POLITICIAN, n. An eel in the fundamental mud upon which the superstructure of organized society is reared. When he wriggles he mistakes the agitation of his tail for the trembling of the edifice. As compared with the statesman, he suffers the disadvantage of being alive.
#1
POLITICIAN, n. An eel in the fundamental mud upon which the superstructure of organized society is reared. When he wriggles he mistakes the agitation of his tail for the trembling of the edifice. As compared with the statesman, he suffers the disadvantage of being alive.
I've argued for years that partition is the best solution for Ukraine, which never was a country but an almalgam of provinces left over from failed empires--Russian, Austrian, Lithuanian, Ottoman--cobbled together into a Soviet "republic" and cast adrift after the collapse of Communism. Lviv (Lemberg) was a German-speaking city, part of Silesia; before World War II a quarter of its people were Jews. Jews were two-fifths of the population of Odessa.
A fifth of the population, mainly in the East, are ethnic Russians; a tenth, mainly in the West, are Uniate Catholics, who have a special place in Catholic policy since the papacy of John Paul II. Ukrainian nationality is as dubious as Byelorussian nationality: neither of them had a dictionary of their language until 1918.
The country also is a basket case. At its present fertility rate (1.3 children per female), its 47 million people will shrink to only 15 million by the end of the century. There are presently 11 million Ukrainian women aged 15 to 49 (although a very large number are working abroad); by the end of the century this will fall to just 2.8 million. There were 52 million Ukrainian citizens when Communism fell in 1989. Its GDP at about $157 billion is a fifth of Turkey's and half of Switzerland's. Ukrainians want to join the European Union rather than Russia so they can emigrate. It is of no strategic, economic, or demographic importance to the West.
...Russia never will permit the integration of Ukraine into NATO; were it to come to that, Russia would use force, and the West would stand by cursing. But Russia will settle for half a loaf, namely a Russian-allied Eastern Ukraine. Whatever we do, Ukraine will continue its slow, sad slide into oblivion. The diplomats have the dour duty of managing this decline with the minimum of friction.
I commented at Instapundit and copy it here:
A partition that involves a vote of the Ukrainian people will fail.
As several other commenters have pointed out, a vote is almost certainly going to be suborned: the Russians will ensure that the east votes to join them and will put in oar into the western half; the Euros will likewise try to get the west to vote to be 'free'. The vote will be contested, questioned and then ignored. It's a pointless exercise that will only inflame all Ukrainians one way or another.
If a Higher Power could partition Ukraine into what makes some objective sense -- a western/northern half that is independent and nominally neutral, with ties to the West, and an eastern/southern half that becomes federated into Russia -- one might see peace for a time. One might be able to convince the Russians to leave the western half alone (the good riddance theory). One might be able to convince the Ukrainian nationalists to quiet down and implode demographically.
But an election simply guarantees the civil war that many are trying to avoid.
Sorry, I know I sound anti-democratic, and I do think that in the end the western and eastern parts of the Ukraine can't live together in peace. But an election guarantees more blood. The adults in that country have to fix the problem.
#1
At this point, perhaps if we had a real president and Sec State we could whisper into Putins ear that we would not oppose the Eastern (Russian) part's secession and plebiscite to become part of Russia, providing they leave the western part alone (with pipeline security guaranteed for Gazpom) and keep Crimea separate and neutral (a la WW2 Finlandization). The rest of it can either form up or split off into Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, etc, leaving a rump republic for the ethnic Ukrainians.
This has been brewing since the a Orange revolution and the backlash that followed.
#3
Black Sea bases staying Russian is pretty much a given. Being realistic about it, there will have to be an "accommodation" there regardless of what else happens.
Resolving this would be a possibility if we had a decent diplomatic corps and an adept SecState. Problem is we have neither. Foggy Bottom is a rats nest of leftys and poseurs, and Jon F'n Kerry is an empty suited gigolo who hasn't a clue how to perform his function as SecState.
[DAWN] EVERY state requires a border control force, normally a paramilitary force. In Pakistain, the border control forces include: the Pakistain Rangers (Punjab and Sindh), Frontier Corps (Balochistan ...the Pak province bordering Kandahar and Uruzgun provinces in Afghanistan and Sistan Baluchistan in Iran. Its native Baloch propulation is being displaced by Pashtuns and Punjabis and they aren't happy about it... and KP) and the Coast Guard for maritime borders. These have been established under specific laws with a mandate to protect us from border intrusions.
Police organizations commissioned by the British in the provinces now forming Pakistain, were established with different aims. The police force designed on the Irish Constabulary model was most economical and best suited to colonial interests.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
02/22/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
[DAWN] IT would appear that the Taliban are broadcasting on a radio frequency most Paks are not tuned into. And yet their message is loud and clear: our version of the Sharia, or else.
But the rose-tinted vision of an earthly heaven has little to do with reality. As we know from Afghanistan when it was ruled by the Taliban, it is hardly the model of governance most of us would like to live under.
Despite the latest Taliban atrocity -- and one merges into the next in a red mist -- Nawaz Sharif
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
02/22/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
Funny how it's a universal that reporters are reflexively liberal.
Paki journos - "We deplore the Taliban and all they stand kill for, but we deplore those nasty Amerikkan drone strikes more!"
US journos - "We deplore that nasty capitalism, but we deplore decreases in gummint stealing spending even more!"
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
02/22/2014 11:32 Comments ||
Top||
[DAWN] THERE will be no military court for Pervez Perv Musharraf ... former dictator of Pakistain, who was less dictatorial and corrupt than any Pak civilian government to date ... 's treason trial; the special court that has been convened to try Mr Musharraf for suspending the Constitution in November 2007 has turned down the former strongman's demand to be tried under military jurisdiction. While there was never any cogent legal reason for Mr Musharraf's request to be acceded to, the special court's decision is nevertheless a welcome one. For it establishes the precedent that crimes against the Constitution, drawn up and approved by civilians, in a system designed to be led by civilians ought to be tried by a civilian court. Anything else and the perpetuation of the civil-military imbalance that has so blighted the political, social and economic history of this country would have been underlined further. In 2014, that would have been an unmitigated disaster for the democratic project.
Still, rejecting Mr Musharraf's demand for the case to be handed over to a military court does not mean the path has been cleared to a trial and conviction of the former army chief. That the court has bent over backwards to accommodate the demands and recalcitrance of Mr Musharraf so far could be seen, in a generous context, as the special court's desire to afford Mr Musharraf every possible right to due process and a fair trial. However, some people are alive only because it's illegal to kill them... there is also a less generous view: the court, in endlessly delaying even the indictment of Mr Musharraf, is giving a high-profile accused with an expensively assembled and prominent defence team special treatment. There is a line between what transparency and fairness demands and special treatment, and a case could be made that the special court has come uncomfortably close to crossing that line. With the key jurisdiction issue now dispensed with, perhaps the court will look to speed up the process -- while continuing to grant Mr Musharraf every right to due process and a fair trial that he is entitled to under the law.
Of course, given the obvious political overtones, the future of the Musharraf trial cannot be assessed solely through a legal prism -- desirable as that may be. That a civilian court can decide to try a former army chief after an elected civilian government carried out an independent investigation and drew up charges against the former army chief is a significant step forward for the transition to democracy and civilian supremacy. Those are unequivocal gains for the democratic project and should not be squandered by delay on the part of either the judiciary or the government-appointed prosecution. Behind-the-scenes civil-military machinations, a defendant who is at best reluctant to be tried, a military operation that may or may not begin soon, a TTP leadership that may either agree to a ceasefire or turn up the heat more -- that and more are factors that can muddy the trial waters. The trial must move ahead soon.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/22/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#2
Hmmm you dont spose this has anything to do with Obama unilaterally issuing new exemptions for refugees who provided limited material support to terrorists do yah?
#1
500 years before a child was born in Bethlehem written in the Book of Psalms by King David;
the kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying,
3 Let us break Their bonds asunder, and cast away Their cords from us.
4 He that sits in the heavens shall laugh; the Lord shall hold them in derision.
5 Then shall He speak unto them in His wrath, and vex them in His sore displeasure:
6 Yet have I set My King upon My holy hill of Zion.
7 I will declare the decree: The Lord hath said unto Me, Thou art My Son; this day have I begotten Thee.
500 years later when his Son was born the following eternal prediction was made:
16 Simon Peter answered and said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 Jesus answered and said to him, Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
#2
David was actually about 1000 years before Christ.
In the 590-590 BC decade, King Zedekiah of Judah was making a complete hash of his rule, trying to build alliances to fight off the Babylonians and tearing down buildings to shore up the gates that the Babylonians were battering. This despite repeated warnings from the prophets that he was ignoring God's command to fight the evils of his administration, and serve the Babylonians as a vassal state so that he could concentrate on cleaning up his government.
During that time, Jeremiah's cousin went broke, and asked Jeremiah to bail him out by buying a field about 7 miles out of town. This was the protocol when you were down on your luck: Sell your land to the nearest relative, who would restore the land to you in the Year of Jubilee. Jeremiah bought the field, despite the derision of a number of witnesses; and he said that God promised that people would buy and sell again in that land, and God Himself would dwell among them, and be their righteousness.
God terrifies dictators of every stripe, from the Dear Leader to every tinpot politician, like the Freedom From Religion goons who are trying to force the La Crosse Police Dept to stop using volunteer chaplains to comfort crime victims.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Nawaz Sharif
Pervez 
Of course, given the obvious political overtones, the future of the Musharraf trial cannot be assessed solely through a legal prism -- desirable as that may be. That a civilian court can decide to try a former army chief after an elected civilian government carried out an independent investigation and drew up charges against the former army chief is a significant step forward for the transition to democracy and civilian supremacy. Those are unequivocal gains for the democratic project and should not be squandered by delay on the part of either the judiciary or the government-appointed prosecution. Behind-the-scenes civil-military machinations, a defendant who is at best reluctant to be tried, a military operation that may or may not begin soon, a TTP leadership that may either agree to a ceasefire or turn up the heat more -- that and more are factors that can muddy the trial waters. The trial must move ahead soon.
Due to it's potentially inflammatory content, this article is pending review by FCC reviewers and navigators. 
