States of emergency
| 16:12 UK time, Wednesday, 14 November 2007
We have been devoting a lot of air time so far this month to the political instability in two countries a long way apart but with quite a bit in common - they are both allies of Washington in strategically important parts of the world - I am talking about Pakistan and Georgia.
Both countries are seen as key places in the view of Western strategists. Pakistan is in the frontline of what the Americans call 'the war on terror' and Georgia is in the frontline of the growing confrontation between the West and Russia, which regards the Caucasian state as part of what we used to call its 'sphere of influence'. Our presenter, Robin Lustig, has written about the issues on his new blog.
Both countries' presidents, who have been seen as key allies by the West, have responded to opposition by declaring states of emergency, restricting broadcasters and deploying the security forces against protesters but promising elections in the New Year. Of course there are differences between the leaders. President Musharraf took power in a military coup eight years ago, while President Saakashvili was elected following popular protests he led against his predecessor, but the diplomatic noises from Western countries have been similar.
The overall audience reaction to these two stories has been interesting.
On Pakistan, listeners have written in to our debate page on what the West should do about General Musharraf given his refusal so far to end the state of emergency and restore constitutional rule. One listener told us in no uncertain terms to stop giving it so much airtime. But given the size and strategic importance of Pakistan for the future of Afghanistan and the stability of South Asia - bearing in mind the country is a nuclear power and has outstanding territorial disputes with its nuclear-armed neighbour, India - I would argue it has been worth the coverage we've given it.
On Georgia, audience reaction has been different – no-one has accused us of doing too much - after all it's not a country that gets into the news that often. Instead, one listener complained that we had not made it clear enough we were talking about Georgia the country, rather than Georgia the state in the USA, while another criticised us for describing it as 'the former Soviet republic of Georgia' as he said this was patronising. These contradictory criticisms caused us to pause and ask ourselves if 16 years after the collapse of the USSR, we still need to refer to its Soviet past, we decided it was a quick way of locating it in listeners' minds because Caucasus is probably not as easily identifiable to many listeners. Let us know if we're right.
Oh - and by the way, we're returning to both countries in tonight's programme as President Musharraf has rejected Western calls to end the state of emergency while President Saakashvili has announced - following a visit from a middle-ranking American diplomat - that the state of emergency will be lifted on Friday.
Comments
In my opinion Negroponte is going to Pakistan for the following reasons:
1- Eliminate Musharraf
2- Secure the NUKES through another strong man or men
3- Install Bhutto or similar as the new "democratically" elected leader with the strong army boys behind the scenes.
Tactical benefit: for a short period it gives a breathing room in this chaos.
Strategical benefit: Zero. Why? Because the people are sitting on the sidelines now. Which means in the long run once again we are making a mistake by supporting the wrong forces!
Would we ever learn?
I think there should be editorial guidelines for this kind of geographical names like Georgia.
I agree that calling it a 'former Soviet republic' is too patronising and in fact not very clarifying pattern.
It is still the case for legally set names such as 'Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia', but not for Georgia or any other CIS or Baltic country. Sometimes it can even be offending for those nations to be referred to in this way.
People do not usually describe Hong Kong as 'former British enclave' or Namibia as 'former South African protectorate'.
And there is probably no ground for hesitation about usage of the name Caucasus as we remember the three main ´óÏó´«Ã½ objectives: to inform, to entertain and to educate people. Maybe this will be a tiny bit of historical and geographical education for those who confuse Georgia the country and Georgia the US state (which doesn't have President btw).
The United $tates seems to be far more unstable than Pakistan or Georgia. Look who the Amerikans have allegedly chosen for their leader.
It is interesting to reflect on the coverage of Pakistan. A handful of people are detained in the comfort of their own home, and a larger numbers are threatened with sticks then locked up. Massive coverage on the ´óÏó´«Ã½. In Gaza, a crowd of unarmed protesters is machine gunned and six die - very little coverage. One only wonders at the level of coverage if Pakistan or Israel machine gunned protesters. If Hamas declared themselves a big supporter of George Bush, would they then get criticised for machine gunning protesters?
Why not!, Pakistan is having very troubled time and whatever happens in Pakistan will effect every country in the west. So far Pakistan has been successfull in restricted militants at afganistan border, failure to do so could allow terrorist to fly anywhere. State of emergency in Pakistan is 'need to hour' as there are no laws to detain terrorists for investigations for longer times and the judiciary was releasing then on legal basis. This conflict between the government and judiciary was harming army operations and the opposition parties were taking advantage of the situation to make their way for next parlimentary ellections.