President George W. Bush's abilities as an opening batsman may be tested when he visits Pakistan this week. US National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said that when Bush attends a "cricket event" on Saturday in Islamabad, it is uncertain whether he plans to watch or play. "Who knows what he'll do?"
As Bush steps up to the crease, the official spin on his one-day visit, which follows a trip to India and precedes a stopover in Afghanistan, is that Washington has Pakistan's interests at heart.
The bilateral agenda includes counter-terrorism, the Kashmir dispute with India, and elections promised next year by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, who seized power in a 1999 coup.
But Bush, pointing to US help after last October's earthquake, is keen to show the common touch.
"This is a relationship that's much bigger than the `war on terror,'" he told Pakistani television at the weekend. Pakistanis should know "that the American people care about them."
This feeling is not reciprocated in some quarters. Much of the country is in uproar, ostensibly over the Danish cartoons scandal.
Islamist parties, principally the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), have used the row and visit to stoke opposition to Musharraf and his US alliance, linking it to "anti-Muslim" US actions along the Afghan border and in Iraq and exploiting economic discontent.
Musharraf's hold on power is weaker than at any time since 1999, said Ayaz Amir, a Dawn newspaper columnist. "Since beleaguered governments are prone to clutch at straws, we can expect Islamabad to gloat over the Bush visit. Given the tide of anti-Americanism on which the country is afloat, it is more likely to be a huge embarrassment if not an outright kiss of death."
Graham Usher, writing from Islamabad for The Nation, said the JI linked the Pakistani military's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency to jihadi groups in Afghanistan and Kashmir -- until Musharraf got in the way. He suggested the army could move against him if events spun out of control, as it had against previous leaders.
"The Islamists in Pakistan have never been so powerful," he said.
A government official said that was an exaggeration.
"The Islamist parties have street power but as far as voting power is concerned, Pakistan is a very moderate society," he said.
Musharraf had strengthened grassroots democracy, he said, and the economy was expanding. Next year's elections, including a presidential contest, would go ahead.
But Human Rights Watch said Bush should press Musharraf to stand down, claiming he had weakened mainstream political parties and democratic processes.
"Statements from pro-government politicians appear to be setting the stage for Musharraf's continued rule past 2007," the group said. "The US should not allow Musharraf to exploit his alliance in the `war on terror' to entrench himself further in power."
Bush, a keen Musharraf admirer, is likely to ignore such advice. Although the US says it wants faster progress on restoring democracy, Pakistan's primary importance to Washington remains its key role in helping fight al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
In India, similarly hard-headed calculations will be in play. Bush will seek a strengthened strategic and economic partnership, partly through nuclear cooperation, to help offset the rise of China.
He says he will push for a Kashmir solution. But more pressing in American eyes is the need to stiffen Indian support for apparently contradictory curbs on Iran's nuclear activities. The US is also urging cancelation of a joint gas pipeline project with Tehran.
As in Pakistan, such US aims are highly controversial. To achieve them, Bush will need to show deft footwork amid much hostile bowling.
Elbridge Colby, America’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, is the most influential voice on defense strategy in the Second Trump Administration. For insight into his thinking, one could do no better than read his thoughts on the defense of Taiwan which he gathered in a book he wrote in 2021. The Strategy of Denial, is his contemplation of China’s rising hegemony in Asia and on how to deter China from invading Taiwan. Allowing China to absorb Taiwan, he wrote, would open the entire Indo-Pacific region to Chinese preeminence and result in a power transition that would place America’s prosperity
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
All 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and suspended Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安), formerly of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), survived recall elections against them on Saturday, in a massive loss to the unprecedented mass recall movement, as well as to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that backed it. The outcome has surprised many, as most analysts expected that at least a few legislators would be ousted. Over the past few months, dedicated and passionate civic groups gathered more than 1 million signatures to recall KMT lawmakers, an extraordinary achievement that many believed would be enough to remove at
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
RSS