into question Musharraf's ability to rein in the Islamist militants who threaten to upend the country's uncertain stability.

Late last night Bhutto's body was moved to Chakala airbase, where it was due to be flown to her home province of Sindh; the governor there announced three days of mourning. In the coming days Bhutto will be buried near her ancestral home in Larkana, inside a huge mausoleum built in recent years to house her father and two brothers, the other ghosts of Pakistan's most cursed political dynasty.

Fatal hours

· Bhutto meets with visiting Afghan president Hamid Karzai at the end of his two-day visit

· Riot police man security checkpoints in Rawalpindi. Hundreds of people forced to pass through metal detectors and undergo body searches before entering the park where the Bhutto rally is to be held

· Bhutto arrives at park, leaves the podium and gets into her car

· She waves to supporters through the sunroof as the car makes its way through the crowds

· Two gunshots heard and Bhutto disappears into the car. She is shot in the head and neck

· Suicide bomber explodes a device, killing at least 20 other people

· Bhutto undergoes emergency operation at Rawalpindi general hospital

· Declared dead at 6.16pm local time

Additional reporting by Waqar Kiani

Tax babies 'to save planet'

By Tamara McLean

December 10, 2007 04:52pm

Article from: AAP

COUPLES who have more than two children should be charged a lifelong tax to offset their extra offspring's carbon dioxide emissions, a medical expert says.

The report in an Australian medical journal called for parents to be charged $5000 a head for every child after their second, and an annual tax of up to $800.

And couples who were sterilised would be eligible for carbon credits under the controversial proposal.

Perth specialist Professor Barry Walters was heavily critical of the $4000 baby bonus, saying that paying new parents extra for every baby fuelled more children, more emissions and "greenhouse-unfriendly behaviour".

Instead, it should be replaced with a "baby levy" in the form of a carbon tax in line with the "polluter pays" principle, he wrote in the latest Medical Journal of Australia.

"Every family choosing to have more than a defined number of children should be charged a carbon tax that would fund the planting of enough trees to offset the carbon cost generated by a new human being," said Prof Walters, an obstetrician at King Edward Memorial Hospital.

Sustainable Population Australia suggested a maximum of two, he said.

By the same reasoning, contraceptives like diaphragms and condoms, as well as sterilisation procedures, should attract carbon credits, the specialist said.

"As doctors, I believe we need to think this way," he wrote in a letter to the journal.

"As Australians I believe we need to be less arrogant.

"As citizens of the world, I believe we deserve no more population concessions than those in India or China."

Garry Eggers, director of the NSW Centre for Health Promotion and Research, agreed with the call, saying former treasurer Peter Costello's request for three children per family - "one for mum, one for dad and one for the country" - was too single-minded.

"Population remains crucial to all environmental considerations," wrote Professor Eggers, a leading advocate of the personal carbon trading debate.

"The debate (around population control) needs to be reopened as part of a second ecological revolution."

Family groups rejected the calls, saying larger families used less energy than smaller ones and should not be penalised.

Railroading A Journalist In Iraq

Railroading A Journalist In Iraq

By Tom Curley
Saturday, November 24, 2007; A17

At long last, prize-winning Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein may get his day in court. The trouble is, justice won't be blind in this case -- his lawyer will be.

Bilal has been imprisoned by the U.S. military in Iraq since he was picked up April 12, 2006, in Ramadi, a violent town in a turbulent province where few Western journalists dared go. The military claimed then that he had suspicious links to insurgents. This week, Editor & Publisher magazine reported the military has amended that to say he is, in fact, a "terrorist" who had "infiltrated the AP."

We believe Bilal's crime was taking photographs the U.S. government did not want its citizens to see. That he was part of a team of AP photographers who had just won a Pulitzer Prize for work in Iraq may have made Bilal even more of a marked man.

In the 19 months since he was picked up, Bilal has not been charged with any crime, although the military has sent out a flurry of ever-changing claims. Every claim we've checked out has proved to be false, overblown or microscopic in significance. Now, suddenly, the military plans to seek a criminal case against Bilal in the Iraqi court system in just days. But the military won't tell us what the charges are, what evidence it will be submitting or even when the hearing will be held.

Not that former federal prosecutor Paul Gardephe, Bilal's attorney, hasn't asked. The conversation went pretty much like this:

When will the court hold its first hearing? Sorry, can't tell you, except it will be on or after Nov. 29. Since we're trying to be cooperative, we will let you know the exact date at 6:30 a.m. the day of the hearing, if you're in Baghdad by then.

What will Bilal be charged with? Sorry, can't tell you. The Iraqi judge who hears the evidence is the one who decides what charges will be filed.

What evidence will the judge be basing that decision on? Sorry, can't tell you. In the Iraqi court system, we don't have to show our specific evidence until after we file the complaint with the court.

Will Bilal be allowed to present evidence refuting your evidence that we can't see in advance? We don't know. He might be. Ask an Iraqi lawyer if you don't know how this works.

It's almost like a bad detective novel: Go to the phone booth at Third and Jones at 6:30 in the morning and wait for a call for further instructions. How is Gardephe to defend Bilal? This affair makes a mockery of the democratic principles of justice and the rule of law that the United States says it is trying to help Iraq establish.

A year ago, our going to trial would have been good news. But today, the military authorities who created the case against Bilal have largely been rotated out of Iraq. Witnesses and evidence that Bilal may need would also be much harder to find, even if there were time to track them down. Further, if Bilal wins, he could still lose: The military has told us that even if the Iraqi courts acquit Bilal, it has the right to detain him if it still thinks he is an imminent security threat.

Meanwhile, Gardephe has learned that his client was subjected to interrogation just a few weeks ago, more than 16 months since he was last interrogated, presumably to obtain evidence to use against him in the upcoming trial. The interrogation violates Bilal's right to counsel in Iraq, as it would in the United States.

Gardephe's efforts to find out more about his client and the upcoming hearing in Baghdad have been equally fruitless. The only military people talking to him are press officers.

The Iraqi legal system traces its roots to the dawn of human civilization, and we are confident that it will do its best with this troubled case. But it takes nothing away from the competence and impartiality of Iraq's judiciary to protest what is about to happen to Bilal Hussein.

After months of stony silence, except for leaks of unsupported and self-serving allegations to friendly media outlets, military authorities are railroading Bilal's case before a judge in circumstances designed to put Bilal and his lawyers at an extreme disadvantage.

Perhaps it is not surprising that the operators of the world's largest prison-camp network have found a way to provide access to due process in a form that actually looks more unjust than indefinite imprisonment without charges.

But this is a poor example -- and not the first of its kind -- of the way our government honors the democratic principles and values it says it wants to share with the Iraqi people.

The writer is president and chief executive of the Associated Press.

Dangerous Times for Africa

Dangerous Times for Africa 16 Nov 16, 2007 - 7:39:18 AM

By Akwe Amosu

Africa is seeing higher levels of growth than for decades – commodity prices have been soaring and new investor dollars are looking for opportunities on the continent. Business is booming. But from the point of view of advocates for such public goods as the rule of law and better governance this is also a time of great danger.

Africa’s strategic zones and assets are targets for increasingly intense competition. Newly emergent powers are pursuing objectives that cut across those of established global hegemons – the United States in particular. Foreign competitors are vying for the favor of the continent’s most repressive regimes to win access to petroleum and other strategic minerals. Governance in these resource-rich countries is mostly incapable of monitoring or managing the resulting inflow of rents as oil prices near $100 per barrel. The global climate crisis threatens to make African agricultural land as intensely coveted by outside interests as the oil.

At the same time, the United States and its allies are pursuing a highly ideological project in the “Global War on Terror” that is widely perceived as hostile to adherents of one of Africa’s major religions and that seems to undermine past commitments to international standards and norms in areas such as sovereignty, the rule of law, and torture. A creeping “securitization” of U.S. relationships and engagements in Africa is tending to consolidate Africa’s authoritarian and autocratic forces.

Rivalry for oil and strategic advantage in counter-terrorism is dominating U.S. policy towards Africa. But the continent is not merely a string of oil-wells or a breeding ground for terrorists. Its peoples need better governance, transparency and accountability –effective government and services, accountable politicians, effective justice, freedom of expression and association, and the protection of minorities and human rights. A vital test of U.S. policy is whether it helps or hinders the promotion of these values, not only in the interest of Africans but, in the long run, of Americans too. And in many places, policy is currently failing that test.

Africa’s “spring thaw” in the 1990s – a window of possibility

The last time Africa was the site of such intense external interest was during the Cold War. The superpower contest froze and deferred political development in Africa, entrenching autocracy. It was an era of military coups; stage-managed, stagnant politics; and personality-led regimes propped up for decades by outside sponsors. But in the early 1990s, there was a thaw. As the world’s two superpowers lost interest in controlling African allegiances, their local clients lost their power to maintain control over the political terrain. What followed has come to be seen as a “wave of democracy” sweeping the continent, starting in francophone Africa with the 1991 landmark election in Benin. Twenty-six countries held presidential elections in the next three years. The end of apartheid in South Africa in the same era removed the last and most entrenched bastion of repression Although the degree of political transformation in the 1990s varied from country to country in its intensity and longevity – and while new regimes sometimes turned out to be old wine in new bottles – the change on the continent has been lasting. Military coups have become extremely rare, and there has been an indisputable increase in the number of functioning democracies.

From the human rights perspective, a critical dividend of the thaw was the birth and growth of civil society, the non-governmental actors and groupings that are essential to the functioning of open societies. Previously constrained by censorship and repression, citizen activists, business-people, lawyers, and other professionals began to come out into the open to organize and to set about improving the lives of their fellow citizens. Under their pressure, governments reformed laws and governance, improving environmental quality and working conditions and reducing corruption. The emergence of civil society had a galvanizing effect on African society and vastly improved the responsiveness of governments around the region to the needs of their people. It was civil society pressure that led to the revamping and expansion of pan-African institutions and the setting of accountability standards through the African Peer Review Mechanism of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development. This history indicates, among other things, that African states and populations can move forward when they are given space by outside actors to do so.

Yet after only a few short years, and particularly since September 2001, many of these gains are at risk. External states have begun once again to view Africa as a “SWOT” chart – a chessboard of strong and weak players, of opportunities and threats – rather than as a continent of states and peoples with their own sovereign objectives. This time around, however, the competitors have multiplied. The United States and Europe face challenges in Africa not from one alternative hegemon but from a number of emergent powers such as China, India, Brazil, and Russia. And just as during the Cold War, some autocratic elites are winning support from foreign powers anxious to secure guaranteed access in an unpredictable continent. Another difference is that African elites and regimes are themselves players in a way the newly independent governments of the Cold War years were not. The political class now has forty to fifty years of experience in the exercise of power, and has accumulated assets, skills, and leverage. It can no longer be assumed that the outside powers have the upper hand.

US policy - stated versus actual

Stated U.S. policy is supportive of human rights and more open societies in Africa. According to the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, the intention is to strengthen and where necessary defend good governance and associated transparent and accountable institutions under the rule of law, free and fair election processes, and robust civil society and independent media. The introduction of a Human Rights Defenders Fundten guidelines in support of African NGOs were important additions to this policy framework and toolset. and

In some key instances, the United States has played a role consistent with those policy objectives. The U.S. investment in the peace processes in Southern Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo immediately come to mind, as does the solid support given to post-conflict Liberia and Sierra Leone. The U.S. government has also taken a vocal stand on the crisis in Zimbabwe, winning praise from Zimbabwe civil society leaders. Significant funds have been made available to NGOs in many countries promoting free and fair elections, inclusive policies and more effective justice. Development assistance for education and health has also grown greatly during the Bush administration, and the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) is a major achievement, albeit one accompanied by pressure to conform to the ideological preferences of the President’s political base .

The United States has also shown a commitment to developing a relationship with the African Union(AU) with the appointment of an Ambassador on pan-African issues in Addis Ababa. The AU and the sub-regional organizations such as ECOWAS, SADC, and others, are crucial to making progress on governance and development. While they do not always go as far as some would like, or act with enough conviction – and while implementation is not always as skilled or as bold as necessary – much has been and is being achieved.

But where and when the United States sees itself as being in competition with other powers, or is pursing military and strategic objectives, its praiseworthy objectives with respect to democracy and human rights take a back seat.

The competition for oil. The U.S. government is frank about the importance it assigns to oil supplies, and particularly to the need to diversify towards sources outside the Middle East. The Gulf of Guinea off West Africa is a critically important alternative source, and one from which the United States intends to obtain some twenty-five percent of its petroleum needs by 2020. That imperative has acquired a sharper edge recently in light of China’s intense interest in the same zone for the same reason. (See the author’s “China in Africa: It’s (Still) the Governance, Stupid,” Foreign Policy in Focus, March 9, 2007.)

But the need to secure oil supplies from Africa causes Washington to avoid criticizing or even acknowledging governance deficits and repression. Equatorial Guinea has long been associated with some of the worst governance abuses in Africa, so notorious that the United States had cause in the 1990s to close its embassy there. A Senate inquiry in 2004 into the role of Riggs Bank in providing financial services to Equatorial Guinea’s ruling Obiang family revealed graft of striking proportions, and this graft continues. The State Department’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices complains that the government of President Teodoro Obiang has both committed and condoned serious abuses, including: “abridgement of citizens’ right to change their government; torture, beating, and other physical abuse of prisoners and detainees by security forces….”

In short, human rights conditions in Equatorial Guinea are probably worse than those in Zimbabwe, which Washington has repeatedly and trenchantly criticized. Yet on April 12, 2006, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice posed for photographers with President Obiang in Washington telling him “You are a good friend and we welcome you.” He responded, “We have extremely good relations with the United States. Our country has had good relations with the United States for a very long time and my visit here is simply in order to consolidate and also to establish further ties of cooperation with your country”

A similar point can be made about Nigeria, also a major oil supplier, although a much better performer in terms of governance than Equatorial Guinea. Clear departures from democratic norms and standards intensified as the two-term regime of President Olusegun Obasanjo drew to a close. But it seems obvious that Washington pulled its punches in responding to the abuses. The open manipulation, violence, and impunity in the 2007 Nigerian election drew only mild criticism. The (s)election of President Umaru Yar’Adua had barely been announced before he was invited to attend the G8 summit in Germany. Although the State Department has promised to engage vigorously with the Nigerian government to help it improve the quality of its elections in the future, the past record undermines the credibility of the pledge. And it is the same elsewhere – witness a similar near-silence with regard to Angola’s multiple delays in registering voters or setting an election date.

Fighting the Global War on Terror. In response to the September 2001 attack, the Bush administration has declared a “long war” against the terrorists, in which diplomacy and exceptional security imperatives must somehow co-exist. The results are contradictory. In Africa, prosecution of the war on terror is fueling the use of inter- and intra-state violence to solve disputes, undermining sovereignty, eroding the rule of law and due process, and giving comfort to authoritarian regimes. It may also be creating enemies for the United States where they did not previously exist.

These problems are perhaps best illustrated in Somalia, where the United States has relied on simplistic ideological constructs such as “moderate Muslims” versus “fundamentalists” or “extremists” to guide policy. The conviction that the Islamic Courts Union, which had established a measure of stability in Somalia, had become merely a front for terrorist elements and ambitions, led the United States to give tacit support to an invasion by Ethiopia – a regionally inflammatory move given the history of Somali grievance towards Addis Ababa. The invasion dismantled and scattered the only signs of political reconstruction seen in many years and almost certainly has further polarized the population. (See Matt Bryden’s essay, “Washington’s Self-Defeating Somalia Policy,” at the CSIS Online Africa Policy Forum.) Whether an effective blow has been struck against terrorism cannot be assessed by most of us; but Muslim indignation has surged across the Horn in the face of serious abuses of human rights and the rule of law, including the secret rendition of suspects from Kenya and Somalia to Ethiopia.

Meanwhile, countries such as Ethiopia that align with the “long war” agenda receive financial and military support while Washington refrains from criticizing governance problems and human rights abuses – or waters down its complaints. This sends just the wrong message to other autocratic governments, and at the same discredits democratic U.S. allies elsewhere, who come under pressure from domestic critics to disassociate themselves from the actions of the American government.

Viewing Africa through the security lens. The competition with China and other states for access to oil and the waging of the War on Terror are fuelling a third policy impulse that has been coming into focus in Washington during the past year – the “securitization” of Africa policy. This is most easily perceived in the creation of AFRICOM, the new Department of Defense (DOD) combatant command that will become fully operational in October 2008. There are good practical and bureaucratic reasons for creating a unified command for a region formerly divided among three commands, but there is a feeling among concerned observers that something more than streamlining is being attempted.

The Pentagon offers reassurance by insisting that AFRICOM will pursue an integrated policy toward Africa by including civilians from the State Dept and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in its operations. AFRICOM, according to DOD, will not only address security issues and military cooperation, but also help to establish human security and social stability, build investor confidence, and promote development. What is not explained is why the coordination and execution of such non-military objectives should take place through a military command when more appropriate civilian agencies exist to convene and coordinate such a diverse range of policy interventions. For some, the problem is not that AFRICOM has such plans, but that the State Department and USAID are under-resourced to do their part. Whatever the cause, AFRICOM is to command the largest financial and personnel resources of any U.S. government agency focused on Africa, including the State Department and USAID. The concern must be that U.S. security interests will come to be “mainstreamed” in all U.S. Africa policy as a result. (See comment by Stewart Patrick at the Center for Global Development.)

Restoring credibility to U.S. policy

The United States needs to take the long view in its dealings with Africa, rather than allowing short term energy and security anxieties to take precedence. U.S. economic and security interests in Africa can best be realized if African political economies can become more functional, more efficient, and more stable. The challenge is essentially one of governance. Democratic or quasi-democratic systems mostly function better across a range of indicators than autocracies and authoritarian governments. A country with effective political institutions, business and financial systems that work, a functioning civil society, and a free press, is more likely to achieve balanced and sustained economic growth than one with a repressive regime and associated incipient conflict. It is more likely to become a reliable trading partner with a self-confident electorate that is resistant being hijacked by sectarian interests.

The post-cold war decade shows that African efforts to address their problems deserve buttressing. U.S. assistance should seek to reinforce and strengthen indigenous efforts, rather than to impose externally-originated solutions – or worse, policies designed primarily to serve U.S. interests rather than advance local initiatives. Above all, the United States should make a special commitment to supporting African countries and African institutions that seek to implement reforms and set their own high standards for democracy and governance through programs such as the African Peer Review Mechanism. That means strengthening and extending programs such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) that offer benefits for those countries that want to free up their economies and political environments. The MCA program should be expanded and should not have to struggle for funds as it currently does.

Unfortunately, the United States has suffered a serious loss of political capital in recent years, partly because its pro-democracy rhetoric is so often undermined by its pursuit of other objectives. There is a need for Washington to speak out more firmly on poor practice wherever it is found, even when its allies are guilty. Much could be done to repair the damage to the reputation of the United States in Africa if it would get behind some clear and principled positions on democracy, governance, and global public goods (such as international efforts to address the impact of climate change), and stick to them. But for that to be taken seriously, civilian experts in diplomacy and development rather than the military must drive U.S. relations with Africa.

_________________________________________________________________

Akwe Amosu is Senior Policy Analyst for Africa at the Washington Office of the Open Society Policy Center. This essay is drawn from her remarks at the 50th Anniversary Meeting of the African Studies Association, held recently in New York.

Bhutto says Musharraf must quit ... like we didn't see that coming.

Musharraf fell into the trap of the west, doing as they asked by clamping down on militant
Muslims, attacking the red mosque and by doing so marginalizing himself with both sides of his
country, allowing an American owned bystander, Miss Bhutto to come in and pressure the county already destabilized and cause unrest. Yup, the fool. Now trying to ensure she, Miss Bhutto that is does not continue to cause unrest, and riots and even the downfall of the current government, he has done what the west predicted again. Arrested Bhutto, now he has way out, he looks like the bad guy other then to those who understand why these moves where made. Read now how the Western print press and more throws this out into the minds of the masses.


Bhutto says Musharraf must quit

Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:28 PM EST143

By Simon Gardner, Reuters

LAHORE, Pakistan (Reuters) - Held under house arrest behind barbed wire, Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto called on Tuesday for military leader Pervez Musharraf to quit as president, isolating him in the run-up to a general election.

Britain stepped up international pressure on Musharraf, who imposed emergency rule on November 3 in a move seen aimed at helping him cling to power, backing a 10-day Commonwealth ultimatum for him to end the emergency and quit as army chief.

Bhutto has long called for Musharraf to step down as army chief and become a civilian president but it was the first time she had called for him to quit as president altogether -- a move that could sound the death knell for U.S. hopes that the pair would end up sharing power.

She also said she would not serve as prime minister under him, and that her party might boycott the general election Musharraf has promised to hold by January 9.

"It is time for him to go. He must quit as president," Bhutto, who spent months trying to negotiate a power-sharing deal with Musharraf, told Reuters by telephone as police bundled clusters of her protesting supporters into vans.

Bhutto was put under house arrest for a week in the city of Lahore, and a motorcade to Islamabad that she planned to lead to protest against emergency rule was stifled as 20,000 police sealed the area. Her party said 1,500 activists had been held.

CRITICISM

Musharraf set off a storm of criticism when he imposed the emergency, suspended the constitution, sacked judges, locked up lawyers, rounded up thousands of activists and curbed the media.

The crisis has raised fears about stability in the nuclear-armed U.S. ally, and concern about its ability to focus on battling growing Islamist militancy.

Unidentified gunmen opened fire on two police stations in Karachi while Bhutto's supporters were protesting against her detention but no one was hurt. In Peshawar, police used teargas and batons to disperse protesters.

Musharraf told the New York Times that Bhutto was being confined because she had accused the chief minister of Punjab province, Chaudhry Pervez Elahi, of plotting against her, and to prevent an incident that she could then blame on the government.

Pakistani shares ended slightly down in thin trade as nervous investors waited on the sidelines, dealers said.

Bhutto said Musharraf appeared "out of his depth" and had "lost all credibility." "I will not serve as prime minister as long as Musharraf is president," she said.

"Negotiations between us have broken down over the massive use of police force ... There's no question now of getting this back on track because anyone who is associated with General Musharraf gets contaminated."

A spokesman for Musharraf, who took power in a 1999 coup and whom the U.S. has backed as a valuable ally in the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban, declined to comment.

The general has seen his popularity slide since he tried to sack the chief justice in March, sparking protests by outraged lawyers who also took their campaign on the road with processions to Lahore and other towns across the country.

Bhutto was dogged by accusations of corruption during her two terms as prime minister, but her party is Pakistan's biggest and has the capacity to mobilize huge crowds.

PRESSURE

Musharraf has come under growing pressure from Western allies to set Pakistan back on a path to democracy. He has declined to say when the constitution will be restored, and said the emergency will ensure a fair vote.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and U.S. President George W. Bush both urged Musharraf on Monday to lift the emergency.

The Commonwealth said it would suspend Pakistan unless he ended emergency rule and quit the army by November 22, a call endorsed by British Foreign Secretary David Miliband.

Pakistan was expelled by the Commonwealth after Musharraf's coup, but let back in 2004. Its Foreign Ministry said the ultimatum reflected ignorance of the realities and challenges facing the state.

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, who last week warned against cutting aid to an "indispensable" security ally, is due in Pakistan later this week.

Musharraf has justified the emergency by saying a meddling judiciary was hampering the battle against militants. Diplomats say he wanted to stop the Supreme Court from declaring invalid his election by loyalist legislators on October 6.

Musharraf has said he will step down as army chief and become a civilian president as soon as the court, where new judges seen as friendly to the government have been appointed, rules on challenges to his election.

(Additional reporting by Kamran Haider in Lahore, Imtiaz Shah in Karachi and Kate Kelland in London; Writing by Robert Birsel; Editing by Kevin Liffey)

How news plays with your mind, trains you to think there way !!!

There is a battle for the grey matter between your ears, and well the battle is easy to win when you only get to hear one side, if you know what I mean. Right now the powers that be want to have a goverment change in Pakistan, as I stated below I think they want a US/Western power ally in place before they attack Iran to stop any Muslim leader from supporting Iran. So what do you do? You start a media blitz to ensure that the minds of YOUR people and the world are in tow with what you want. It would take an essay to relate everything that needs to be said, so let me point out quickly how the news messes with you.

Case and point, the right to protest. Here in North America we are told how we have rights to protest against the government and other political bodies. But the Government makes sure we behave, keeps us herded into little areas nowadays and arrests those it feels are making trouble [, or more likely speaking the truth]. Hell, a month or so ago Montreal Police placed Narcs inside a protest crowd to start riots so they could make them look bad and arrest people. So here our benevolent style government finds new ways the NEWS can play down their heavy handed tactics all the time, with police in Millitary garb and full out SWAT gear for every kind of protest. Lines drawn where and where not you can go, whom and what you can photograph and more, and when the news gets it.... it's all in the name of NATIONAL or PROVINICAL security. To protect the leaders and blah blah blah. So what happens when a standing goverment wants to make sure protests do not get out of hand .... this :

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Nov. 9 — In a huge show of force, the Pakistani government stopped a protest rally by the opposition leader, Benazir Bhutto, before it started today, blanketing the rally site with thousands of police, blocking roads to stop demonstrators, and barricading Ms. Bhutto inside her residence in Islamabad.
In Rawalpindi, the garrison town close to Islamabad, the capital, where the rally was due to take place, double lines of police and police vans prevented most of the thousands of demonstrators from entering the city to protest against the emergency rule declared by the president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, six days ago. Thousands of party workers had already been arrested over the past few days, party officials said.
At Ms. Bhutto’s residence, lines of police, barbed wire and concrete barricades made her a virtual hostage. Amid chaotic scenes, an attempt by Ms. Bhutto to leave in a white four-wheel drive car was thwarted by the police as they moved an armored personnel car and a police bus to block her way.
But late in the afternoon, in what appeared to be a carefully stage-managed move agreed with the government, Ms. Bhutto emerged from her house and made a speech that was broadcast on official Pakistani television.
Ms. Bhutto said she was "listening to the voice of my conscience" and appealed to the government to end the emergency rule.
In Rawalpindi, dump trucks blocked roads, preventing access to Liaquat Park, where the rally was due to be held, and shutting down the city center. By late afternoon, tensions between police and the small groups of protesters who had managed to enter the city started to mount, and there were some arrests and use of tear gas, but later the tensions more or less dissipated, and police began to leave the city.
As many as 5,000 party workers had been arrested across the country over the last three days, party officials said, and today any groups of people that formed on the street were immediately moved on by police.
The authorities said there were 8,500 police on the streets of Rawalpindi, and there were many more plain clothes officers and intelligence officials. Some demonstrators threw stones at the police and were hauled off in vans.
But the detention by police of Ms. Bhutto at her home appeared to prevent her party activists from organizing any major demonstration in Rawalpindi, and many said they were still waiting for orders to stage a major demonstration.
"As soon as she comes to Rawalpindi, we will go and break the barriers," said Shiaz Kayani, a Pakistan Peoples Party district president.
At Ms. Bhutto’s residence, some party workers said Ms. Bhutto was under house arrest, but the government said no official papers had been issued, and Ms. Bhutto’s chief political aide, Nadeem Khan, speaking to reporters outside the house, said detention orders had not arrived.
"She is not under house arrest," a superintendent of police, Aftab Nasir, told the official Pakistani press agency. "Only the security has been enhanced."
A government spokesman, Tariq Azim Khan, said this evening that a restraining order preventing Ms. Bhutto from leaving her house would probably be lifted tonight. He said Ms. Bhutto was not under house arrest. "Probably the restraining order will be removed tonight," Mr. Khan said. "It was try to get her not to lead the rally. There was credible information that she would be the target of an attack."
In mid-October, Ms. Bhutto’s homecoming procession in Karachi was attacked by a suicide bomber. Mr. Khan said she had not followed the government’s warnings. "Last time she wouldn’t listen, and that resulted in 140 deaths," Mr. Khan said.
In her speech in front of her house, Ms. Bhutto said that she had not spoken to General Musharraf and would not negotiate with him until emergency rule was ended and the Constitution revived. "I have been illegally stopped by barbed wired and blockades," she said. She said she still intended to go ahead with a long march through Punjab Province planned for early next week.
Police were arresting any Pakistan Peoples Party worker who showed up near Ms. Bhutto’s residence, and by early afternoon, at least 20 workers, including at least 6 females, had been arrested.
Workers shouted "Prime minister Benazir!" before being shoved into police buses and vans.
Aides to General Musharraf said that they hoped Ms. Bhutto would now cancel the demonstration because it was forbidden under the emergency rule.
They also said her own security was at stake. When she arrived back in Pakistan last month from self-imposed exile abroad, her motorcade through the streets of Karachi was attacked by a suicide bomber, killing more than a hundred people.
The rally that was scheduled today in Rawalpindi has assumed critical importance in the political machinations between Ms. Bhutto, who served twice as prime minister and wants to return to power, and General Musharraf.
Outwardly, the stand-off today appeared to deepen the confrontation between the two, making Ms. Bhutto an opponent of General Musharraf rather than a partner with him in the transition to democracy that she and her American sponsors who helped negotiate her return to Pakistan envisaged.
Behind the scenes, however, the strategies for both sides for the day were probably worked out in advance, analysts said, in order to give each side a face-saving way to avoid a potentially bloody clash on the streets.
The government arrested a large number of potential protesters before the rally, sealed the protest location, and cordoned off the area around it. Ms. Bhutto had already tried to leave her house earlier today to go to the protest, but her car was blocked when it tried to leave by the side entrance, her press aide, Sherry Rehman, told reporters.
At one point, Ms. Rehman said that Ms. Bhutto would be "leading the protest, but not joining it."
In another sign of what seemed like behind-the-scenes co-ordination between Ms. Bhutto and the authorities, Ms. Bhutto’s voice came over official Pakistani television at 4 p.m. this afternoon as she made a long speech setting out her demands. A still picture of her appeared on the screen while she spoke.
Ms. Bhutto has rejected the announcement that the president made on Thursday that parliamentary elections would be held by Feb. 15. She said his announcement was "vague" and it also fell short of her demands that he relinquish his role as head of the Army and end emergency rule.
But Ms. Bhutto and General Musharraf are described by Western diplomats as continuing to negotiate a power-sharing deal that was envisaged when she returned to Pakistan from self-imposed exile abroad last month.
"If the tensions persist, the negotiations might be in jeopardy," said Hasan Askari Rizvi, a political and military analyst in Lahore who also lectures at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University in the United States.
"The stage is set for a serious confrontation with massive arrests within a couple of days," Mr. Rizvi said. Adding to the government’s troubles, Mr. Rivzi, said was the pledge Thursday by Jamaat Islaami, a religious party, that it would stage large protests if General Musharraf did not step down as leader of the military by November 15.
Mr. Rizvi said there was no sign of General Musharraf renouncing his military role.
"If Musharraf can contain these protests for three days, fine," he said. "But if the protests spread to cities and persist for a week then Musharraf will have problems."

*****************

Why would the Government do this? Well Pakistan's leader Musharraf has vowed to hold elections, but miss Democracy says that is not good enough, basically she keeps pushing and pushing... asking for changes.
I'll admit there is nothing wrong with that, asking people to protest each day all the time when the other side yeilds on your issues is well just causing trouble. You can protest, but what do you protest for? She stop the protests, stop the unrest. But she won't. Now going and placing her under house arresst, house arrest !!! ???

Both sides are wrong here.

In her hurry to push for power, Bhutto the american whore seems willing to cause riots and provoke government reposonese when she knows fully well international pressure is doing her work for her. Elections will be held. General Musharraf on the other hand, is doing just what the powers that be want. Clamping down and opposing free speech and trying to stop Bhutto from siezing power in a democratic way, sleazy as it is. With CIA and American help. You see how this plays out?

***********

Back to the point at hand. When our government suppresses free speech and protests, well it is doing so to protect the public, the leaders and the process of goverment. When others like Musharraf do this, due to constant threats of protest and upheavel [,from opposing wannabe leaders in this case Bhutto] it's terrible and shows what kind of terrible autocratic state they live in. So next time you see your papers spewing out "for freedom and peace and free speech", these wars we currently fight. Ask yourself, why the hell then we cannot protest when and where we want, and when we do get stopped how come OUR leaders can say its for our own good, but other countries leaders do it and they are Dictators and enslavers. News, just another way of telling you to sit down, shutup and let them do the thinking for you.

FOX NEWS : Sick stuff.

What's good for the goose is certainly not good for the gander. American news is on Fox is so slanted it is sickening. And that is why so many Americans have no idea what to think. Just watch this sick video, and remember as you watch this, just place an Iranian or Iraqi in place and instead of Iran do say it's New York.




As someone else posted on the Youtube sight with this video :

SoyJameshow Hide Marked as spam

Yeah right "we just lost our satellite". Somebody smarter than all of them realized they shouldn't labeling America as a terrorist organization on live national television. Too late... Fox News you are now a terrorist. Off to GitMo with all of you. Waterboarding for all... Murdoch first.

Super-patriotism’s intercourse with the secret sect of power , By Gaither Stewart

Super-patriotism’s intercourse with the secret sect of power By Gaither Stewart Online Journal Contributing Writer Nov 7, 2007, 01:26

Email this article Printer friendly page

“Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious.” Oscar Wilde

The menace posed to society by distorted paranoid patriotism manifests itself in mysterious ways.

One of the most insidious characteristics of the super-patriot is the support he lends to the sect of Power. In our times, he melds intimately with Power, and is its vanguard. He joins in with its secret societies circulating invisibly in the community, and secretly influencing ordinary people who don’t suspect that the sects of Power and its enlisted agents are forever observing them and stalking them and evaluating them in order to determine if they measure up to the requirements of acceptable patriotism. But for Power the super-patriot is no more than a pawn.

Ordinary things, on ordinary days. Your exultant “patriotic” neighbor hangs out bigger and bigger Stars and Stripes. Your 4-year old son practices the Pledge of Allegiance for his kindergarten debut. On your way to work, every second car sports a “good ole USA” bumper sticker. Oh well, you think at first, just a few eccentrics. Then you meet the hecklers and the ugly faces surrounding the peace marchers and their shouts of “traitors” and “terrorists” and “al Qaeda lovers” and their patriotic “support our troops in Iraq.” And you see they are everywhere.

You might feel guilty. At least you feel different.

Then, overnight it seems, the new laws of the land to back up the charges are in place. Soon arrive the denunciations, the house searches, the eavesdropping, the controlled e-mails and cellphones, the No Fly lists, the 750,000 persons on the suspects lists, the arrests for abusing the flag or for loitering outside the White House or for carrying an antiwar placard.

And then come the reports of legalized torture and the desaparecidos of America.

And the tension spirals upwards.

Patriotism and patriotism

The USAPATRIOT Act, passed just 45 days after 9/11, suggests the necessity of taking a hard look at just what patriotism really is. Or at what people believe it is. Most certainly the name “PATRIOT Act” did not arrive arbitrarily, out of the air, out of nothing. In effect, the PATRIOT Act appears anti-patriotic, in line with the official newspeak.

It should be known that in reality the USAPATRIOT Act threatens fundamental freedoms at home and abroad. It gives the US federal government, actually the executive, the power to access your private life, to gather information about your friends and what books you read, to secretly search your home and to make arbitrary arrests. Abroad, it conducts and sanctions arbitrary and criminal activities, the black night flights of mysterious aircraft of the CIA and other agencies in the kidnapping, secret jailing in foreign lands and torturing of suspected “terrorists.”

Such powers are the essence of fascism.

In its first sense, the word Patriotism -- from the Latin patria for “fatherland” -- suggests the citizen’s love for and loyalty to his country. With varying degrees of intensity, most Americans consider themselves patriotic citizens. Patriotism has always been defined as love for one's country and marked by readiness to defend its perceived interests.

In France during the revolutionary era of 1789, patriots were the followers of “new ideas” in opposition to the aristocrats. The word then was synonymous with revolutionary. During upheavals in the Italian unification period of the 19th century the word patriot was applied to those who fought to overthrow foreign domination.

In pre-revolutionary America a patriot was defined by the colonial power as ‘a factious disturber of the government’ and ‘patriotism the last refuge of the scoundrel.’ Whether an act or an attitude is patriotic or seditious depends on the point of view.

Again today, reservations about the inherent virtue of patriotism are a theme of commentary. The Left’s mistrust of patriotism prompts the bitter accusation by disgruntled jingoists that ‘Patriotism has become a dirty word.’ Likewise in the American Revolutionary War, patriots were revolutionaries against the British crown.

America itself was born out of the dissent of patriots.

Since the Revolutionary War however the word patriotism has taken on narrow political implications and has been co-opted by right-wing causes and shied away from by the left wing. Today, as a result of neocon fascistic-imperialistic ideology combined with the events of 9/11, the label Patriot in its partisan sense has shifted even further to the right. Super-patriotism is now identified exclusively with the Right, and the competition as to who is the most patriotic American is intense.

The degeneration of the meaning and the essence of the word patriotism is doubtless one of the major social changes in America of the last seven years. In contemporary America, in a land where the flag is used as a weapon and the hate for everything not American is common, patriotism has finally morphed into vicious jingoism.

Just as yesterday in Nazi Germany, today’s co-opted patriotism does its part to keep fascists in power in America and simultaneously muzzles potential opposition.

It has become obvious that the ability to capture and apply the word Patriot has come to determine political power. The patriotism label remains an important criterion of what Power considers the “good” and the “positive” in today’s American public life.

In recent times, I have heard and read the Nazi-Fascist charge against the US government often but at this moment I don’t recall official denials. They don’t care. The support of the less than 30 percent share of the people -- the super-patriotic component -- suffices nicely to stay in power.

As Oscar Wilde warned, American patriotism today is a vicious affair, and, moreover, a danger to the world at large.

Meanwhile, paramilitary militia movements across the USA have also appropriated the word. They are not only filled with hate for everything foreign and/or intellectual -- making them partial allies of Power -- but equate Patriot with the firm conviction of white American supremacy. Paradoxically, sometimes in parts of the heartland it even reflects hatred for the federal government -- not for what it does, of course, but for what it does not do.

Patriotism and nationalism

Patriotism includes pride in the fatherland’s achievements and culture, the desire to preserve its character, its values and the bases of its culture. It also implies identification with other members of the nation. Patriotism requires that the individual place the interests of the nation above both his personal and group interests. In wartime, the sacrifice extends to the patriot’s own life. Death in battle for the fatherland is the archetypical extreme patriotism.

In day to day life, patriotism is expressed by those symbolic acts we know so well, such as displaying the flag, singing the national anthem on every possible occasion, reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, participating in mass rallies, putting a patriotic bumper sticker on your car, or any other public proclamation of allegiance to the state.

Thus patriotism is associated with nationalism and often used as a synonym for it. In fact, patriotism in the USA has many faces, ranging from Americanism, to super-patriotism and ultra-nationalism, to chauvinism and jingoism.

Patriotism has the advantage that it does not require a program of action; it alone suffices to stimulate nationalism, even if it itself is not always truly nationalistic. Strictly speaking, nationalism is an ideology that promotes patriotic attitudes as desirable and appropriate.

Patriotism too has salient ethical connotations: it implies that the fatherland is a moral standard or a moral value in itself. The expression my country right or wrong is the extreme form of this belief.

In this sense, patriotism remains forever a borderline affair, love for the homeland on one side, belief in its supremacy on the other. It is untrustworthy. Patriotism was, is and always will be not many steps behind jingoism. Sometimes it is even the respectable face of jingoism. One recalls that as a patriotic expression, nationalist political movements like Nazism and Fascism were viscerally negative toward other people's fatherlands just as the US government today is negative toward the world at large. No one knows the extent of official US antagonisms being cultivated and hatched in the dark cellars of Power.

Symbolic patriotism in wartime is intended to raise morale, in turn contributing to the war effort. This is the case in the USA today. The permanent war of the USA for over half a century is jingoism’s perfect creator and container. But then, afterwards, in peacetime, the super-patriot would be expected to continue his manifestations more or less by rote, criticizing and punishing those who don’t, and diligently searching for new exterior enemies to whom their colors can be shown tomorrow.

Iraq yesterday, Iran today.

Some demands made on patriotism are tactical, as in war, transitory and circumstantial. But that is not all. Not by a long shot. Patriots are encouraged to keep a sharp eye for expressions of non-patriotism and to label it un-American. This is where patriotism gets nasty. This again is fascistic. Denunciations by patriots were the basis of the system of control used by the Nazi Gestapo and in the post-war period by one of history’s most invasive secret police organizations, the STASI of former East Germany, both of which must have served as models for the US Department Homeland Security.

Patriotism and morality

In ethics, the basic implication of patriotism is that a person has greater moral duties to fellow patriots than to foreigners. In that sense, patriotism becomes selective in its acts of altruism. Criticism of patriotism in ethics is directed at this moral preference: that is, it borders on and easily morphs into racism.

On the other hand, the view that moral duties apply equally to all humans is known as cosmopolitanism, despised and abhorred by dictatorial regimes and by extreme nationalists. American super-patriots today, as in Nazi Germany, see cosmopolitanism as the opposite of patriotism and equate it with treason. The predictable result is that dissenters are considered traitors and peace movements anti-American.

While patriotism implies the preference for a specific community, universalistic beliefs on the other hand reject specific preferences in favor of a wider community. In the European Union today, some political thinkers advocate a European-wide patriotism coupled with a belief in the supremacy of European culture. The Roman Catholic Church promotes its brand of Catholic patriotism in its missionary message of the supremacy of Christianity over other beliefs. This is “new world order” thinking.

At the same time, traditional patriotism in Europe is again raising its head -- the old kind of patriotism-nationalism. This is a perplexing development because it is the patriotism that created the range of diverse cultures in Europe that enriched Western civilization but that also provoked centuries of nationalistic wars. Such patriotism refers to the ethnic state, especially in France, Great Britain and some East European nations. It coincides with and benefits from what is called Euroskepticism of those who place greater value on national traditions and a tighter ethnic national community.

Each ugly display of American patriotism abroad however reinforces an already negative view of America in the world at large where it is perceived as arrogant, bullying and imperialistic.

In ethics, supporters of patriotism regard it as a virtue. However, the problem with treating patriotism as an objective virtue is that patriotisms conflict. Iraqis, once they found an invader on their soil, rebelled. Iranians today feel patriotism and love for their ancient culture vis-à-vis threats from the USA. Soldiers of both sides in a war feel equally patriotic, creating an ethical paradox: If patriotism is a virtue, then the enemy is equally virtuous, so why try to kill him?

The philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre in his article "Is patriotism a virtue?" argues that modern politics has no place for patriotism anyway since there is no longer a real patria. For example, one begins to wonder where the United States of America ends: it is no longer confined to the coast-to-coast territory and its borders with Canada and Mexico. One speaks of a North American Union to incorporate the latter two, while the imperialist tentacles of America already reach around the world, with its military installations in over 100 countries.

In any case, though nationalism and jingoism exist in the USA, objectively there is less and less room for genuine healthy affection for the nation because of the absence of a common program or projects that the people can share with their rulers. That even 30 percent of Americans support the present government rings incomprehensible.

Incomprehensible, but true. For they are Power’s allies. The sect of Power and the secret societies standing behind it have at their disposal the super-patriots, Power’s spies and infiltrators. Power counts also on the acquiescence of countless numbers of unwitting semi-patriots in the wings. They are all allies, deceived by senseless propaganda and demagogy and repetition of slogans, or cowed by fear of punishment or loss of their material possessions.

In this technological era, those secret forces can determine our destiny, our failures to measure up, our exclusion from society and even our death. In their role, the super-patriots appear as a universe of the blind in the service of super-Power. Yet, although Power gleefully uses these super-patriot robots, it also despises them, as demonstrated by the fact that it does next to nothing for them, their most loyal citizens.

It is a paradox that the lower on the social-economic scale, among the poorest and most trampled on, the most neglected and abused, the more paranoid patriotic the patriots are.

How can the people intelligently or even emotionally share their government’s wars today? Can they share its aspirations for global power? Impossible! That appears as a serious miscalculation on the part of Power. The people cannot be part of Power’s projects for world supremacy. There simply exist and perhaps have always existed, in all times and in all places, secret aspirations for power in which normal people cannot share.

We like to think that as a man grows and matures in freedom he will come to find it unnecessary to appear as a pillar of whatever society he happens to live in, ever politically correct, ready to recite the Pledge of Allegiance on every occasion to prove he is a good citizen as he was forced to do as a child in school. And that he will understand that hanging out Old Glory does not make him patriotically superior to anyone.

As the difference between patriotism and jingoism becomes clear, the citizen might begin to wonder about the identity and intents of those obscure sects and the shadowy members of the secret societies gathered in their inaccessible conferences inside the dark caves and deep caverns and dank grottoes of Power. And in a brilliant burst of understanding, he will come to see the usurpers of power for the troglodytes they are.

Gaither Stewart is originally from Asheville, NC. After studies at the University of California at Berkeley and other American universities, he has lived his adult life abroad, in Germany and Italy, alternated with residences in The Netherlands, France, Mexico, Argentina and Russia. After a career in journalism as Italian correspondent for the Rotterdam newspaper, Algemeen Dagblad, and contributor to media in various European countries, he writes fiction full-time. His books, "Icy Current Compulsive Course, To Be A Stranger" and "Once In Berlin" are published by Wind River Press. His new novel, "Asheville," is published by www.Wastelandrunes.com He lives with his wife, Milena, in Rome, Italy. E-mail: gaither.stewart@yahoo.it.

Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor

The "Bhutto" snowjob affair, and what's really happening.

First read the following :


Bhutto Challenges Pakistan's President

Wednesday November 7, 2007 9:16 PM

By STEPHEN GRAHAM

Associated Press Writer

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - Supporters of Benazir Bhutto clashed with police in front of parliament Wednesday after she urged party activists into the streets to protest emergency rule, deepening the uncertainty engulfing a Pakistan already shaken by rising Islamic militancy.

Seeking to position herself as the only leader able to unite the country to confront Islamic extremism, the former prime minister toughened her rhetoric against President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, but she left open the possibility of resuming talks if he ends the crackdown.

President Bush, meanwhile, told the U.S.-allied general that Pakistan must go through with parliamentary elections that had been planned for January. Bush commented after a senior U.S. official called Musharraf an ``indispensable'' ally in the war against extremist groups.

Thousands of Pakistanis have been jailed or put under house arrest since Musharraf assumed emergency powers Saturday, and Bhutto called on her followers to show their defiance of the clampdown on civil liberties.

In an opening skirmish, some 400 loyalists of her Pakistan People's Party, the country's largest, marched up to riot police blocking their way to the parliament building, where lawmakers minutes earlier had rubber-stamped the emergency declaration.

Police fired tear gas over their heads and beat and arrested a few who broke through barricades topped with barbed-wire, including several women.

Naheed Khan, a close aide to Bhutto, waded into the brief melee. She whacked a policeman on the shoulder and screamed: ``Who are you? How dare you take action against women?''

The demonstrators pulled back through the choking gas, chanting ``Benazir! Benazir!'' and ``Down with the emergency!''

Musharraf, who has been promising to restore democracy since seizing power in a 1999 coup, has ousted independent-minded judges, put a stranglehold on the media and granted sweeping powers to authorities to crush dissent since declaring emergency rule.

The general says he suspended the constitution because the courts were hampering his efforts against extremist groups, such as by ordering the release of suspects held without charge. Political opponents, however, contend the crackdown is really meant to protect Musharraf's hold on power.

Three days of protests by lawyers - angered by the attacks on the judiciary - were quickly put down. Police in the southern city of Karachi were trying to arrest eight lawyers on treason charges for distributing anti-Musharraf leaflets. Conviction could bring death sentences.

Bhutto's decision to join in protests added a new dimension to worsening political instability that has seen anger at military rule spread and Islamic militants allied with the Taliban and al-Qaida strengthen their hold on areas along the border with Afghanistan.

With the encouragement of the United States, Musharraf had been negotiating with Bhutto on forming an anti-militant political alliance and sharing power after parliamentary elections.

The talks yielded an amnesty that dropped corruption charges against Bhutto, paving the way for her return last month following eight years in self-imposed exile. Her jubilant Oct. 18 homecoming was shattered by a suicide bombing that killed more than 140 people.

But with the elections on hold, Bhutto has pulled back from negotiations, and she urged her supporters to defy Musharraf's ban on demonstrations by marching on parliament and attending a mass rally called for the nearby city of Rawalpindi on Friday.

Bhutto urged her supporters to try to reach Rawalpindi ``at all costs.'' She said it was important to stand against Musharraf, saying his authoritarian ways have fueled extremism and destabilized the country of 160 million people.

``We are talking about the future of Pakistan as a modern nation,'' she said at a news conference. ``We are talking about its impact on the region - if a nuclear-armed country like Pakistan implodes.''

Rawalpindi's mayor said police would be out in force to prevent anyone reaching the park where Bhutto hoped to address supporters Friday.

``We will ensure that they don't violate the ban on rallies, and if they do it, the government will take action according to the law,'' Mayor Javed Akhlas told The Associated Press.

Akhlas said there was a ``strong threat'' of another suicide attack against Bhutto.

Bhutto said she would take the risk, and renewed her charge that elements in the government and security forces were in cahoots with Islamic extremists trying to kill her. Militants were widely blamed for last month's failed attempt on her life.

She said religious militants feared her as ``the only leader in Pakistan who has a national base who can confront them. They are quite happy with anybody else.'' She didn't elaborate.

Saying more than 400 members of her party were arrested Wednesday, Bhutto said she had not negotiated with Musharraf since he resorted to strong-arm tactics over the weekend. But she said talks could resume if he yielded to growing domestic and international pressure to end emergency rule.

``If Gen. Musharraf wants to kick start the negotiations for a peaceful transition, then he must revive the constitution, retire as chief of the army staff by Nov. 15 and hold the election as scheduled,'' Bhutto said.

She said her party would stage a ``long march'' over the 200 miles from Lahore to Islamabad on Tuesday unless Musharraf agreed to her conditions.

The United States and other foreign donors to Pakistan are pressing for the elections to be held on time and for an end to the emergency decree. They are also urging Musharraf to keep a promise to quit his powerful army post.

Pakistani ministers have suggested the election could be postponed for up to a year. However, the head of the ruling party expressed optimism Wednesday that the vote could be held as scheduled.

The American president said he had ``a very frank discussion'' with Musharraf on Wednesday insisting on the need for elections and for the leader to give up his army command.

``My message was that we believe strongly in elections, and that you ought to have elections soon, and you need to take off your uniform,'' Bush said.

Despite its criticism of Musharraf's crackdown, the U.S. government's public comments have been mild, reflecting concerns about angering a key ally in confronting Islamic extremists in South Asia.

Before Bush spoke to reporters, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte repeated U.S. criticism of Musharraf's crackdown, but described the Pakistani leader as a key ally.

Musharraf ``has been indispensable in the global war on terror, so indispensable that extremists and radicals have tried to assassinate him multiple times,'' Negroponte said. ``The bottom line is, there's no question that we Americans have a stake in Pakistan.''

**********

Well If this isn't a surprize. You need to know what is going on here. The Americans want Bhutto running things. So they start this affair by pushing Musharraf's crackdown on radical Muslims some months ago, which he did I am sure against his own best judgment. The attack on the Red Mosque was done by Musharraf hoping he would garner more support from the USA, little did he know he fell right into their trap. Now he had both sides in Pakistan if not angry not trusting him. See some info they put out about the attack : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6503477.stm . Notice it was a safe haven for so called terrorists. So Musharraf was doing what he could. I am sure like the US has he has his own best interests at stake, but like many countries does what is needed to keep it stable. Riots happened as Muslims clashed with non-Muslims and that had the effect of making Pakistan's leader seen in ill light over a very silly move, attacking a holy site. Next up the USA knowing full well started PUMPING out news about Bhutto, herself an EX leader due to corruption. But you don't hear that. No she's being touted as the savior of democracy and freedom in Pakistan. Her father Zulfiqar Bhutto was the fist ruler of Pakistan who has built a college in Bajaur Agency in 1974. This said, she is the USA's boy, she will do what the US wants and can once in power be the stone which the US can lean on when they attack Iran to prohibit upheavals over there soon to be coming strikes of that Muslims country.

So how can you make sure sentiment is with her inside Pakstan and abroad, why attack her outright on day one, and say the "terrorists" did it. Yup, Government sources said it was a suicide attack. Federal Interior Ministry has confirmed 70 deaths in the incident. According to reports gathered from various sources hundreds of people were killed in the attack.A car bomb went off Thursday night near a truck carrying former Prime Minister and PPP Chairperson Benazir Bhutto on her return to Pakistan after eight years in exile, killing 130 people and wounding hundreds. No one really knows who did it, but you know Musharraf would not do this. Why? He would be blamed and kicked out no matter, and since he didn't not do it, he gets the blame anyways and the news the world over can now show the "terrorists" don't want her in, so SHE must be a good person.

It's all part of the plan, well thought out and being activated now. Get her in since Musharraf is a Muslim and will not support under any circumstances a strike on Iran. Watch, learn and see !!

Some news about the North American Union

Look, read, listen, learn and question :

North America blurs borders

The News Journal. Wilmington, Delaware.


By CHRIS SLAVENS

Posted Sunday, November 4, 2007

COMMUNITY VIEW

We hear a lot about immigration. Counties and municipalities are taking matters into their own hands, attempting to do their part to withstand the avalanche of criminals from our southern border. These criminals respond by burning our precious flag and label us racists for demanding respect for the law.

What we don't hear much about is how the immigration issue is a minor part of a much bigger issue: the coming North American Union.

In 2005, the Council on Foreign Relations published the "Building a North American Community," a report that describes a future North American Union and ideas for how to get there.

By 2010 North America will be a single community with one "common perimeter" and no internal borders. There is also talk of redistribution of wealth -- meaning, no doubt, that rich Americans should be taxed to aid Mexico in eliminating its perennial corruption and squalid living conditions.

To date, the leaders of the United States, Canada and Mexico have followed the CFR's blueprint in establishment of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. Our government portrays the partnership as being in the best interests of Americans. Who wouldn't want security and prosperity? However, the connection between security and open borders doesn't seem to exist. The majority of Americans are already prosperous by global standards.

I should point out that the final product of the partnership will not be another NAFTA. There will be free trade, not to mention free movement of people and potential terrorists between the three nations of North America. But the major problem is that the concept undermines the United States more so than any attack or war in our history. The last time that inhabitants of this land were dealt such a blow to their freedom, they founded a new nation.

The government's attempt to sneak into a North American Union, one small step at a time, violates the nation's core principles. The SPP is subject to neither authorization nor oversight of Congress. It is controlled by the executive branch, and enforced through regulations, rather than laws created through the proper legislative process. Basically, the United States is beginning to give up its sovereignty without the average citizen or elected representatives having a say. It's the worst foreign policy decision since Woodrow Wilson's laughable League of Nations.

In light of this conspiracy, the federal government's refusal to enforce immigration laws doesn't seem so strange. It's the first step in opening the borders. As if the situation wasn't bad enough, we can look forward to even greater erosion of our culture and traditions.

Habla espanol? If not, you'd better learn.

A number of legislators have worked hard to oppose the SPP and the North American Union it will lead to, including presidential candidates Reps. Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul. They receive little mainstream media attention, as cameras are focused on the two major socialist, Democratic candidates.

America needs to pay attention to men like these, who strive to preserve our nation's existence. If not, you may well wake up in a union some day soon, and it won't be the one the Yankees fought for.

Chris Slavens, of Laurel, is a member of The News Journal Community Advisory Board.




From USADaily :

Presidential candidates have ties to groups advocating a North American Union

Hugo Mann

Published 11/01/2007 - 4:12 p.m. EDT

Several presidential candidates have ties to groups that appear to advocate replacing the U.S. government with a North American Union and furthering the long term goal of a World Government. . WorldNetDaily reports that “Hillary Rodham Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, John McCain, John Edwards, Fred Thompson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson are all members or have toes to the Council on Foreign Relations the Bilderberg Group or the The Trilateral Commission. WND also reports that Mike Huckabee is not a member of the CFR but that he spoke to the group in September and has since become a top-tier candidate in the media’s eyes. To our knowledge, Republicans Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul, and Duncan Hunter have no ties to Globalist groups and have voiced opposition to a North American union. Last month former Mexican President Vincente Fox said that he supported massive immigration into the U.S. for the long term goal of a North American Union. Fox also said that he and President Bush were working on a regional currency but got derailed. As previously reported the Council on Foreign Relations has a proposed plan that in short proposes to replace all three branches of the U.S. government as follows: ----------- North American Advisory Council Consisting of 15 members, five from each nation, that will hold biannual summits designed to set the agendas for the three presidents and be a voice for the North American Union. (It should be noted that the U.S. Congress is supposed to set the agenda for the president.) Merging Parliamentary groups replace the U.S. Congress by merging the parliamentary systems of each nation and creating a North American parliament. A North American Court the proposed North American Court will replace the U.S. Supreme Court as the highest court in the land. Continental Perimeter Eliminating the national boundaries between Mexico, Canada, and the United States by creating a North American Customs and Immigration force along with an integrated North American Department of Homeland Security (North American Police Force) Common External Tariff (CEF) The proposed North American tariff will redistribute wealth to Mexico and strengthen the North American government. Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America SPP was created in 1995 by the executive branch of government. While it claims that national sovereignty is not at risk with a North American Union the SPP stretches its credibility with the claim and doesn’t seem to have a legal justification to its existence. The U.S. Constitution has provisions for allowing new states into the Union. The proposed North American Union appears illegal and unconstitutional. According to WorldNetDaily and other sources Ronald Reagan was the only candidate in modern history to get elected that did not have ties to and was not a CFR member. His last minute convention choice for VP, George Bush, was a member. Is a 'North American Union' in the future? Mexico, U.S. deny plan for any EU-like merger Mike Madden Republic Washington Bureau Oct. 24, 2007 12:00 AM WASHINGTON - Someday soon, you'll be keeping ameros in your wallet, not dollars. The goods they buy will zip freely from Mexico to Canada on an enormous new road. And the United States will merge with its neighbors into a massive North American Union that reigns sovereign over more than 440 million people. At least that is the vision being raised by a small but vocal group of bloggers, activists and border-security hard-liners. As the U.S. has increased efforts to cooperate with Canada and Mexico on security and trade, and as the Bush administration has pushed immigration reforms that are extremely unpopular with many conservatives, opponents have become more convinced that North America is heading toward a merger. Although all three governments strongly deny any such plan, a series of private meetings by top leaders and a sweeping effort to rewrite regulations in all three countries aimed at smoothing cross-border relations have emerged as a lightning rod for speculation, criticism and fear. The goal of the initiative, known as the Security and Prosperity Partnership, is to ensure that the countries work together to keep weapons and terrorists from entering North America while making it easier for movement and commerce among all three nations. Business groups and advocates of free trade have pushed for even more cooperation. The meetings started in 2005 and grew out of long-standing, less-formal cooperation among the three nations. But critics say the partnership is just the first step in a much broader attempt to build a "North American Union" modeled after the political and economic integration that the European Union built. Those who fear a merger see signs everywhere. They cite the dollar's recent decline in value, increasing illegal immigration and attempts to expand free-trade areas in the Western Hemisphere. They also point to efforts to increase trade along Interstate 35, which runs straight up the middle of the United States from Mexico to Canada. In Internet postings about the partnership, I-35 has morphed into a "NAFTA Superhighway." An agreement in the works to allow Mexican trucks to drive into the U.S. is seen as another tip-off, as is the growing U.S. foreign-trade imbalance, even though China exports more to the U.S. than Mexico and is gaining on Canada. Former Mexican President Vicente Fox recently told CNN's Larry King that "long term, very long term," the goal of free-trade agreements could be a Western Hemisphere united by one currency. "There's too much evidence. You've got too many things happening," said Jerome Corsi, a conservative activist and author of The Late Great U.S.A., a book that delves into some of the most alarming interpretations of the U.S.-Canadian-Mexican meetings. Still, to officials involved in the meetings, the idea that the partnership will move to infringe on individual countries' sovereignty is misguided. "I can tell you that that is categorically wrong, it is misleading, it is false, and that type of information, it just creates tension when it shouldn't because it's not true," Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said in an interview. "We want to do things that are common sense through regulations that will make our three countries more efficient and more productive. But this has nothing to do with sovereignty." In August, during a meeting with the Canadian prime minister and Mexican president, President Bush called the idea "comical" and a "political scare tactic," accusing his opponents of "(laying) out a conspiracy and then (forcing) people to try to prove it doesn't exist." Working together Although theories about a North American merger may sound far-fetched, they are rooted in negotiations and working groups that all three countries say are important. In its brief existence, the Security and Prosperity Partnership has produced the kind of dry government documents that might be expected from meetings and working groups that try to treat each nation as equal when it comes to both symbolism and substance. The U.S., Canadian and Mexican flags dot each release. The partnership has pursued increasing cooperation among public-health labs in each nation and drafting plans for cross-border emergency assistance in a disaster. It also wants to write similar regulations for industries ranging from medical devices to textile manufacturing so companies operating in all three countries can follow the same standards. Members also are pursuing policies that ease entry and exit into each country. "What we tried to do was simply meet, talk about our common problems and see what we can do in practical terms in order to improve the lives of our people," Mexican President Felipe Calderón said at the past meeting. "Whether it's to standardize the (regulatory) parameters for chocolates or medicines, I think these are common-sense things." Business organizations that seek increased cooperation among the countries have praised the partnership's work, as have some economists who favor free trade. "One of the realities of our country is that we live in a global economy," said Maria Luisa O'Connell, president of the Phoenix-based Border Trade Alliance, a group that pushes for more integration and cooperation among the three nations. "From a security perspective, from an economic perspective, we cannot afford not to work together with Canada and Mexico." The meetings, which are closed, are held every year. This year's was in Montebello, Canada. Bush has invited Calderón and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to his Texas ranch for next year's meeting. Reminiscent of EU Some of the claims made by critics about plans for a merger appear to be mostly hypothetical. For instance: • No treaty has been signed or proposed to formalize the partnership, and none of the governments involved has called for integration like the European Union, which issues common currency and passports. • Although the U.S. dollar is now roughly as valuable as the Canadian dollar after decades of trading at higher prices, both are still worth much more than the Mexican peso. All three nations say they have no plans to set up any new currency or do away with their own money. • Critics fault plans to build a "superhighway" from the U.S.-Mexican border to the U.S.-Canadian border. But the highway already exists: I-35. There are no known plans for another highway. Even so, critics see the meetings as dangerous. Many focus more on Mexico than Canada, though the partnership's meetings have been trilateral. "Our borders have been opened and amnesty (for undocumented immigrants) has been granted through executive fiat by the Bush administration already," said William Gheen, executive director of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, a group that advocates tougher border security and immigration enforcement. Corsi's book details how the European Union formed out of similar meetings among French, German and other officials. He says denials that anything sinister is afoot help prove his point because EU officials also originally said they didn't intend to set up the kind of multinational bureaucracy that now exists. Republican primary voters have occasionally pressed GOP candidates to disavow the Security and Prosperity Partnership. None of the leading contenders for the party's nomination have explicitly done so. Congress takes note Some of the objections by conservative activists are shared by critics on the left, though not the dire warnings of a North American Union. "What actually will happen (through the partnership) is that Mexico will continue doing worse economically, and, in fact, the immigration push will grow," said Manuel Perez Rocha, an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. The progressive Washington think tank is pushing for the partnership to include more labor protections and economic development in Mexico. Critics on both sides fault the governments for closing meetings to the public.For supporters, the problem with the cooperation is that they're not moving fast enough, not that they'll erode sovereignty. The meetings have attracted some attention from Congress. Conservative Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., introduced a non-binding resolution opposing a North American Union in January, and 39 co-sponsors, including Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., have signed on. Even lawmakers who don't share Goode's concerns say Congress should be more involved in efforts to increase cooperation with neighboring countries. "This is a White House-driven initiative that has not been worked on by the Congress at all," said Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., who sits on a cross-border working group with Mexican legislators. "This is not an official agreement, and there's a lot of myths that are floating around." And lastly from www.truthabouttrade.org : North America, EU officials discuss WTO differences Consideration of sustainable agriculture issues under the scope of world trade talks brought sharp disagreement last week at the 33rd North American and European Union Agricultural Conference in the Czech Republic. On one side of the aisle, EU officials suggested that environmental and animal welfare requirements be standardized worldwide. Noel Devisch, president of the Belgian Boerenbond (farmers union), said EU restrictions in those two areas raise the cost of production for European farmers compared to countries where requirements aren’t as strict. “Food is too important to leave to free trade,” Devisch said. “We should have fair trade, instead of free trade, that takes into account the conditions in each country.” Representatives from the U.S. and Canada strongly disagreed, saying the WTO is designed to address economic factors such as trade-distorting farm subsidies and market access barriers. “The idea of adding constraints to the WTO, I don’t think that is the path to take,” said Laurent Pellerin, president of Canada’s Union des Producteurs Agricoles. AFBF position Sustainability issues should be addressed under the WTO’s “Green Box” spending, which is not considered trade distorting, noted American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) President Bob Stallman. “The WTO is about maintaining trade, moving goods across borders,” he said. “We would adamantly oppose moving environmental issues into trade discussions.” But, Michael Hornborg of Finland, vice president of the EU’s Committee of Professional Agriculture Organizations (COPA), insisted international rules on sustainability should – and would – be dealt with under the WTO. “If we just have free trade, there’s no way to have sustainable development,” he said. “There is no way for EU farmers to compete on a fair basis if we have to provide all these additional benefits while our competitors do not.” Deal far off The issue of sustainability wasn’t the only area of disagreement among the nearly 200 farm officials gathered in Prague for the conference. The trade meeting is held every other year, alternating between North American and European host cities. Canada will host the next summit in 2009. In fact, one of the few areas of consensus was that a WTO draft proposed by Crawford Falconer, chairman of the agricultural negotiations, is unacceptable. “The Falconer report is unworkable,” said COPA President Jean-Michael Lemetayer of France. The ideas proposed in the report, he said, would result in a 25 percent cut in EU farm income. He cited several problems with the Falconer text, including that it doesn’t address geographical concerns, doesn’t reflect new biofuels markets and ignores food safety and food security. Trade agreements He said the EU prefers to negotiate on a multi-lateral basis like the WTO as opposed to one-on-one bilateral agreements, but wouldn’t accept a deal that it doesn’t like. “We believe it is better to have no agreement than a bad agreement,” Lemetayer said. Roman Gomez Vaillard with Mexico’s Responsible Comision Productos Hortofruticolas said Mexican farmers also prefer multi-lateral negotiations, but would continue to work on bilateral deals to improve market access in the absence of a WTO deal. Clear guidelines are also needed to assure that WTO Green Box payments are truly not trade distorting, he said. Canadian Federation of Agri­culture President Bob Friesen said the North American Free Trade Agree­­ment (NAFTA), which has increased trade between the U.S., Canada and Mexico, is a good model for a WTO pact. He said the U.S. needs to lower subsidies it pays to its farmers, while the EU must slash its import tariffs. “I’m getting the sense that a lot of countries don’t have the appetite to sign a Doha agreement,” Friesen said. He shared Vaillard’s concerns about countries shifting too many payments into the Green Box, suggesting a cap be established for Green Box spending. Concrete language Friesen and Stallman each expressed concern that language in current WTO proposals allows too much leeway in designating “sensitive” products as a means to restrict competition from imports. “We’re a long way from getting an acceptable WTO agreement,” Stallman said. “What we give up in domestic support, we must gain in market access.” He said the U.S. will continue to work toward a WTO compromise, but in the meantime bilateral trade deals will continue to be an important tool. “The problem we have with the WTO is many of the countries are not interested in trade. They’re interested in other priorities,” he said. Well folks, or sheeple seems our countries are going the way of the do do bird, and we collectively are acting like them !!