Posts Tagged ‘Barack Obama’

The Nation Report About Obama Speech Belongs On Opinion Page, Should Be Properly Sourced

Thursday, January 28th, 2010
American President Barack Obama Giving His Speech

American President Barack Obama Giving His Speech

Today’s The Nation includes a report by an anonymous person known only as “Special Correspondent” on American President Barack Obama’s speech to the American Congress last night which chastises him for not mentioning Pakistan specifically enough. While it is true that Pakistan was not mentioned by name in the speech, the article is clearly meant to suggest a snub against Pakistan and thus belongs more appropriately on the Opinion page of the newspaper. Moreover, the suggestion that a lack of a specific mention of Pakistan in a speech by the American President to the American Congress is a snub is really quite silly.

The Nation’s anonymous reporter begins the article by criticizing Obama for not speaking enough about Pakistan and India-Pakistan relations.

Declaring that the United States has strengthened partnerships with its anti-terrorism allies, President Barack Obama on Wednesday cited his adminitration’s effective fight against al-Qaeda militants but said nothing specific about close ally Pakistan.

Although Obama took note of partnerships in Asia, his first State of the Union address made no mention of Pakistan, a US ally in the war on terror. There was also no reference to India-Pakistan relations and their impact on regional stability. The contentious Middle East conflict was another
major ommission in the speech.

It is true that Mr. Obama’s speech did not mention Pakistan by name, but it also does not mention any other nations that are currently fighting against terrorists. Mr. Obama did mention partnerships broadly, but does not single out any specific nations. For example, he said:

We’ve prohibited torture and strengthened partnerships from the Pacific to South Asia to the Arabian Peninsula.

Actually, the reason that Mr. Obama did not mention Pakistan or India-Pakistan relations in his speech was not a snub against Pakistan but because his speech was mostly about US affairs only. In fact, the anonymous reporter for The Nation even admits this in his report:

Obama’s address focused largely on economic recovery initiatives that his administration is pursuing…

Additionally, while Mr. Obama did talk briefly about foreign policy challenges, including the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, he did so from an American perspective for his American audience. He did not mention any of the other countries with troops in those wars, not only Pakistan. The anonymous reporter from The Nation does not mention that Mr. Obama also does not specifically mention other nations that are fighting against terrorism, including:

  • United Kingdom
  • France
  • Canada
  • Italy
  • Netherlands
  • Poland
  • Australia
  • Spain
  • Romania
  • Turkey
  • Czech Republic
  • Denmark
  • Belgium
  • Norway
  • Bulgaria
  • Sweden
  • Hungary
  • New Zealand
  • Croatia

Even though they were not mentioned, none of the media in other countries are writing anonymous opinion articles suggesting they were snubbed and trying to pass them off as ‘news’.

The Nation has a well-documented anti-American position with regards to foreign policy. Obviously, they have the right to this position and it is their right to continue to publish anti-American Editorials and Opinion columns. But such political positions belong on the Opinion page, not in the  sections for actual news reporting. The column in The Nation is clearly meant to raise anger among those people known as the Ghairat Brigade. The fact that the report is sourced to an anonymous “Special Correspondent” makes it even worse than misleading, though, it’s simply unprofessional.

The Nation Still Doesn’t Know How Democracy Works

Monday, January 18th, 2010

There is a certain irony to government because people do not like politicians, but, by definition, only politicians can run for political office. This makes for complicated relationships not only between the people and their political leaders, but the political leaders in their offices. The Nation, however, has proposed a modest solution that will solve all of these problems. Government leaders who are also politicians should simply quit. Brilliant!

In the editorial, “President in City,” The Nation writes a disjointed argument that starts by saying that President Zardari’s trip to the provinces proves that the country can continue to run when he is not in Islamabad. I am glad that The Nation has figured this out finally. I am worried, though, that these editors were staying home when Zardari was making overseas trips to the UN or to visit other heads of state. Did they think the country was shut down?

But the really funny part is when The Nation finds out that the President is a politician!

…the President may have realised by now that his position as President is in conflict with his position as head of one of the country’s two largest political parties. 

This realization has apparently caused great concern for the wise old men and women at The Nation. How can someone be a politician and be the leader of all people?

…he is supposed to be the foremost representative of the Federation, indeed its symbol, and should be open to all shades of politics, not just to those belonging to one party. However, the co-chairman of a party is expected to give ear to members of the party whenever he moves into the nation outside his capital.

This made me laugh out loud. Who does The Nation believe should be in government? Someone with no political party? Of course, The Nation’s editorial page often drips with nostalgia for the bygone days of military dictatorship, so this could very well be true. But Pakistan is no longer a dictatorship (Alhamdulillah), and it is a ridiculous assertion that a democracy would be run by people with no political party. Is USA President Barack Obama not the leader of his Democratic Party? Is UK PM Gordon Brown not the leader of his Labour Party? Is Angela Merkel not the Chancellor of Germany and also the Chairwoman of the Christian Democratic Union political party?

Okay, clearly The Nation does not understand how a democracy works. But what is their solution for the confusing situation in which Mr. Zardari is both President and a politician? He must resign! Naturally! It is almost as if this article was written backwards. I can hear the conversation at The Nation’s offices now:

“Okay, so we want a new editorial that says Mr. Zardari should resign.”

“Yes, but he seems to be doing everything that we are demanding! He has condemned the drone attacks, he has traveled to the provinces, he is working with opposition parties…what new way can we think to condemn him?”

“I know! We will say he is a politician!” 

Lately I have begun to wonder if Mr. Nadeem Paracha is not secretly writing the editorial page for The Nation as it has become some of the best political satire in the country. According to the logic of The Nation, no politician can be president. Brilliant!

It is clear that The Nation has some vendetta against the President and will not be happy until he resigns. That is certainly their right. But perhaps they should just be honest and write an editorial called, “We have a vendetta against the President and do not have any good reason, but would only like it if he resigns.” This would be much more honest and not require them to write such silliness as saying politicians should not be President.