Tag Archives: President Zardari

Prior Convictions and Pakistan’s President

Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari

In the last few weeks, news reports have appeared in the US which mischaracterize the history of allegations against Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari. The publication “KGS Nightwatch,” a nightly national security newsletter, reported that  Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari “was disqualified from the start to ever serve in any public office because of his prior graft convictions and ongoing criminal investigations in Switzerland.” An NPR story reported that “the government of Switzerland opened an investigation into Zardari’s financial dealings, but the case was closed with no action taken.” These reports are factually incorrect.

Here are the facts: Asif Zardari was first convicted in 1999 by the Lahore High Court on corruption charges. In 2001, Pakistani intelligence documents including recording of phone conversations leaked to The Sunday Times (UK) showed that the presiding judge, Justice Malik Muhammad Qayyum, had been secretly colluding on the case with PML-N officials including then Chief Minister of Punjab Shahbaz Sharif. Pakistan’s Supreme Court overturned the conviction in 2001.

In 1998, then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif also initiated a case on the same allegations against Asif Zardari in Switzerland (not the Swiss authorities themselves). A Swiss magistrate convicted Zardari in absentia in 2003, but later that same year, a Swiss tribunal overturned the conviction on appeal. While it is true that opposition politicians continued to press the cases in Switzerland, they had not been able to secure a conviction by the time the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) was promulgated four years later. Daniel Zappelli, Geneva’s chief prosecutor, told Reuters in 2008 that “In the SGS/Cotecna case, no funds belonging to Benazir Bhutto were found,” and that he did not have sufficient evidence to bring Zardari to trial.

In short, neither conviction was able to withstand scrutiny.

Both convictions must be viewed in the historical and political contexts in which they were carried out. The Lahore High Court was proven to be pursuing the original case against in collaboration with government officials. Additionally, during the 1990s, the ISI was carrying out a secret program to defeat PPP candidates. Nawaz Sharif has also reported admitted that the Ehtesab (Accountability) Bureau initiated political cases against PPP leaders.

Nowhere does Pakistan’s constitution prohibit the subject of ongoing investigations or the victim of political attacks from holding public office. In contrast to recent news reports, Asif Zardari was and is eligible to serve as President of Pakistan. Reports that suggest otherwise erroneously and unhelpfully undermine the credibility Pakistan’s burgeoning democratic system.

The dawning of a new era?

Pakistan-India-Trip-2012

This month has seen significant developments in the hope for peace and stability in South Asia. President Zardari traveled to Delhi for one-on-one talks with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Both sides reported that the meeting went very well, and Prime Minister Singh has accepted an invitation from the Pakistani president to visit Pakistan soon.

The bilateral meeting preceded an unrelated trade fair in New Delhi where Pakistani businesses showed off their products to Indian buyers and investors, and India opening up to foreign investment from Pakistan “to deepen our economic engagement.”

But it isn’t just economic ties that have improved recently. President Zardari’s trip almost didn’t happen after an avalanche buried over 100 Pakistani soldiers stationed on the remote Siachen glacier a few days prior.

The tragedy at Siachen served as a stark reminder of the decades-long military standoff that has dominated security concerns in the region, diverting vast resources to defense budgets in both Pakistan and India. From Delhi, Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari Tweeted, “It is such a shame tht 2 countries w/ such large segments of our population live in desperate poverty must spend so much on weapons” – a sentiment soon echoed by Pakistan’s military chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani.

“Peaceful coexistence between the two neighbours is very important so that everybody can concentrate on the well-being of the people,” he told reporters…“We in the army understand very well that there should be a very good balance between defence and development. You cannot be spending on defence alone and forgetting about development,” he said.

“Ultimately the security of a country is not only that you secure boundaries and borders but it is when people that live in the country feel happy, their needs are being met. Only in that case will a country be truly safe.” He said national security should be a comprehensive concept.

In a further sign of progress, India’s Defense Minister, M.M. Pallam Raju, welcomed Gen. Kayani’s remarks.

With general elections expected in Pakistan next year and the year after in India, either government could change hands. Fortunately, the political environment appears to have changed to such an extent that even President Zardari’s biggest rival, Pakistan Muslim League – Nawaz (PML-N) President Nawaz Sharif praised Zardari’s visit to Delhi and encouraged further efforts to improve bilateral relations.

Looking back over the past four years of democratic rule, Pakistanis are asking themselves what democracy has delivered. With the economy and internal security situation suffering from the effects of terrorism, it is a complicated question for many. A breakthrough on resolving longstanding differences with India, however, could lay the foundation for a new era of peace and prosperity in the region. That’s a success many long believed unachievable.

President Zardari to extend Political Parties Act to FATA

Earlier this year we wrote that the citizens of FATA are as Pakistani as the citizens of Lahore, Karachi, and Faisalabad and they deserve the same political and legal rights as well. To that end, we supported a recommendation by Ziad Haider to extend the Political Parties Act to FATA, allowing mainstream political parties to organize in the region. According to Pakistani English-language daily, Dawn, this recommendation may soon be enacted.

A member of Pakistan’s parliament, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Dawn that President Asif Zardari is prepared to issue a presidential regulation as soon as this week.

“All is set for issuing a new presidential regulation, in the current week, extending the legislation that allows political mainstreaming of the tribal areas besides introducing some reforms in the Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR),” sources said.

Extending the Political Parties Act to all regions of Pakistan is an important step in expanding democracy to all Pakistanis and providing an alternative to the influence of extremist groups.

Time For A New Approach to US-Pakistan Relations

Zalmay Khalilzad

A response to Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad’s op-ed in The Washington Post

US-Pakistan relations may not be broken, but they’re certainly strained. Events in recent months have reinforced fears on both sides, and leaders in both countries are under increasing pressure from their respective publics to abandon each other. It’s clear that a new approach to US-Pakistan relations is needed. Unfortunately, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad’s op-ed in The Washington Post reflects a mindset steeped in past thinking, and his recommendations represent an old and dis-proven approach

What drives Pakistan?

Amb. Khalilzad offers two theories for why Pakistan’s military might support militant groups: Either they are trying to prolong the Afghan war in order to extort US aid, or they are trying to conquer Central Asia. This represents not only a false dilemma, but a fundamentally silly one.

The Kerry-Lugar-Burman bill (KLB) provides for $1.5 billion in economic aid annually for five years. While this aid is valuable, it represents about 0.3 percent of the nation’s GDP. Moreover, in the first year of KLB, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that only $179.5 million was actually disbursed. Even if it were possible to buy Pakistan’s cooperation, this amount of foreign aid is simply insufficient to do so.

The alternate theory offered – that Islamabad has a secret “ambitious plan to consolidate regional hegemony in Central Asia” – is equally nonsensical. With China and India sitting on its doorstep, Pakistan’s strategic priority is not to expand its influence across Asia, it’s to defend its own sovereignty. If Pakistan seeks influence in Kabul, it is not as a means of expanding its influence to Tashkent, it’s as as means of preserving it’s control of Lahore which sits precariously on the border with India.

So why might some in Pakistan’s military support the Afghan Taliban and militant groups like the Haqqani network? The same reason that they – and the US – supported these groups in the 1980s: they keep other people out. During the Cold War, the US supported the Taliban as a way of fighting Soviet influence in Kabul. Similarly, some security strategists in Pakistan today see the Taliban as a way of fighting Indian influence and preventing the nation from being boxed in by hostile neighbors.

What drives Pakistan is neither banditry nor ambition – it’s a basic desire for self-preservation. While some individuals in Pakistan may have ideological or religious affinity for the Taliban, this does not represent an official position any more than the existence of radicals in the US represent any official positions on the part of the US.

This is why it is disappointing that Amb. Khalilzad continually references “Pakistani support” for militant groups. By suggesting there is some state policy in support of these groups, the Ambassador ignores the incredible sacrifices that Pakistanis have made in the fight against militancy and extremism including the lives of over 35,000 Pakistani citizens.

Carrots and Sticks, re-revisited

Ambassador Khalilzad proposes using aid along with the promise to facilitate trilateral talks between Pakistan, Afghanistan, and India. In other words, what we’re already doing. But if these carrots are not sufficient to change Pakistan’s strategic outlook now, why would they be tomorrow?

The fact is that Pakistan seeks to reduce its reliance on aid, not prolong or deepen its dependency on foreign donors. We know this because it has been stated repeatedly by Pakistan’s President, Asif Zardari, as well as Pakistan’s Ambassador to the US, Husain Haqqani.

And the the Government of Pakistan has been doing more than just talking about improving its domestic economy. Pakistan announced this week that it has beat tax collection targets, bringing its tax-to-GDP ration to 9.2 percent, up from 8.9 percent a year ago. This demonstrates that the Government of Pakistan is making serious efforts to get its books in order, despite significant political obstacles – something Washington may want to eye with more sympathy as American lawmakers struggle to create consensus on their own economic policy.

Rather than continuing attempts to use economic and military aid as leverage, the US would be better advised to listen to Pakistan’s leadership and seriously discuss the possibility of improved trade deals such as Reconstruction Opportunity Zones (ROZ), lower textile tariffs, and investment in energy production and delivery to improve capacity in Pakistan’s domestic industry.

Similarly, the “sticks” proposed by Amb. Khalilzad amount to little more than cutting aid to Pakistan – a strategy that will only further entrench anti-democratic forces in Pakistan and reinforce suspicions that the US is a less reliable ally than Taliban militants. Again, we don’t have to assume this to be the case. We can look to the outcome of America’s policy of disengagement in the 1990s as a response to Pakistan’s nuclear program – a nuclearized Pakistan suspicious of US motives and interests.

Strengthening Civil Society

Despite his other errors, Amb. Khalilzad gets one thing right: “Ultimately, only the Pakistani people and a new generation of civilian leadership can rein in the country’s military leaders.” Whatever US interests in South Asia, the future of Pakistan will be defined by Pakistanis themselves. If the US wants to see a free and prosperous Pakistan, the only way forward is to invest in the success of Pakistan’s civil society.

That means dealing with the civilian political leadership, even when it might seem more efficient to deal directly with the military; it means focusing aid and investment on sustainable ways of improving the lives of ordinary Pakistanis; and it means listening to Pakistanis about their own priorities, rather than trying to convince them to prioritize American interests. Above all, if we are going to see a peaceful and stable Pakistan, the US must move beyond the strategies of the past and engage Pakistan as a partner, not a patron.

G8 Expresses Commitment to Pakistan

Following the G8 Summit of Deauville last week, the leaders of the world’s largest economies released a statement including the following expression of commitment to Pakistan.

We are committed to supporting Pakistan and re-emphasize the importance of Pakistan itself tackling its political, economic and social challenges by undertaking the urgently needed reforms supported by the international community. We acknowledge the crucial importance of education for the economic and social development of Pakistan. Our cooperation programmes will make getting more children into better schools a priority.

Earlier this year, Pakistan’s President Asif Zardari declared that education would be a top priority of his administration. Improving access to quality education for all Pakistanis is a fundamental step in solving Pakistan’s economic and security struggles. The G8’s commitment to the goal of improving access to quality education for all Pakistanis is an important step in making sure that President Zardari’s education priority can be realized.

An Economic Task Force For Pakistan

Delivering aid in Pakistan faces several challenges including a lack of capacity among local Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in some areas and critical perceptions of American intentions among the local population. While vital to laying the groundwork for economic development, aid is not enough. What Pakistan needs is greater access to world markets and increased foreign direct investment (FDI) to develop under-resourced sectors of its domestic economy. President Obama should facilitate this investment by convening a new economic task force for Pakistan.

Pakistan's under-resourced industries are an economic opportunity for American investment

“Trade, not aid” has been a consistent theme of Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari. During last summer’s historic flooding, the Pakistani leader thanked the world’s nations for their generous assistance, but reminded them that what the country really needs is greater access to the global marketplace – a point reiterated by President Zardari during a visit to Washington earlier this month to honor the late Ambassador Richard Holbrooke.

An article by Muhammad Aftab, an Islamabad based journalist, in Monday’s Daily Times examines the current state of foreign direct investment in Pakistan, and identifies several opportunities for increased investment in Pakistan’s under-resourced energy sector including oil and natural gas exploration and production, hydro and thermal power, and enmerging sources of renewable energy.

To facilitate Pakistan’s domestic economic growth and advance our shared goal of a stable, prosperous and peaceful Pakistan, President Obama should convene a special task force similar to his recently announced Council On Jobs And Competitiveness headed by GE CEO Jeffery Immelt to develop a strategy for shifting from aid-based investment to private sector/FDI based development.

The task force should comprise a joint public-private venture of corporate executives and diplomats with experience in South Asia, and should be tasked with a mission to identify opportunities for American companies to invest in Pakistan and areas where the government can help facilitate such investment either through federal regulation or international diplomacy.

Unlike aid-based development, this approach would directly benefit both parties by opening a two-way path for economic expansion between US and Pakistani markets while simultaneously bolstering Pakistan’s developing economic sectors with much needed capital and expertise. Additionally, it will avoid past misunderstandings as the results of the task force will not be money ‘with strings attached’, but cooperative efforts between American and Pakistani industry.

In convening this task force, President Obama would also clearly demonstrate that the US is not repeating past mistakes by using aid as a temporary incentive for Pakistan’s support in Afghanistan, only to abandon the country when the fighting ceases. Such a move could have a significant impact in reducing anti-American sentiment once the Pakistani people see that the US is not a fair-weather friend, but a long time partner and ally with a long-term interest in Pakistan’s success.

According to Finance Minister Dr Hafeez Sheikh, “Pakistan has a very liberal investment regime. There are no restrictions on FDI and inflow of capital and outflow dividend income. The current investment policies are tailor-made to meet the investors’ needs.” Sheikh also said, “There is a great potential for investment in the fields of oil and gas, corporate faring, agriculture and infrastructure.”

China recognizes the untapped economic potential in Pakistan, which is why President Hu Jintao recently signed trade and investment deals with Pakistan worth $35 billion. The US would be remiss to pass up such an opportunity.

White House Boosts Support For Pakistan

President Obama and President ZardariIn the wake of the tragic assassination of Governor Salmaan Taseer this week, the White House has signaled that it will increase support for Pakistan’s civilian government including military aid to strengthen its national security.

According to a Washington Post report on Saturday, “The Obama administration has decided to offer Pakistan more military, intelligence and economic support, and to intensify U.S. efforts to forge a regional peace”.

Vice President Joe Biden will travel to Pakistan next week to meet with government and military officials to discuss Pakistan’s needs and how the US can help.

In addition to providing additional economic and military support to Pakistan, the White House emphasized again the respect US has for Pakistan as a sovereign nation and a close ally.

The review resolved to “look hard” at what more could be done to improve economic stability, particularly on tax policy and Pakistan’s relations with international financial institutions. It directed administration and Pentagon officials to “make sure that our sizeable military assistance programs are properly tailored to what the Pakistanis need, and are targeted on units that will generate the most benefit” for U.S. objectives, said one senior administration official who participated in the review and was authorized to discuss it on condition of anonymity.

Any American policy will be developed with the intention of furthering American objectives. The fact that support for Pakistan is being “properly tailored to what the Pakistanis need” emphasizes not only American respect for Pakistan, but that American and Pakistani objectives have a clear point of convergence.

As the democratic government continues to build consensus around and implement important reforms such as the 18th Amendment and the Protection Against Harassment of Women at Workplace Bill, the US must continue to provide the economic, military and diplomatic assistance to help Pakistan succeed.

New York Times Gives Outsize Attention To Religious Groups

Yesterday’s New York Times published an article about demonstrations by Islamist parties defending Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. Salman Masood, the reporter who covered the story, called the protests “crippling” and suggested that conservative religious forces had Pakistan’s government on the run. But Masood’s report ignores fundamental points, including the fact that the strongest supporters of reform have been from the governing party and that a counter demonstration has already been scheduled for the 15th.

Salman Masood wrote that the demonstrations have put the governing Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) “on the retreat.” But the officials Masood quotes opposing the blasphemy law – Salmaan Taseer, Governor of Punjab, and Sherry Rehman, Member of the National Assembly – are members of the PPP. In fact, the PPP has been the most vocal and active proponents of changing the law with President Asif Zardari repeatedly calling for the law to be reviewed.

In addition to support for reform by government officials, a group of Pakistani citizens including prominent bloggers and journalists has organized a counter-protest for January 15th as a peaceful demonstration of the nation’s large community of liberals who want to see the law amended or overturned.

From the group’s Facebook page:

For thirty years, Pakistani Muslims and non-Muslims alike have been victimized by our blasphemy laws. We all know that these laws are often grossly misused. They do not account for the intent to commit blasphemy, and are most often used to settle personal or monetary disputes. For no fault of their own, victims end up either in jail for the rest of their lives, or killed by mobs. The victims of this law are almost always poor and powerless, and have no one to speak for them.

Recent developments have brought this issue in the public eye once again. It is time to say enough is enough. For too long, one side has dominated this debate, and drowned out our voices. We must remind them that we too are citizens of this country and that we too have a right to express our opinions.

Those of us against this law will be at Karachi Press Club on Saturday, January 15 at 3:00 p.m. to peacefully protest against it. Join us, stand with us, and let your voice be heard for equality and freedom for all Pakistanis.

Blocking traffic is always easier than getting elected – something right-wing religious parties can’t seem to do in Pakistan when facing open elections. Though it’s true that the government has tempered its rhetoric about amending the law, passing a new law is often far easier than changing one that’s been on the books – especially when the laws in question are wrapped in the emotion of religion.

The outsize media attention given to right-wing groups notwithstanding, Pakistanis are ready to shed the residual traces of past dictatorships. They said so quite loudly when they elected a progressive democratic government in 2008, and they will reiterate this call for reform when they come together on January 15th to call for an end to the religious discrimination enshrined in Zia’s blasphemy laws. The Question is: Will The New York Times be listening?

Why Pakistan’s Political ‘Crisis’ Isn’t One

President Zardari meets with MQM delegation
President Zardari meets with an MQM delegation to discuss their concerns.

Despite Chicken Little headlines declaring the government in ‘crisis,” the political negotiations in Pakistan are a natural part of parliamentary politics and, some analysts suggest, point to progress in the nation’s democracy.

The decision by the Muttahida Quami Movement (MQM) party to leave its seats in the federal cabinet – but remain on the treasury benches – has surprised political analysts who see the move as strategically questionable.

Leaders from the nation’s largest opposition party, the Pakistan Muslim League – Nawaz faction (PML-N), have exchanged harsh words with the MQM following their decision. In fact, the two parties are historically less politically aligned than the MQM-PPP alliance, and many suspect that MQM, with 25 seats in parliament, would have less influence under a coalition headed by the PML-N.

Still, the government is taking MQM’s concerns quite seriously. President Zardari has forbidden party officials from speaking ill of coalition members, and has reached out to MQM chief Altaf Hussain to assure him that the PPP will address his party’s concerns. Sindh Home Minister Dr. Zulfiqar Mirza, who earlier this month accused MQM activists of perpetrating political violence in Karachi, has offered to take a back seat to ease MQM concerns.

While some suggest that the move could result in mid-term elections, that does not seem likely. Pakistani analyst Cyril Almeida notes that a no-confidence vote in the parliament is mathematically impossible without PML-N support, a position opposition leader Chaudhry Nisar has previously dismissed.

With the ongoing threat from extremist groups, a fragile – albeit improving – economy, and a struggling energy sector, one would not be surprised to see the PML-N decide to let the PPP finish its term if only to bolster their own chances in the 2013 elections.

Abdul Quayyum Khan Kundi, president of the Pakistan Chamber of Commerce–USA, writes for Pakistan’s Daily Times that mid-term elections would be counterproductive at this late stage in the government’s tenure.

Mid-term elections will just be a game of musical chairs between the existing cadres of leaders but will cost the nation a lot of money and loss of productivity in the economy. There are only two years left in the term of the current government, which is not a long time to wait. During this time, the local bodies’ elections should be held so that an institution for future leaders is reinstated. These elections will be a litmus test of the nation’s choice for the next government in the province and Centre.

All things considered, it is not unusual to see internal coalition politics get messy, especially in countries with relatively young democratic systems. An editorial in today’s Dawn explains that the political dance is not unusual in coalition politics, and the way that all parties are handling themselves is encouraging.

With the PPP about a third of the way from having a majority in the National Assembly, the role of the supporting cast is crucial, and that was always going to be fertile ground for uncertainty. However, in a welcome sign that perhaps Pakistani politicians have matured somewhat, not a single political player of any significance has suggested his intention is to remove the government or perhaps even derail the democratic process.

Though the US is not a parliamentary democracy, I’m sure that President Obama can closely sympathize with his Pakistani counterpart Asif Zardari’s situation. Trying to hold together a coalition of politicians eager to demonstrate their independence and with their own political ambitions is no easy feat. That he’s managed to do so despite the challenges his government has faced is a testament not only to President Zardari’s staying power, but to an often underestimated political astuteness. As coalition partners negotiate, one things looks clear – the present government is navigating the tumultuous waters of democracy quite well.

American Media Misreporting Pakistan's Constitutional Reforms

As Pakistan’s parliament debates a package of constitutional reforms, it is important that these legal changes be viewed in the proper context. Unfortunately, anti-democratic talking points have crept into reporting on these developments in the American media. These talking points say that the National Assembly will be “curtailing” or “clipping” the powers of Asif Ali Zardari. In fact, the President has supported what is being discussed – a package of reforms that would redistribute powers previously seized by anti-democratic military dictators.

To understand the nuances of why this matters, a bit of historical context is in order. In 2008, Pakistan held elections that ushered in a new era of democratic rule. For the first time in decades, leaders selected by the people in open, free, and fair democratic elections governed the nation. It was a historic moment, and one that brought hope to the nation.

Despite the democratic elections, Pakistan’s government continued to operate under constitutional changes made by military dictators Zia-ul-Haq and Musharraf. From the outset of his term as President, Asif Ali Zardari vowed to undo the undemocratic consolidation of power that occurred under military dictatorships so that the government could operate with proper checks, balances and distribution of powers.

Over the course of the past year, Prime Minister Gilani and President Zardari have worked closely to craft a package of reforms that would return the Pakistani constitution to its democratic foundation. Last November, President Zardari stunned many onlookers when he voluntarily returned command of nation’s nuclear arsenal to the office of Prime Minister, where it lay prior to being seized by Gen. Musharraf in 2002. One might expect such an act to be met with praise, but Zardari’s anti-democratic opposition pounced on the opportunity to define the act to their advantage.

Unfortunately, much of the right-wing establishment in Pakistan still sees democratization as a threat. For a President to voluntarily return authority to the proper branches of government was dubbed ‘weak’ and ‘unpopular.’ We respectfully disagree with this point of view.

Some far-right publications, like the English-language newspaper The Nation, have recently complained that Zardari is going too far in promoting democratic reforms. This has caused some to question whether right-wing groups in Pakistan are trying to derail the process of democratization before the next elections in the hopes that they can take power under the rules set by previous dictators.

Unfortunately, anti-democratic talking points have begun to appear in American reporting about Pakistan’s constitutional reforms. Take, for example, an article in the Washington Post this week that begins,

Pakistan’s Parliament is expected to pass constitutional changes in coming weeks that would vastly curtail the powers of President Asif Ali Zardari, effectively sidelining the unpopular leader of the nation’s weak civilian government.

This paragraph not only reads like an anti-democratic opposition press release, the language has a tendency to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more people read that the democratically elected president is unpopular and that the constitutional reforms are meant to curtail Zardari personally, the more people begin to doubt the democratically elected president, and democratization more generally.

This is not unusual, of course, as we have seen recently the same phenomenon in American politics when opponents of President Obama’s health care bill repeatedly stated that health care reform was unpopular with the American people, only to see the bill’s popularity skyrocket when it became clear that it would pass. Whether American or Pakistani, people like to support a winning team.

Pakistani democracy is at a crucial moment in history – democratic and anti-democratic forces are wrestling over the future of the nation. Will Pakistan grow to become a free, democratic stronghold in South Asia? Or will right-wing forces turn Pakistan backwards towards the rule of Zia-ul-Haq and Musharraf?

We respectfully ask that American journalists consider their words when writing about democratic reforms, and recognize that the package of constitutional reforms currently under discussion in Islamabad is not a slight to President Zardari, but the culmination of difficult and humble choices made by the democratically elected President to return powers to their proper offices, ultimately putting his nation before himself.