OUR WORLD | PLANET EMERGENCY | PAKISTAN | DONNE TEMPO
When Lawyers Merge for Pakistan
by Jacquie KubinI had to wonder what would make hundreds of lawyers meet when there isn’t a client at the center of the thrall?
As Lisa Ruth has explained in her documents “State of Emergency" (read below), Pakistan’s President General Pervez Musharraf is trampling over Pakistan’s democratic institutions. For the last year, Musharraf has been battling with the Pakistani Judiciary, going so far as to suspend Independent Chief Justice Chaudhry in March of 2007.
The Supreme Court then questioned if Musharraf even had the authority to do what he was doing, and well that made him angry and the little man in his spiffy general’s outfit started beating up on the lawyers.
And this has angered about three hundred D.C. lawyers enough for them to step out into the fall sunshine and take a walk across the front steps of the Supreme Court.
Dressed in black suits, the assemblage was peaceful and really quite remarkable. The call, here in DC, was to ask President Bush to reconsider his position of support to Musharraf.
Which is why this is a U.S. problem, President Bush is supporting the general stating that he really isn’t so bad, that he has held to the basic tenants of democracy and that they believe he will allow Pakistan to return to democracy.
Well, President Bush, I am not an authority on international issues or principals, or even Pakistan, but I cannot remember any man who gave up power once he took it.
And beating lawyers? Somehow I cannot believe that beating lawyers is a way to express your appreciation for a democratic system.
Because like them or not, lawyers are protected in a democracy and they are the ones that are supposed to be out there asking the questions, without fear, that the rest of us need answered.
And when a leader begins to actively, and quite publicly silence the lawyers, those men and women who are supposed to ask the tough questions without fear, we have a problem. The people of Pakistan have a problem.
Face it once you start destroying institutions of law, the land becomes lawless and its true visage as a dictator state emerges.
The lawyers were not alone in their march. Some of the women that represent the peace activist group Code Pink were on hand.
“We have thousands of dollars in human capital out here and it is hopeful,” said Liz Hourican, Code Pink, Arizona. “We are in solidarity with the lawyers who came out to stand up for the rule of law in Pakistan, restore their judiciary, Constitution and to tell (President) Bush that we want to stop funding Musharraf. It is time to promote real democracy.”
This exercise may have positive results for both America and Pakistan. Possibly through their efforts, some Washington, D.C. lawyers will have their eyes opened as to what their true role within our “value system of liberty and freedom is.”
And by lifting themselves out to make a stand for someone else, they are making a stand for themselves. Possibly.
But regardless of what those lawyers took with them I hope that President Bush sees that this was a truly remarkable day. To see all these black suited barristers walking together, talking together, and sharing knowledge and information, particularly at the base of the Supreme Court steps was quite breath taking.
If this situation in Pakistan could cause that to happen, I think, President Bush might want to pay attention to what is happening and the sentiment that is rising.
Because I don’t believe lawyers gathering to march for a cause is common. At least not during my lifetime.
But my goal is not to take a cheap shot at lawyers, regardless of how easy that would be to do. The call to act came from the top of their echelon and they did respond. In numbers.
“So we have all assembled, we are marching, as our colleagues in Pakistan are, to show the dignity of the legal profession and the rule of law and these are first steps and we will take more if we have to. “
I am not sure why this one situation caught the notice of our Bar Association and its members. Maybe it was the frightening realization that justice is indeed fragile. And the first to fall with Justice are the lawyers.
But whatever propelled this demonstration, President Bush I suggest you take notice.
Pakistan’s State of Emergency, by Lisa Ruth
Not truly understanding the situation in
Pakistan, but knowing that it was not good, I
asked Lisa Ruth, Donne Tempo’s International
Expert to explain the situation and give us all
a bit of background, which she did.
You will quickly become one of the more “in the know” women in your circles. Lisa has done a brilliant job on explaining the players in this situation and the relevance of it all.
Pakistan’s State of Emergency
by Lisa Ruth
President Musharraf’s implementation of a state of emergency on November 3rd is his most recent and most serious attack on Pakistan’s democratic institutions. Although he is using the more internationally palatable term “state of emergency,” Musharaf has effectively implemented martial law by suspending the constitution, firing independent judges, jailing secular politicians, eliminating independent media, banning public gatherings, and deploying the military to enforce order. So far, he has detained 2500 civilians, primarily lawyers, human rights activists, and opposition politicians. Musharaf said he will dissolve parliament on Thursday and will appoint a “caretaker” government to run the country until elections in January.
Musharaf, who took power in a military coup in 1999, announced the state of emergency in a rambling, hour-long speech to the nation. He justified the action because of “a rise in extremism in the country” and judicial interference with government after the Supreme Court ordered the release of 61 suspected terrorists in the government's custody. Ironically, since the measures took effect, the government has focused on detaining human rights activists, journalists, and lawyers, rather than terrorists. In fact, at the same time the government was cracking down on the opposition, it agreed to a cease-fire with a rebel leader in northwest Pakistan.
Hostile Relations with the Judiciary
Musharaf has battled with the judiciary for almost a year. In March, he suspended the independent Chief Justice Chaudhry. The move sparked massive protests, and the Supreme Court reappointed Chaudhry in July. The Court then issued a statement questioning whether Musharaf had the authority to drop corruption charges against former President Benezir Bhutto. Musharaf had negotiated a deal with the exiled Bhutto whereby she would return to the country and act as Prime Minister if Musharaf would resign as head of the Army and drop pending corruption charges against her. Under the plan, Musharaf would remain President. The deal would give Musharaf democratic legitimacy and position Bhutto to run for election after the power-sharing agreement expired. The statement by the Supreme Court jeopardized the deal.
The next conflict between Musharaf and the Supreme Court emerged over Mush raff’s most recent re-election. In October, Musharaf was re-elected President by the Parliament and state assemblies. Opposition parties boycotted the process and challenged the outcome shortly after Musharaf announced his win. The Supreme Court agreed to hear opposition claims that the vote and Musharraf’s candidacy were unconstitutional, and promised to hand down a decision by 13 November. After declaring a state of emergency, Musharaf fired Chief Justice Chaudhry and placed him and seven judges who refused to support the declaration under house arrest.
International Attention
One reason for renewed international attention on the Pakistan situation is the presence of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, considered a darling of the international community, a symbol of the return to democracy, and the most viable opposition candidate to Musharaf. Bhutto, who was removed twice as Prime Minister on charges of corruption, returned to Pakistan from self-imposed exile in October 2007 after she agreed to Mush raff’s power-sharing plan. Her relations with Musharaf soured after she openly criticized his state of emergency, called for him to reinstate the constitution and to step down as both head of the army and Prime Minister. She has also supported demonstrations against him. The regime has repeatedly placed her under house arrest since the state of emergency and physically prohibited her from participating in demonstrations. At the same time, however, Bhutto has stated that she would still participate in a power-sharing agreement if Musharaf ends the state of emergency, leaves the military, and holds elections in January.
Relations with the US
Although the United States has urged Musharaf to lift the state of emergency, it views Musharaf as a critical ally and refuses to take any harsher measures to pressure him to restore the constitution. According to the US government, Musharaf supports the US anti-terrorism program and provides assistance with the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. US government officials say they believe Musharaf will return to democracy, and – although he is technically a military dictator – he has respected democratic principals throughout his tenure. Officials candidly say there is no real alternative to Musharaf, and they are concerned any other leader could bring instability to Pakistan and allow terrorist inroads in the country.
Outlook
Without substantial international – including US – pressure, Musharaf is likely to retain the ability to implement changes on his own timetable. Although there are rumors that Pakistan's new vice chief of army staff, General Ashfaq Kyani, is organizing a coup against Musharaf, insiders say he is a loyalists and that the rumors are “wishful thinking” by anti-Musharaf forces. Analysts believe Musharaf will slowly lift the state of emergency, but that democratic institutions will be wounded, and some opposition leaders – possibly including members of the Supreme Court – will flee the country to avoid future prosecution.
Musharaf’s willingness to suspend individual rights and democratic principals to hold on to his power foreshadows continued difficulties for Pakistan’s democratic process. Despite Bhutto’s condemnation of the state of emergency, it is likely the Bhutto-Musharaf power sharing agreement will take place at some point in the future, as both parties benefit from the arrangement. However, free and fair elections would threaten Musharaf, making it unlikely he will agree to open elections in the near future. Musharaf could interpret US actions as tacit support, since it has refused to take strong action against him; in fact, the Bush Administration has repeatedly labeled him as a strong ally despite the fact that he is a military dictator who suspended democracy when he was threatened.
You will quickly become one of the more “in the know” women in your circles. Lisa has done a brilliant job on explaining the players in this situation and the relevance of it all.
Pakistan’s State of Emergency
by Lisa Ruth
President Musharraf’s implementation of a state of emergency on November 3rd is his most recent and most serious attack on Pakistan’s democratic institutions. Although he is using the more internationally palatable term “state of emergency,” Musharaf has effectively implemented martial law by suspending the constitution, firing independent judges, jailing secular politicians, eliminating independent media, banning public gatherings, and deploying the military to enforce order. So far, he has detained 2500 civilians, primarily lawyers, human rights activists, and opposition politicians. Musharaf said he will dissolve parliament on Thursday and will appoint a “caretaker” government to run the country until elections in January.
Musharaf, who took power in a military coup in 1999, announced the state of emergency in a rambling, hour-long speech to the nation. He justified the action because of “a rise in extremism in the country” and judicial interference with government after the Supreme Court ordered the release of 61 suspected terrorists in the government's custody. Ironically, since the measures took effect, the government has focused on detaining human rights activists, journalists, and lawyers, rather than terrorists. In fact, at the same time the government was cracking down on the opposition, it agreed to a cease-fire with a rebel leader in northwest Pakistan.
Hostile Relations with the Judiciary
Musharaf has battled with the judiciary for almost a year. In March, he suspended the independent Chief Justice Chaudhry. The move sparked massive protests, and the Supreme Court reappointed Chaudhry in July. The Court then issued a statement questioning whether Musharaf had the authority to drop corruption charges against former President Benezir Bhutto. Musharaf had negotiated a deal with the exiled Bhutto whereby she would return to the country and act as Prime Minister if Musharaf would resign as head of the Army and drop pending corruption charges against her. Under the plan, Musharaf would remain President. The deal would give Musharaf democratic legitimacy and position Bhutto to run for election after the power-sharing agreement expired. The statement by the Supreme Court jeopardized the deal.
The next conflict between Musharaf and the Supreme Court emerged over Mush raff’s most recent re-election. In October, Musharaf was re-elected President by the Parliament and state assemblies. Opposition parties boycotted the process and challenged the outcome shortly after Musharaf announced his win. The Supreme Court agreed to hear opposition claims that the vote and Musharraf’s candidacy were unconstitutional, and promised to hand down a decision by 13 November. After declaring a state of emergency, Musharaf fired Chief Justice Chaudhry and placed him and seven judges who refused to support the declaration under house arrest.
International Attention
One reason for renewed international attention on the Pakistan situation is the presence of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, considered a darling of the international community, a symbol of the return to democracy, and the most viable opposition candidate to Musharaf. Bhutto, who was removed twice as Prime Minister on charges of corruption, returned to Pakistan from self-imposed exile in October 2007 after she agreed to Mush raff’s power-sharing plan. Her relations with Musharaf soured after she openly criticized his state of emergency, called for him to reinstate the constitution and to step down as both head of the army and Prime Minister. She has also supported demonstrations against him. The regime has repeatedly placed her under house arrest since the state of emergency and physically prohibited her from participating in demonstrations. At the same time, however, Bhutto has stated that she would still participate in a power-sharing agreement if Musharaf ends the state of emergency, leaves the military, and holds elections in January.
Relations with the US
Although the United States has urged Musharaf to lift the state of emergency, it views Musharaf as a critical ally and refuses to take any harsher measures to pressure him to restore the constitution. According to the US government, Musharaf supports the US anti-terrorism program and provides assistance with the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. US government officials say they believe Musharaf will return to democracy, and – although he is technically a military dictator – he has respected democratic principals throughout his tenure. Officials candidly say there is no real alternative to Musharaf, and they are concerned any other leader could bring instability to Pakistan and allow terrorist inroads in the country.
Outlook
Without substantial international – including US – pressure, Musharaf is likely to retain the ability to implement changes on his own timetable. Although there are rumors that Pakistan's new vice chief of army staff, General Ashfaq Kyani, is organizing a coup against Musharaf, insiders say he is a loyalists and that the rumors are “wishful thinking” by anti-Musharaf forces. Analysts believe Musharaf will slowly lift the state of emergency, but that democratic institutions will be wounded, and some opposition leaders – possibly including members of the Supreme Court – will flee the country to avoid future prosecution.
Musharaf’s willingness to suspend individual rights and democratic principals to hold on to his power foreshadows continued difficulties for Pakistan’s democratic process. Despite Bhutto’s condemnation of the state of emergency, it is likely the Bhutto-Musharaf power sharing agreement will take place at some point in the future, as both parties benefit from the arrangement. However, free and fair elections would threaten Musharaf, making it unlikely he will agree to open elections in the near future. Musharaf could interpret US actions as tacit support, since it has refused to take strong action against him; in fact, the Bush Administration has repeatedly labeled him as a strong ally despite the fact that he is a military dictator who suspended democracy when he was threatened.
Interview: John Britton
John Britton is a Managing partner of Schnader
Harrison Segal & Lewis in Washington, D.C.
and a member of the Rockville, Maryland City
Council. John was kind enough to inform us of
the Lawyers March in Solidarity with Pakistan
so we asked him a few questions that might help
clear up the situation.
Donne Tempo: What was and is the current political status of Pakistan
John
Britton:
The current president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf,
took power in Pakistan through a military coup
in 1999, sending the former Prime Minister,
Nawaz Sharif, into exile. The country has
operated with a Parliament and a relatively
independent judiciary. Pakistan is a
close ally of the United States in the war on
terror.
DT: Who is ruling Pakistan now and how did they come to power?
JB: In addition to those mentioned above, another important player is Benazir Bhutto, a former prime minister, who just returned to Pakistan from exile and who is leading an opposition movement against Musharraf.
DT: What has caused this latest shift in governmental policy in Pakistan?
JB: Musharraf suspended the constitution, banned civil liberties, disbanded the Supreme Court, shut down independent TV stations and arrested opposition leaders ostensibly "to save the democratic process". Musharraf considers the country too much in turmoil to depend on democracy particularly when the democratic process was going against him.
DT: Why are Americans, and in particular American lawyers, concerned about what is happening in Pakistan?
JB: We Americans should be very concerned when a country that our government fully supports turns away from democracy and the rule of law. In fact, this is the very reason American lawyers are expressing their concern for and solidarity with Pakistani lawyers. The Pakistani lawyers are vociferous in their defense of the rule of law, the lynchpin of any democracy. They seem to be feisty and brave--in fact too feisty for Musharraf who has had hundreds of lawyers arrested. This is not a bunch of wild-eyed radicals protesting a regime. These lawyers are exercising their civil liberties, hardly a radical concept. They are even protesting in their suits for goodness sake! That is why the American Bar Association has called for a solidarity march and requesting that attorneys wear dark suits.
DT: Why should we, as Americans be concerned about Pakistan? Are we not looking at starting another conflict ala Iraq or Afghanistan?
JB: Our solidarity with the opposition in Pakistan does not risk our involvement in war there. We would just be making the statement that our national policy should not condone the abolition of democracy and we should not support the Musharraf regime morally, financially or militarily.
DT: What steps should our government take to protect Pakistan and why? (are we in danger of Pakistan becoming another Iraq/Afghanistan?
JB: The United States should adamantly demand that Musharraf immediately rescind his emergency rule. How can we support Musharraf in this action when we have Americans fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan to promote the ideals of democracy and the rule of law. The Bush administration seems to think that getting Musharraf to pledge to new Parliamentary elections in January will be a good thing. Apart from the simple fact that suspending democracy is not a good thing at all, how can Pakistan have valid elections under martial law when legitimate opposition members are in jail and civil liberties abolished.
Donne Tempo: What was and is the current political status of Pakistan
DT: Who is ruling Pakistan now and how did they come to power?
JB: In addition to those mentioned above, another important player is Benazir Bhutto, a former prime minister, who just returned to Pakistan from exile and who is leading an opposition movement against Musharraf.
DT: What has caused this latest shift in governmental policy in Pakistan?
JB: Musharraf suspended the constitution, banned civil liberties, disbanded the Supreme Court, shut down independent TV stations and arrested opposition leaders ostensibly "to save the democratic process". Musharraf considers the country too much in turmoil to depend on democracy particularly when the democratic process was going against him.
DT: Why are Americans, and in particular American lawyers, concerned about what is happening in Pakistan?
JB: We Americans should be very concerned when a country that our government fully supports turns away from democracy and the rule of law. In fact, this is the very reason American lawyers are expressing their concern for and solidarity with Pakistani lawyers. The Pakistani lawyers are vociferous in their defense of the rule of law, the lynchpin of any democracy. They seem to be feisty and brave--in fact too feisty for Musharraf who has had hundreds of lawyers arrested. This is not a bunch of wild-eyed radicals protesting a regime. These lawyers are exercising their civil liberties, hardly a radical concept. They are even protesting in their suits for goodness sake! That is why the American Bar Association has called for a solidarity march and requesting that attorneys wear dark suits.
DT: Why should we, as Americans be concerned about Pakistan? Are we not looking at starting another conflict ala Iraq or Afghanistan?
JB: Our solidarity with the opposition in Pakistan does not risk our involvement in war there. We would just be making the statement that our national policy should not condone the abolition of democracy and we should not support the Musharraf regime morally, financially or militarily.
DT: What steps should our government take to protect Pakistan and why? (are we in danger of Pakistan becoming another Iraq/Afghanistan?
JB: The United States should adamantly demand that Musharraf immediately rescind his emergency rule. How can we support Musharraf in this action when we have Americans fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan to promote the ideals of democracy and the rule of law. The Bush administration seems to think that getting Musharraf to pledge to new Parliamentary elections in January will be a good thing. Apart from the simple fact that suspending democracy is not a good thing at all, how can Pakistan have valid elections under martial law when legitimate opposition members are in jail and civil liberties abolished.
Archive
- What can you build with 25,000 Dimes? (by Jacquie Kubin)