Vleeptron reposts foul and abusive language so you can read it

The Agence-Vleeptron Presse supercomputer didn't explode when I tried to post BBC Urdu on it, but it screwed up the remainder of the English text, so here's a repost that shouldn't be all messed up and that you can read.

The earlier warning that AV-P's comments may be All Wrong remains in effect. But The (London UK) Telegraph's editorial is down below, as are reader comments.

================

The United Kingdom has a huge community of citizens of Pakistani descent. Modern Pakistan was part of Britain's India empire, and shortly after the colonial British Raj packed and went home in 1948, Pakistan and India separated, largely along religious lines. Former subjects of the Empire now possessed passports and citizenship which offered liberal migration to the UK and most Commonwealth nations around the world.

I don't know how to characterize Americans' news interest in Pakistan and its current political upheaval -- on CNN, O.J. Simpson's armed robbery accusations in Las Vegas have pretty easily knocked Pakistan off the screen -- but in the UK, BBC and daily newspaper coverage of the crisis in Pakistan is devoured intensely.

One factor cementing this bond and ratcheting up this news demand is that for at least 200 years, Britain forced the English language on the peoples of the Subcontinent -- if not directly at gunpoint, then in exchange for limited native participation offered by the Empire's system of government and commerce. The ticket to prosperity and upward mobility was printed exclusively in English. Though this vast region easily boasts a dozen major languages, English remains the glue that makes communication within the educated elite transparent and fluid from Islamabad to Dhaka and from the Himalayas to Sri Lanka. Even when relations between Pakistan and India are at their worst, neither government needs to bring along a translator.

Since declaring martial law last week, Pervez Musharraf -- who has acted as both civilian chief of state and as the commander of Pakistan's armed forces since a 1999 military coup overthrew the last elected civilian government -- has pulled the plug on both BBC and CNN broadcasts available to Pakistanis.

(BBC broadcasts in both English and Urdu, the largest Pakistani native language.)

The Musharraf government has also shut down privately-controlled television stations, but to date has allowed privately-controlled newspapers to keep publishing.

Much as it breaks this old newspaper guy's heart, it is a feature of the modern world that when a government wants to shut down the free flow of news and information, it now focuses almost entirely on television and radio, and doesn't waste much energy on daily newspapers. (That's why I know more about O.J. Simpson and Britney Spears this week than I do about the crisis in Pakistan.)

So who cares what newspapers say about anything? Clearly the latest edition of the dictator's textbook teaches that you can just ignore newspapers and let them snarl all they want; nobody reads, nobody gets his or her news from newspapers, hardly any minds are swayed from the pages of a newspaper.

Oddly enough, Musharraf, or one of his flunkies, cares. The government has taken the extraordinary step of expelling three journalists from the UK daily newspaper The Telegraph / Sunday Telegraph -- not for their own local coverage of the crisis, but for an editorial The Telegraph ran about Musharraf and the crisis on Friday.

In theory, a London newspaper editorial should upset the Pakistani military dictatorship at this moment about as much as an unflattering newspaper editorial from Uruguay should upset the Bush administration.

But in practice, somebody in Islamabad read Friday's Telegraph and went ripshit. Reuters:

===========

On Saturday, three journalists from Britain's Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph were expelled for "foul and abusive" language about the Pakistani leadership that officials said appeared in an editorial run on Nov. 9. A spokeswoman for the newspaper group in London declined to comment.

===========

Usually when a spokesperson declines to comment, the entity is hiding something or feeling guilty or embarrassed. Clearly not so here. The Telegraph was telling Reuters: "We already expressed our feelings in our editorial, go out and buy a copy."

Pretty damned sure this is the Telegraph editorial that shot Musharraf's blood pressure through the roof over his orange juice. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names ... well ...

Here's the first reader comment to The Telegraph in reaction to its editorial:

==============

The language used for the President of Pakistan in your leading article ("Bankrupt relationship", November 9) is offensive and flouts the norms of decent journalism.

For a newspaper of The Daily Telegraph's reputation to resort to such derogatory language is highly regrettable.

This deserves an apology.

Posted by Imran Gardezi, Minister Press, Pakistan High Commission, London SW1 on November 9, 2007
============

The Telegraph (daily newspaper London UK)
Friday 9 November 2007

Editorial

Bankrupt relationship

Despite George W Bush's rhetoric about freedom, the struggle against terrorism is provoking a reaction familiar from the Cold War and nowhere is that clearer than over Pakistan.

In the old parlance, General Pervez Musharraf is "our sonofabitch". He has failed to stamp out extremist groups and close the madrassas that inspire them. He has allowed the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan to fall into the hands of assorted jihadis. And he has sacked independent-minded judges for fear that the Supreme Court declare illegal his re-election as president last month.

Yet, despite this combination of incompetence and brutality, America and Britain continue to back him as head of what has a strong claim to be the most dangerous country in the world.

In order to broaden the government's political base, their plan is for the general to doff his army uniform later this month and enter into a power-sharing arrangement with Benazir Bhutto, leader of the Pakistan People's Party, after general elections in February.

If that ever comes to pass, it will bring together a soldier whose popularity has plummeted and a politician whose standing has been undermined by her willingness to cut a deal with him. And the prospects for its lasting are slim: Miss Bhutto and the military are like oil and water.

In short, the relationship between Gen Musharraf and the West is bankrupt. Valued as an ally after 9/11, he is now part of the problem. Under his dictatorship, Pakistan has become an increasingly ungovernable country in which moderate, secular forces have been sidelined to the advantage of the Islamists.

An alternative – an alliance between General Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani, the army chief designate, and Miss Bhutto's secular rival, Nawaz Sharif – seems neither imminent nor especially enticing. But that should not blind Britain and America to the fact that their "sonofabitch" in Pakistan is a spent force.

- 30 -

=========================

Have your say / comments:

=========================

The image which frightens me, and many in the west, is suicide bombers armed with nuclear weapons. A modern nuclear weapon could easily fit into a suitcase. Even smaller weapons may be possible - George Dyson claims in "Project Orion" that his father, Freeman Dyson link, helped to develop an atomic bomb so small it would fit in a shoebox.

So how do we stop the terrorists with nukes? Until there is a clear answer to that question, America and other powers will continue to do strange things in the name of peace.
Posted by Eric Worrall on November 9, 2007 1:11 PM

The US and UK are demanding elections in Pakistan; have they not learned from recent history? In Iraq, sectarian thugs like Nouri al-Maliki took power as a result of elections; and we all know what happened in the Palestinian Authority. The US and UK actively encouraged these elections. As my mother always says: "Be careful what you wish for".
Too many supposedly intelligent people in the UK Foreign Office and US State Department believe that elections are the solution to every crisis; but sometimes they create more problems than they solve.
Posted by Michael Laurence on November 9, 2007 12:04 PM

I think that the outside interests being slated in this piece and in comments so far rather divert attention from the realities on the ground in Pakistan where democracy is nothing like it is cracked up to be with blind support in millions to figures like Miss Bhutto and tacit support now waning from equally many to the dictatorship operated by President-General Musharraf.

I haven't noted the democratic process or indeed the application of laws on corruption and the like getting too much in the way of the ascendancy of either - or indeed of the missing player, Nawaz Sharif - who is the democratic leader actually ousted by Musharraf's coup.

Whither the emergence of a true candidate under no shadows and dancing to no external master - yet also interested in securing the borders of Pakistan and dealing with extremist fundamentalism within the framework of a secular state and laws?

My guess is that the educated, ruling class is as much a caste in Pakistan ever in power as in India - even if names not previously at the top in politics gain something out of the present situation.

What is an ordinary Pakistani - and what is that they want from politics for their country - does anyone really know - given the charismatic approach of Bhutto and the dictatorship of Musharraf they appear to have no voice. I wonder though what mischief is being dispensed by the religious with so much access to those at prayer. Extremism is not just operating overtly in the northern border regions.
Posted by simon coulter on November 9, 2007 11:52 AM

George Bush only believes in Democracy and Freedom when and as it suits him to do so. The situation in Pakistan is typical of American politics during his presidency as is the situation in Iraq.The rule of law is just that and you cannot pick and chose when and if to use it and follow it as you please like he seems to think that you can.Remember unlike Iran Pakistan does have nuclear weapons of mass destruction !!Will Usa invade in the name of freedom and democracy for the people though?
Posted by william beeby on November 9, 2007 10:48 AM

We must win the war on terror even if it means:-

1) the deaths of terrorists and their friends,
2) those who don't support us in the war on terror and their friends,
3) those who we suspect to be terrorists and their friends;
4) those who we suspect are not with us (although not against us) in the war on terror;
5) those in countries that may become terror states;
6) the inhabitants of the Axis of Evil countries;
7) Effectively 75%, or more of world's population must die in order for us to win the war on terror.

We the British think that this is a small price to pay peace and security in the world today.

Posted by Major John Driver on November 9, 2007 10:05 AM

When he was last in the UK I saw Musharraf on TV chat show he seemed to be quite a humnourous chap more interested in selling his book! What I don't understand is why he (and other leaders) doesn't just take the money and retire somewhere nice?
Posted by Steve Byrne on November 9, 2007 8:41 AM

"In short, the relationship between Gen Musharraf and the West is bankrupt."

It is better to replace Gen Musharraf with Pakistan. At least, West is realizing so late that their policies and relationship on Pakistan have been bankrupt. Unfortunately, it is yet to wake up on Saudi Arabia and its corrupt highly feudal and fundamentalist monsters!

These two betrayed, showed double face and double standards on war on terror and West’s interests in Iraq and Afghanistan. Here Bush is largely guilty with his poor understanding of these nations. He got carried away by personal relationships!

To safeguard the US and allies’ interest in Afghanistan, they have to be ruthless and merciless on Pakistan. Unfortunately, this will have a spill over in the West itself due to a high percentage of Pakistani immigrants in some nations such as Britain and some more. Internally also, they have to keep a strict watch on their Islamic extremist activities and terrorism in some cases!

The choices are very limited in Pakistan. Pakistan is sitting on a powder keg and there will be a free for all bloody civil war over which West will have few controls!
Regards,
Posted by Krishna R. Kumar on November 9, 2007 3:14 AM

This whole stupid situation has arisen because the US has one template for dealing with muslim countries and its been developed in the Arab world. The fact is, Pakistan is very different from Algeria or Saudi Arabia. It has a real democratic tradition, real parties, real lawyers and (thanks to honorable chief justice Iftikhar Choudhry) almost had an independent judiciary. Even the British colonial administration, while autocratic and colonial in its outlook, had moved centuries beyond the Caliphs and Kings of the Arab world. Yet the Americans insisted on seeing Pakistan as just another Egypt or Algeria or Syria and spent 10 billion dollars propping up an incompetent, dishonest and useless dictator. Now they will complain that Pakistani people dont admire us and dont support our "war on terror"????
Posted by Omar Ali on November 9, 2007 1:38 AM

By basically giving Musharaff constant approval and plenty of friendly, purring sounds, the US and Britain have managed to achieve their worst possible nightmare; a real-live nuclear power on the verge of an Islamist take-over. All of this attention being paid to the loud-mouthed racist in Iran has taken everyone's attention off the ball. It is Pakistan where one will find the real allies of Al Qaeda, not in Iran or Iraq. It is Pakistan where you will find operational nuclear devices and the missiles capable of delivering them to a rather large radius of Central Asian countries, not Iran or Iraq.

It was a mistake to give Musharaff the nod of approval after 9-11. Rather than give us a great ally, it gave us a dictator with surprisingly little power over key areas of the country.

Tnank goodness India is there to keep whoever manages to crawl and/or shoot their way to power in check.
Posted by Aaron Clausen on November 9, 2007 1:06 AM

Please remember that the submission of any material to telegraph.co.uk is governed by our Terms and Conditions (clause 5 in particular) and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

© Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2007