Rupee News

Zardari: Machivillian brilliance or Khalilzad's Afghan-US pawn?

Share

??????? ????| PAKISTAN LEDGER | ???????? ????? | Aug 21, 08 | Moin Ansari | ???? ??????? | | RUPEE NEWS | Moin Ansari | Sepetember 1st, 2008 | ???? ??????? | ????? ????? | The elected military dictator is gone. Long Live the new “un-elected” Dictators. There was celebration in the streets! This was supposed to be the dawn of democracy in Pakistan. Like before the political games are being played to disqualify and incarcerate the opponents.

• Obama to unveil new policy: Marshal Plan & end to bombing raids in Pakistan
• Peek into Obama’s brains: Bruce Reidel on Pakistan
• Growing consensus in the Obama team: Much of Pakistan’s problems originate in Afghanistan 
• Obama advisor Weinbaum predicts total Afghan policy review: Sees focus on talks & Reconciliation
• Afghanistan: Gen. Petraeus’ Pakistani advisers: Indians jittery 
• Obama adviser Weinbaum gives deep insights into new Afghan policy

The Sharif government is in crisis in the Punjab and may not survive the vote of no-confidence. After the election of Mr. Zardari, he will retain 58-2(b), and have governments in all the provinces as well as FATA and Northern Areas. With a PPPP president, a PPPP Prime Minister, a PPPP Speaker of the house this makes the leader of the PPPP a very powerful man. He may not be literate, or have a degree, but surely he has played his cards right. He has eliminated Benazir Bhutto, used Prevez Musharraf to eradicate the criminal cases against him, used Aitizaz Ahsan to put pressure on the military, used the Sharif’s to remove Pervez Musharraf, and then gotten rid of the Sharifs–all the time remaining in secret contact with Mr. Zalmay Khalilzad of the USA. Machivillian brilliance or just a pawn in the hands of the USA? 

Mr. Zarmay Khalilzad is expected to be the next president of Afghanistan. His good relationship with Mr. Zardari will surely help to smooth relations between two of America’s allies. This is in line with US interests.

The biggest task for the new government will be to manage the expectations of the populace. The cheering crowds expect the prices of food items to return to 1999 levels, the elimination of food and fuel shortage, an end to US bombing of FATA and an end to terror. Most of this will not happen. As the pressure builds, the coalition will come under tremendous pressure.

The PPPP and PMLN participate in elections, but are not known for their democratic norms and parliamentarian ways. In the first term of Benazir Bhutto she hardly passed any major legislation and did almost nothing to ameliorate the lot of the women and the poor. The Hadood ordinance survived here two stints in power and has not been repealed in the past 100 days.

The PMLN in their last term did not use the parliament or even the cabinet to discuss issues. Most of the problems were resolve din “Abbajees kitchen cabinet” between the father and his two sons and a few close confidantes. The treasury was looted and the foreign exchange earnings of normal hard working people seized. At the tail end of his government Mr. Nawaz Sharif had left only $200 million.

The PPP-PLMN alliance government of 2008: The Foreign exchange vaults have fallen from $17 Billion to $8 Billion. Inflation, partly due to the rising oil prices but also due to bad or lack of governance is spiraling out of control. There are food, fuel and electricity shortages.

The worst criticism is that both the leaders, Mr. Sharif and Mr. Zardari are always out in London and Dubai.

The co-chairman Mr. Bilawal Bhtto arrived in Pakistan and had to admit to a reporter “I do not speak Urdu”.

The dictator is gone. Long Live the new Dictators.

August 26, 2008

Zalmay Khalilzad angers US over contact with Asif Ali ZardariJames Bone, New York
A top American diplomat tipped as a possible president of his native Afghanistan has fallen foul of his masters in Washington for fraternising with Benazir Bhutto’s widower, a contender to become president of neighbouring Pakistan.

Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador at the United Nations, has angered senior Bush Administration officials by maintaining what they call “unauthorised contacts” with Asif Ali Zardari, the leader of the Pakistan People’s Party.

The Afghan-born diplomat has reportedly spoken with Mr Zardari several times a week for the past month and planned to meet him privately on Tuesday during a holiday in Dubai.

The New York Times today published a leaked e-mail that Richard Boucher, the Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia, sent Mr Khalilzad after learning of the contacts from Mr Zardari himself.

Related Links
Bhutto widower set to replace Musharraf
Cracks appear in Pakistan’s ruling coalition
Envoys fail to break losing streak
“Can I ask what sort of ‘advice and help’ you are providing?” Mr Boucher asked Mr Khalilzad in the e-mail. “What sort of channel is this? Governmental, private, personnel?”

Mr Khalilzad, 57, an ethnic Pashtun, was born in the Afghan city of Mazar-e Sharif as the son of a civil servant under the Afghan monarchy. He first came to the United States as a high-school exchange student and eventually earned a PhD in political science at the University of Chicago.

He took up his post as the US representative at the UN after serving as US ambassador first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq, where he was known for reaching out to anti-American factions.

A charming and courteous man, he is well liked at the UN for his back-slapping bonhomie despite the widespread disdain among other delegations for his government’s hawkish policies.

He was recently caught on in-house UN television hugging Libya’s UN ambassador and explained that he was congratulating the Libyan envoy on the marriage of his son.

But he got into trouble with his bosses for sitting next to the Iranian foreign minister at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in January without prior clearance, even though the two countries have no diplomatic ties.

Mr Khalilzad became a friend of Mr Zardari several years ago after meeting him with his wife, Benazir Bhutto, who was assassinated in Pakistan in December.

Richard Grenell, a spokesman for the US mission to the UN, said that he had planned to meet him in his “personal capacity” while on holiday in Dubai but had postponed the meeting after consultations with senior State Department officials.

The friendship between the two men – who could end up as presidents of neighbouring states – has caused a diplomatic headache for the Bush Administration, which is trying to stay out of Pakistan’s internal politics.

“We have maintained a public line that we are not involved in the politics or the details. We are merely keeping in touch with the parties,” Mr Boucher wrote to Mr Khalilzad in his August 18 e-mail. “Can I say that honestly if you’re providing ‘advice and help’? Please advise and help me so that I understand what’s going on here.”

Mr Khalilzad, who did not attend a UN Security Council session on Burundi today because he is on holiday, is the focus of continued speculation in Afghanistan that he may return to his native land to run in the presidential election scheduled for next year.

The US ambassador plans to step down in the coming months as the Bush Administration comes to an end, but he has repeatedly said that he will not seek to become Afghan president.

“I am honored to have the opportunity to represent the United States in the United Nations,” he told reporters recently. “This is my job and when I leave this job I will work in the private sector in the United States of America.”

The resignation

U.S./U.N. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad to Leave Office

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 11:47 AM

By: Stewart Stogel Article Font Size

UNITED NATIONS – The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, is expected to leave office before the November elections, diplomatic sources report.

While Khalilzad’s departure had been expected, his resignation date is likely to be moved up and could come as early as October, sources said.
The move apparently comes as a result of a recent falling out between the ambassador and senior State Department officials, including Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte, who served as the Bush administration’s first U.S. ambassador to the U.N.

Things came to a head on Tuesday when The New York Times reported that Khalilzad had been unofficially advising Asif Ali Zardari, the widower of Benazir Bhutto and leading candidate to succeed Pervez Musharraf as president of Pakistan.

Khalilzad, an Afghan native, is rumored to be flirting with the possibility of returning home to challenge President Hamid Karzai when his term expires next year. Should Khalilzad return home, a good working relationship with Islamabad would be critical.

The Pakistani incident is just the latest misstep involving the U.S. ambassador. Khalilzad and his deputy, Alejandro Wolff, have been roundly criticized by U.N. diplomats for the disjointed way the delegation has handled the Russian invasion of Georgia, sources report. The invasion – almost three weeks old – has paralyzed the Security Council.
Two competing draft resolutions, one by France, the other by Russia, stand little chance of passage. The U.S. delegation has been pushed to the sidelines, doing little more than issuing empty, inflammatory warnings to Moscow.

Russia’s U.N. ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, told Newsmax he has been confused by the U.S. delegation, at one point asking, “do you speak English?” Churkin’s concerns have been echoed by other Council diplomats.
While the White House struggles over the Russian invasion and the U.N.’s inaction, the U.S. representative still decided to take a previously scheduled vacation in Dubai. Despite the problems, State Department spokesman Robert Wood offered a luke warm endorsement of the U.S. ambassador: “The Secretary [of State Condoleezza Rice] still has full confidence in the ambassador.” But when asked if Khalilzad should offer his resignation, Wood brushed aside the question, stating such matters were outside his responsibilities.

Khalilzad’s fall from grace is contrasted by an entry on Wikipedia, where the U.S. ambassador was reported to aspire to be the “first Islamic secretary of state.”
Khalilzad, a naturalized U.S. citizen, previously served as American ambassador to Kabul, and later to Iraq, before arriving at the U.N. in March 2007. Khalilzad succeeded John Bolton, whose neo-con politics infuriated Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman and Democratic vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden, D-Del., who successfully blocked his Senate approval.

Ben Chang, the U.S./U.N. mission’s spokesman, had no comment on developments other than to note that Khalilzad had publicly stated he intended to leave his U.N. post before a new U.S. administration takes office in January 2009.

1. The history of Pakistan and its alliance with the USA and a Marshall plan for Pakistan.
2. BOOK REVIEW: The India Doctrine by Munshi. Some basic facts about India. SECULAR INDIA? Christian genocide in Indian Orissa-pictures
3. The genesis of the Kashmir problem and the wishes of the Kashmiri people.
4. The negative role of the India in Afghanistan. India intelligence: “‘the aim of RAW is to keep internal disturbances flaring up and the ISI preoccupied so that Pakistan can lend no worthwhile resistance to Indian designs in the region.”
5. India a secret player in Afghanistan: Bases—Lashkargarh, Qushila Jadid,Khahak,Hassan Killies
6. The ineptness of the Karzai government. Karzai the biggest drug baron in Afghanistan
7. It all came tumbling down…the house of cards that George built—in Kabul
8. The last mayor of Kabul’s failures spell the end of Afghanistan. How long can the inept Karzai blame others for his corrupt Narco Warlordism?
9. British “Charge of the Light Brigade” in Afghanistan AGAIN: Unfortunately the lessons of the unmitigated disaster of “Auckland’s Folly”, (First Anglo-Afghan War 1838–42) have not been taught to the Oxbridge students.

President Pervez Musharraf announced his resignation on TV: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pakistan19-2008aug19,0,5947849.story

The reaction

The exit of President Pervez Musharraf from the political stage in Pakistan opens up an era of both possibilities and risks for the country.

The alliance that came to power after the elections in February will now really have to get to grips with its biggest challenges – a possible economic meltdown and the growing militant threat in the north-western tribal areas bordering Afghanistan.

If they fail, it may spell the end of the hopes of Pakistan ever becoming a successful democracy.

The key for failure or success lies with the two largest parties in the alliance, the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N).

In the six months since the elections, they have spent much of their energy arguing about what to do with President Musharraf.

In fact, the alliance came close to a split in May when they could not agree then on whether to impeach Mr Musharraf and whether to try to reinstate the judges he had sacked in November 2007.

So with Mr Musharraf out of the way, will things get better?

Can they put their need to collaborate above the narrow interests of each party?

Strains

The PPP emerged as the largest party in February elections but failed to win a simple majority in the parliament.

Lawyers celebrate outside the presidential palace in Islamabad

Many analysts believe it wants to expand its influence in the PML-N’s power base in the province of Punjab, where more than half of the country’s voters live.

A couple of recent PPP moves in this direction have caused strains in the alliance.

But the reinstatement of the judges could be a bigger problem.

The issue has been central to PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif’s recent politics, and is generally believed to have added to his increased popularity in the post-election period.

But the PPP is said to be inclined to keep some of the judges, including deposed Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, out of a restoration deal, a condition which Mr Sharif has so far resisted.

Many say PPP leader Asif Zardari fears that Justice Chaudhry may outlaw a legal arrangement under which corruption cases against him were withdrawn, paving the way for his return to the country last year.

Fractured country

The more optimistic view is that Mr Sharif and Mr Zardari have compelling reasons to bury their differences.

Ordinary Pakistanis are desperate for economic improvement

The political future of both leaders lies in their ability to deliver in political as well as economic terms, a task which no single party can perform on its own, given the fractured state of the country.

In the coming days, the two men will come under increasing pressure to tackle severe food and fuel inflation, falling reserves, a yawning trade gap and an overall slowdown in economic growth.

In addition, they will continue to face questions over their proposed legal reforms, and the fate of hundreds of ‘missing’ persons – most of them political activists allegedly being held incommunicado by the intelligence agencies.

And there’s another big reason why the two men cannot afford to fail.

Both have been victims of military coups in the past, and it is only through joint action that they can hope to survive another attempt by Pakistan’s powerful military to keep a civilian government under its influence.

It is widely thought here that success on both counts will require the political as well as economic backing of Western powers, notably the US.

This will also bring Western pressure on the country’s army to deal with the militants more effectively, analysts say.

And that leads on to another long-standing problem that democratic governments face in Pakistan.

The military question

How can this coalition make sure that the military conducts its operations in the way the civilian government wants, rather than in the way the military wants?

Will the military do the bidding of Pakistan’s civilian government?

The military’s present campaign in the Bajaur tribal region is its first credible assault on a suspected al-Qaeda stronghold in several years, but questions remain over how far it will go.

A similar operation in South Waziristan in the winter of 2007 was called off just when most analysts expected a final triumph over the militant groups based there.

Similarly, the government will have to redefine Pakistan’s relations with India in the light of what it sees to be the country’s national security interests, rather than letting the military dictate the agenda.

In the past, both the PPP and the PML-N have worked for peace with India.

In late 1980s, the PPP government’s alleged attempt to help India overcome the Sikh insurgency in the Indian Punjab brought accusations of a sell-out against then prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, from a group of ex-army generals.

The last attempt in 1998 by Nawaz Sharif, then prime minister, to normalise relations with India was derailed when the Pakistani army infiltrated the Kargil region in Kashmir.

Mr Sharif says that Mr Musharraf, then army chief, ordered the operation without informing his government.

So the challenges facing the new government are great indeed, and no one is underestimating the risks of failure.

Questions linger for post-Musharraf Pakistan
Updated Mon. Aug. 18 2008 2:49 PM ET Bill Doskoch, CTV.ca News

The resignation of Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf has left his country slightly more democratic but its politics just as chaotic, say Pakistan watchers.

“It’s a thunderclap both for Pakistan and its foreign supporters,” Eric Margolis told CTV Newsnet on Monday.

Musharraf, the former army chief who took power in a 1999 coup, stepped down in response to the near-certain threat of impeachment by the country’s parliament.

The two main parties in Pakistan’s parliament are the Pakistan Peoples’ Party (PPP), led by the Bhutto family, and the Pakistan Muslim League-N, led by former prime minister Nawaz Sharif. The PPP dominated in the February elections.

However, Margolis said there are very real questions that affect the nuclear-armed South Asian nation’s stability:

Can the coalition between the two parties hold?
Who will become president?
What powers will the new president hold?
Sharif vs. the Bhuttos

A major question will be how well the civilian government can continue to work together, Margolis said.

Sharif is a former prime minister of Pakistan deposed by Musharraf. He and the Bhuttos — Asif Ali Zardari and Bilawal Bhutto, husband and son respectively of assassinated former prime minister Benazir Bhutto — are political rivals.

“The one thing the two had in common was their opposition to Musharraf,” Louis Delvoie — a senior fellow at Queens University’s Centre for International Relations and a one-time Canadian high commissioner to Pakistan — told CTV.ca.

There is some talk that Zardari might wish to seek the presidency, but only if it remains as a powerful post and not downgraded into a figurehead one, Margolis said.

Sharif’s party has said it could live with Zardari as president, but only if the position is made ceremonial.

Margolis said Zardari, a minister under Benazir Bhutto, has some grave allegations of corruption hanging over him. “A lot of Pakistanis feel he is not fit to be president or prime minister of Pakistan until these allegations are finally cleared up,” he said, adding Sharif has also been dogged by corruption allegations.

Tariq Amin-Khan, a professor at Toronto’s Ryerson University, told CTV.ca that another key issue is the restoration of the nine supreme court judges sacked by Musharraf as he attempted to cling to power last fall.

“I think that is a big stumbling block,” he said, noting that for whatever reason, the PPP hasn’t pushed the restoration forward even though it said that it would.

Musharraf’s departure will put an end to what Amin-Khan called “the blame game” — both Musharraf and the parties pointing fingers at each other for political paralysis in the country — that has hurt Pakistan.

“Now that he’s gone, they will be accountable to what’s happening,” he said.

Terrorism, Afghanistan

There are also questions about how developments in Pakistan will affect neighbouring Afghanistan, where Canada has 2,500 troops as part of a NATO coalition trying to stabilize the elected government of President Hamid Karzai.

“There’s going to be a lot of change now in Pakistan’s policies, both internally and towards Afghanistan,” Margolis said, noting the two main coalition parties favour reducing Pakistan’s role in the so-called war on terror.

Pakistan is a key front and has received billions in military aid from the United States since September 2001. Its restive tribal regions are home to domestic Islamist militants and provide sanctuary to Taliban fighters from Afghanistan — and to al Qaeda, the global Islamist terror group.

Margolis said Musharraf, who publicly opposed foreign troops operating on his country’s soil, tacitly gave the U.S. the green light to carry out missile strikes on al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan — along with some ground raids.

The new government would oppose such moves, but the U.S. has made it clear it won’t seek permission if it has a chance to take out a high-value al Qaeda target, he said.

Domestically, Margolis said the war on terror is really “a fight against Pashtun tribesmen along the North West Frontier of Pakistan who are supportive of their Pashtun first cousins in Afghanistan.”

The new civilian government has moved towards scaling back its military operations in the tribal areas and attempted to reach political settlements with militants. However, that effort is fraying in some areas such as the Swat Valley, where clashes between militants and government forces have left more than 100 dead in recent weeks.

Margolis said Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, Pakistan’s top military leader, is in step with the civilian leadership.

Delvoie said that the new government is basically following Musharraf’s lead on dealing with the tribal areas conflict.

Afghanistan has complained that easing up on the battle against militants in Pakistan simply frees up more fighters to cross the porous border into its territory.

While Canada and Afghanistan might complain about the border, sealing it would be impossible, Delvoie said.

Amin-Khan said that a military solution in the tribal areas isn’t possible.

To win support of the populace there, the government needs to do a better job of providing basic governance and to alleviate the high levels of poverty, he said.

While it doesn’t affect Canadian interests as directly, relations between India and Pakistan — particularly with respects to Kashmir — are key foreign policy issues in Pakistan. Several wars have been fought with India over Kashmir since partition in 1947.

“It think with all of its other troubles (Islamist militants in the tribal areas, secessionists in Baluchistan), the last thing the government would want to do is stir the pot in Kashmir,” Delvoie said.

However, Kashmir has been known to bubble up on its own, he said.

From New Delhi, CTV’s South Asia Bureau Chief Paul Workman told Newsnet that India’s news media has been absolutely obsessed by the Musharraf story and what it might mean to their country.

Margolis said even if things seriously deteriorate in Pakistan in the coming months, its military has very secure control over the country’s nuclear arsenal.

“There is absolutely no risk of the bomb falling into radicals’ hands — unless the army were to split apart into different factions. But for the time being, that’s not happening,” he said.

Zardari: Machivillian brilliance or Khalilzad's Afghan-US pawn?

Share

Musharraf emphasizes reconciliation to face external threats

Share

Rupee News is experiencing some technical difficulities in publishing. This and other articles will be updated with pictures about Kashmir.

| PAKISTAN LEDGER | August 1 4th, 2008 | Moin Ansari | There are news stories across the spectrum. Is Musharraf going away or is he digging in. In either case, this is a time for national cohesion. The situation in Kashmir as well as Afghanistan does not permit the the country to be seen as decisive. Mr. Zardari got the NRO and now he is turning on the General that allowed him to become the most powerful man in Pakistan. The SSG commando may decide to dig in and fight. The country cannot afford this long drawn out fight. Musharraf’s counter strategy starts in Sind, Punjab then Center.

What is going on? Red Mosque Hostages: When Freedom Fighters turn “Terrorist”. There are some explanations but they are hard to comprehend for empty bellies and perhaps also for empty vessels which are making a lot of noise. Benazir murdered to destabilize Pakistan! …the CIA assassination.

Saner minds and bodies would work for the an evolution to getting rid of dictators. However the country has emotional young blood and the Young Turks want everything now. The lessons of getting rid of Ayub Khan stand in front of everyone–but analysts on Geo and ARY are unable to comprehend them.

Pakistan’s Musharraf calls for reconciliation Thu Aug 14, 2008 1:21am IST By Kamran Haider

ISLAMABAD, Aug 14 (Reuters) – Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf, under mounting pressure to resign, called on Thursday for political stability and reconciliation to tackle economic and security problems.

Musharraf, speaking in an televised Independence Day address, did not refer to a plan to impeach him drawn up by a coalition government led by the party of assassinated former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.

In his first public comments since the coalition announced its impeachment plan last week, the former army chief and firm U.S ally also did not refer to the calls for him to step down.

“If we want to put our economy on the right track and fight terrorism then we need political stability. Unless we bring political stability, I think we can’t fight them properly,” Musharraf said.

Musharraf has been at the centre of a political crisis since early last year that has heightened concerns in the United States and among its allies about the stability of Pakistan, a nuclear-armed Muslim state that is also a hiding place for al Qaeda leaders.

Speculation has been rife that Musharraf, who seized power in a 1999 coup, would quit rather than face impeachment, though his spokesman has consistently denied that.

“Political stability, in my view, can only be brought through a reconciliation approach as opposed to confrontation,” Musharraf said. “Differences should be buried.”

Coalition officials were not immediately available for comment but Musharraf’s appeal would appear unlikely to check what they call a “tidal wave” of opposition to him.

A growing number of politicians, including some old allies, have been calling on him to face a vote of confidence or be impeached.

The showdown is unnerving investors, with the rupee setting a new low of around 75.05/15 to the dollar and stocks hovering near two-year lows. Referring to the rupee, Musharraf said the flight of capital had to be stopped.

BOMB IN LAHORE

Security worries are compounding the gloom.

Musharraf spoke just after midnight, when Pakistan marked the anniversary of its creation in 1947 upon the partition of British-ruled India.

Shortly before noisy celebrations began across the country, a suicide bomb attack on police killed seven people in the eastern city of Lahore, police said.

Hundreds of people, including many members of the security forces have been killed in a wave of attacks since last year.

As the pressure mounts on Musharraf a crucial question is how the army, which has ruled for more than half the country’s history, will react. Coalition leaders said on Tuesday the army would not intervene to back its old boss.

Army commander General Ashfaq Kayani, who Musharraf chose to succeed him when he gave up command last year, did not refer to the turmoil in an Independence Day address to cadets but said the army would “always rise to the call of the nation”.

Coalition officials hope the president, isolated since his allies were routed in February elections, will resign before he is impeached. But they are drawing up a accusations against him.

Analysts say it could take weeks before a vote in the bicameral parliament.

Musharraf has anchored Pakistan’s backing for the U.S.-led campaign against Islamist militancy since 2001. The new government has vowed to maintain support even though the policy is deeply unpopular with many Pakistanis.

The United States has urged the government to focus on a deteriorating economy and spreading militancy but has not commented on the impeachment, saying it is a Pakistani issue.

Musharraf emphasizes reconciliation to face external threats

Share

Zardari & Zawahiri indict Musharraf with same charge-sheet

Share

| NEW YORK | RUPEE NEWS | August 11th, 2008 | Moin Ansari| Farewell to Musharraf? Now what? Can the PPP handle it? It is astonishing that the Zardari charge-sheet against Mr. Mushharaf is a carbon copy of the indictment laid out by Mr. Zawahiri. One “Z” hates America and the other “Z” is a puppet of it.  Both want Musharraf out, one wants Musharraf dead, the other just wants him out. America on the other hand is ambivalent. The USA will let Pakistan take care of Musharraf, just like she allowed the Iranians to take care of the Shah. The PML(N) on the other hands wants Mr. Musharraf to meet the Nicolae Ceaucescu–dragged out and shot in an ally. So much for the rule of law. Pakistan’s President Agrees to Resign? Kiyani nudges Musharraf!

“People who are saying President Musharraf will resign — they are either lying or they simply don’t know his nature,” “President Musharraf is a man of character and no one can point a finger at him. He has a clean track record.” Spokesman Rashid Qureshi.

“If there were a deal in which Zardari got to be president and Nawaz got to be prime minister again, how would that work?  You know, on one level, it sounds like the basis for a concordat…At another level, it sounds like a nightmare.” Teresita Schaffer, a former deputy assistant secretary of state for South Asia

• Post-Musharraf Pakistan: Back to the future trepiditions
• Pakistan Poster boys for Ignomy Incompetence & Infidility

Our insecure elected and unelected political players, some corrupt to the core. The aim: Dependent upon the contours of their overflowing pockets, they shoot at half-cock. The beneficiaries: The politicos and their progeny in perpetuity. The losers: The poor people of poor Pakistan.  Cowasjee

Pakistan is in the throes of vengeance brought on by some really sophisticated psy-ops. We have seen it before. It happened in the 50s when Pakistan refused to allow operations against Iran. It happened in 1969 when the US bases were thrown out of Pesawar. Makhdoom Amin Fahim questioned the timing of the “lynching” err “impeachment“. Why wait for the niceties? Perhaps the TV anchors should don their hoods and use the Zardari and Zawahiri indictments to drag the president and hang him to the nearest tree. 

• Part 1: Summary of Article: The CIA connection…The Benazir Assassination…Summary of Article–Setting the background
• Part 2: Details of Article: Details of the Assassination: The International Angle
• Part 3: Who Assassinated Benzair Bhutto? The local connections–one promoted one killed

“The very things that got it [the PPP] and also Nawaz Sharif so many votes are the very things that it is disincentivized from moving on…It does not want to restore the judges. It really does not want to impeach Musharraf because it made deals with Musharraf. And the National Reconciliation Order, of course, is the basis that absolves Zardari from so much from the alleged, and probably likely, wrongdoing.”

“The army is in kind of a pickle. It does not want to defend Musharraf,” she said. “But it also does not want its institutional equity to be drug [dragged] through the mud, when it is already down and out. So, I seriously doubt that they are [the government] going to get the numbers for an impeachment, and I think that that is probably going to be communicated to them [the government] one way or the other. And I think the army is going to be pretty active in subverting an impeachment.”   Christine Fair of the RAND Corporation

According to reports US officials said that “President Musharraf has made it clear that he has no plans to leave Pakistan, whether he stays in power or not…they have apparently agreed to help assure a secure and honourable stay for him in Pakistan,” said one such source. “They also want to ensure that the president should be given full indemnity should he agree to step down…this is more or less what the Pakistan army also wants.”

The sober editorials are rare in today’s Pakistan media. Here is a piece from the Daily times that does talk some sense.

Editorial: Curb this vindictive hype!Discussion is hitting a new low in decency as the coalition government moves towards the impeachment of President Pervez Musharraf. People calling in to register their opinion during TV debates are shouting phaansi(hanging) for him while anchors regale the nation with triumphant smiles. This is their way of “persuading” the president to quit. While sane and temperate advice is indeed that of abdication, this sort of vindictive hype may be counter-productive by challenging him to dig in his heels and weather the storm. Is that the right way to go about exercising the constitutional right to impeach the president?

Mr Asif Ali Zardari has charged that the president may have embezzled large sums from the American anti-terrorism assistance to Pakistan. But no evidence has been provided. He has piled more charges of the criminal sort to make the prospects for the president daunting in the extreme. While Information Minister Sherry Rehman says the contents of the charge-sheet against him will be kept confidential until the last minute, her leader is mincing no words to air them, saying that his accusations will form a part of the charge-sheet. Clearly, there is no serenity in the project of impeaching a president of Pakistan. Instead, there is a lot of crude intent to take revenge.

Justice was invented by civilisation to curb the crudity of revenge-seeking. The Constitution seeks to base the process of impeachment on justice. This means that simply a counting of heads in the joint session of parliament will not be enough. The charges now being shouted by all and sundry will have to be proved and the president will have the right to defend himself. If the charge-sheet simply reflects the passion that now engulfs the nation, it may not stand up in the eyes of law. It is quite clear even in the one-sided debate now unfolding in the media that the jurists are divided on the modality of impeachment.

In the great emotional catharsis that has descended on us we may forget to examine the calls of collective revenge being made from all sorts of different quarters. An Al Qaeda charge-sheet against President Musharraf has also hit the media market. Second in command Ayman Al Zawahiri’s audiotape condemns him for “the proliferation of narcotics, rising Indian influence in Afghanistan, maltreatment of Dr AQ Khan and the killing of the madrassa seminarians at Lal Masjid”. According to him all this was done to please the United States. More significantly, the Al Qaeda tape points to the perils of accepting its simplistic charges as a part of the “national drive” against the president. It accuses him of proposing “a solution of disputed Kashmir that was actually aimed at giving up Pakistani claim on the valley”. It accuses him of accepting the Israeli state on Palestinian territory. It takes to task the country’s politicians, claiming that “Pakistan was being controlled by the US Embassy, while they were destabilising their own atomic-power nation to please the US”.

This kind of “meeting of the minds” on the president hurts Pakistan. As the newspapers reported the contents of the tape, militants assisted and directed by Al Qaeda surged back in Khaar in Bajaur Agency to besiege the retreating Pakistani security forces. The terrorists swearing allegiance to Al Qaeda have burnt hundreds of girls’ schools in Swat and the Tribal Areas; and in south Punjab threats to girls’ schools have also been administered by people increasingly drawn to the worldview of the terrorists. The PPP is particularly at risk as it ignores the threats being made by the Taliban about “taking over” Sindh.

Political theory tells us again and again that alliances made on the basis of negative emotions seldom prosper. Once the impeachment is over and the president meets the end he meets, this “consensus” will fall apart. The state doesn’t have the ability to impose its writ on more than half the territory, and areas under normal administration also are fast slipping into the zone of “ungoverned spaces”. There are big national decisions to be made not only in the Tribal Areas and the NWFP but also in Balochistan, both relating to the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the state.

This hype has its dark side too. Normally impeachment is not a zero-sum game. If the impeachment fails the legislature doesn’t fall, and the government survives to live another day. But if the process is exaggerated to such an extent that it looks like a duel unto death, then in the case of a lapse of impeachment, the government may have to bear an extremely unpleasant popular backlash. There is also the possibility that in such circumstances the permanent establishment might ask the president to use 58-2(b). It is therefore advisable to tone down the blood-curdling aspects of the pre-impeachment rhetoric and go about it in a civilised way.

Zardari & Zawahiri indict Musharraf with same charge-sheet

Share

Post-Musharraf Pakistan: Back to the future trepiditions

Share

| NEW YORK | RUPEE NEWS | August 11th, 2008 | Moin Ansari| As the Musharraf era comes to an end, let me recall the feelings of hope that I had at the end of another benign dictatorship in Pakistan. The Pakistan nation young and young at heart is full of enthusiasm. The youth are bullish. Why am I not jubilant? Because—at 50 I am a bit afraid of change and what it may bring. I have a few trepiditions. The last time we set the nation into uncharted waters, we went adrift for a very long time. Many regretted it and historians say the same.I am one of those columnists who can remember the tail end of the Ayub era.

There was rioting in the streets, and much discussion of democracy. There was a shortage of food items and the slogan was “Hoti khoti cheeny chore”. That was in the sixties when the American’s were livid when Ayub Khan threw them out of the Badabare Airforce base near Peshawar. President Johnson’s telegrams are legendary. Ayub Khan himself a protege of America had grown distrustful of the USA. As General Hamid Gul said, “our dictators in their old age become very patriotic”. Ayub Khan had published “Friends Not Masters” further aggravating the US-Pakistan relationship.

I am one of those few journalists who can remember the resignation of Field Marshall Ayub Khan. It came in two steps. The first step was his grand announcement that he would not run for the next election. But this was not good enough for the pro-American forces (his former allies) who were bent upon getting rid of Ayub Khan quickly. The agitation continued. Field Marshall Ayub Khan decided to leave. He resigned.

However in resigning he did not follow the constitution he had given Pakistan which had replaced the 1956 constitution. He handed over power to General Yahya Khan his Chief of Army staff.

Thus began the downfall of the great Pakistani nation, only the emotional Pakistanis did not know it then.

There was jubilation in the streets. The black coat attorneys proclaimed that this was the biggest achievement for Pakistan. The student Union leadership of Gordon College was in ecstasy. That’s where I remember Shaikh Rashid from. Democracy would usher in the development that was due and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto proclaimed that the 22 families which had been sucking the blood of the mazdoor and kisaan would be deprived of their wealth and it would be distributed to the poor in terms of “roti Kapra makan”.

Two years later the country was broken in half.

The politicians blamed it on the army. The army blamed it on the politicians. The Bengalis blamed the Punjabis. The West Pakistanis blamed it on India. The Hamood ur rehman Commission report which investigated the events that led to 1971, was never published. Decades later the leadership of Pakistan apologized to the Bengalis.

Looking back at the Ayub era, we wish that the economic indicators could ever be that good. When looking for growth, industrialization and accumulation of wealth in the 60s was the time when Pakistan was identified as a model country by the World bank and the Pakistanis were targeted to be emulated and copied.

Can’t the Pakistani’s move towards a new future a bit cautiously. What’s the hurry? I am not sure how the Musharraf era will be remembered as, but I am sure how the Zardariera will stand for. If the past four months are any indication, our emotional nation may perhaps may look back to the future.

So how will the post Musharraf era look like? The day he resigns, there will be jubilation across the land of the Crescent and Star. Tall tales will be written about how democracy triumphed and the people’s will overcame the black night of dictatorship.

Like the fourphases of death, “the big chill” will settle in after few months. The load shedding will not be eliminated by March 23rd as announced by the PPPP, the load shedding will continue, inflation will rise at ever higher levels and American Aid with all its strings will continue to ensnarl the current leadership. Asif Zafrdarimay be the next president and he will be unable to deal with the stranglehold of the World Bank and the choke of the IMF.

The February 12th election ushered in Democracy, but the National Assembly as not passed any major legislation or reversed the Hadood Ordinances. The Senate has been in session, but the decision making is happening by unelected “leaders” in Dubai and London. The Army is not making the decision but neither is Prime Minister Gilani. The country is bereft of American influences but the PPPP government halted the opposition to India at the IAEA and Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). President Musharraf was held responsible for American interference in Pakistani affairs but the drone attacks continue 36, 37, 38

Farewell to Musharraf? Now what? Can the PPP handle it? It is astonishing that the Zardari charge-sheet against Mr. Mushharaf is a carbon copy of the indictment laid out by Mr. Zawahiri. One “Z” hates America and the other “Z” is a puppet of it.  Both want Musharraf out, one wants Musharraf dead, the other just wants him out. America on the other hand is ambivalent. The USA will let Pakistan take care of Musharraf, just like she allowed the Iranians to take care of the Shah. The PML(N) on the other hands wants Mr. Musharraf to meet the Nicolae Ceaucescu–dragged out and shot in an ally. So much for the rule of law. Pakistan’s President Agrees to Resign? Kiyani nudges Musharraf!

A Farewell to Musharraf? Auld Lang Syne & other fine and dandy songs: Empty slogans must be replaced by concrete benchmarks

What will become of Pakistan after Musharraf? In the national interest Monday, August 11, 2008 Kamal Siddiq The writer is editor reporting, The News

Once again our analysts, doubters and commentators have gone into overdrive. What will happen now and what will become of us? The corrupt politicians are bent on removing the only person who was strong and stood up to challenges faced by Pakistan. What will become of Pakistan? It’s all downhill from now. Look, our foreign reserves are dwindling. Real estate prices are crashing. There is no future. Let us leave the country while we can.

Some predict that crime will rise. Other insist that the Taliban will take control. Asif Zardari wants to be president, they say, adding that he will then sell off the country. As it is, many argue, as a country we do not need democracy since most Pakistanis are illiterate and don’t have any voting sense. One person informs that a friend of his told him that the PPP has once again started making deals and corruption “is at its peak.” We don’t need facts and figures. Mere assumptions will do.
There are many who beseech you to look at the PPP supporters. How cheap they are with their flags on their cars and how they break traffic laws in a bid to flaunt their power. Look at the cars they drive and how no policeman can stop them despite the fancy number plates and their tinted glasses, they content. It’s all over for Pakistan, they conclude. The country can’t sustain this anymore.

Our middle class and the muddled chattering classes are in full glory. In drawing rooms from Karachi to Islamabad and beyond, the people are “revolting” in the best way they can-by talking and bad-mouthing, all they see as evil and corrupt-the politicians, the media, the lawyers, anybody but themselves. Of course, they believe in Pakistan. But they don’t believe in democracy (we are not ready for it), in politicians (all are corrupt), in the movement to restore the sacked lawyers (what difference will it make?), and in the work of the media (they should be restricted as they are out of control; Musharraf was right to ban them)

At the same time, we are also not ready to make a serious attempt to understand what is happening in Balochistan, in FATA and in parts of the NWFP. Conveniently we blame this on RAW and whatever passes off as the Afghan intelligence agency. Of course, there are the Jewish, American and Hindu conspiracies. Anything but us. We forget the thousands of missing persons-another “achievement” of the Musharraf regime.
Not to be outdone is the overseas Pakistanis brigade. In the words of one famous Parsi columnist, these are people “whose bodies have left Pakistan but their souls remain here.” He says that they should take their souls too as it would be best for all. One should not generalise. Take, for example, the Association of Pakistani Physicians of North America, who are doing very good work in funding projects that are making a difference. The only blot on the APPNA’s record seems to be the good medical doctor who now heads our cricket establishment.

To every cloud there is a silver lining. One such silver lining was Brigadier (retired) Saleem Moin. Sadly, this good man quit this week as the chairman of the National Database Registration Authority (NADRA). There was no need for him to go. His work has few parallels in the history of public-sector organisations in Pakistan. But the prime minister’s close relative had to be accommodated, so when Moin put in his resignation it was accepted with undue haste.

To his credit, Moin singlehandedlyturned around the national identity card system, helped make the lives of overseas Pakistanis easier with the NICOP and POC cards, got us one of the world’s most advanced computerised passports and also worked at other initiatives to help the unemployed get work and the public some much needed facilities like the NADRA kiosks. But that is only half the story.

Through another innovative programme that is not talked of, Moinwas able to attract hundreds of young men and women from different parts of Pakistan under a merit-based scheme and train them before offering these persons to the corporate sector for employment. In this way, he was able to equip them with skills to make them employable for the private sector. To give credit where it is due, his wife, Rasheeda, did an excellent job, putting in a lot of hard work and at no cost to NADRA, of training them in such basic concepts as hygiene, dress and conduct.

The encouraging lesson in this is that such people are not rare in Pakistan. There are hundreds of people who are doing admirable work in helping the poor and those who cannot afford to meet the challenges that life has placed before them. For those who doubt the future of Pakistan, one need not go far. The nearest katchi abadi would do. No one there is worried about the future of Pakistan. They are more worried about basic issues like water and power, health and education, law and order and, of course, employment. They are not part of the chattering brigade, who have their stomachs full and their mouths open.

It is at these low-income localities you see many comparatively more affluent backgrounds come and work and give back to the community. One should salute them. They are not those who only talk and complain-they act too. This cannot be said of our civil and military bureaucrats, our politicians, religious leaders and born-again-Muslim organisations.

Pakistan, like any other Third World country, is full of ironies and distortions. In a country where the prime minister has a 50-car entourage, hundreds have to stuff themselves into creaking buses that should not be on the road in the first place. In a country where the president and prime minister have aeroplanes to themselves, there is a railway system that is falling apart due to lack of funds and short-sightedness of the people who headed it.
In Sindh, for example, the education minister is trying to get the minimum pass mark for recruitment of teachers to 33 percent from 50 percent, but the World Bank, which is funding this sector, is not playing ball. Ironically, hundreds of young men and women recruited under a transparent process by the previous government and who secured 60 percent and over are being denied jobs under this scheme.

Some of our leaders are corrupt, others are simply clueless. Take for example the chief minister of Sindh. He insists there is no Talibanisation in Sindh. In this he is backed by his home minister, Zulfiqar Mirza, who says he is “not like any other home minister.” Mirza says he “does not sell thanas and is not afraid of anybody.” Why, then, do we have such a corrupt and inefficient police system? Also, why was one of the most admired policemen in the service, Dr Shoaib Suddle, unceremoniously kicked out of the province once electoral alliances had been settled? But, more important, why are religious organisations allowed to take the law into their own hands and challenge the state with amazing regularity?

In a press conference this week, the Jamaat-e-Islami in Karachi stated that the Taliban were “not against Pakistan.” One has to understand better what is happening in the tribal areas and parts of the NWFP, where militants aligned to the TTP have declared independence and challenged the writ of the state.

For his part, Chief Minister Qaim Ali Shah is unable to even understand what is happening in his own province. Here, one must give credit to Punjab chief minister Shahbaz Sharif who has his eyes on the ball. He knows what is happening in his province and how to improve basic facilities to people. On a visit to Karachi, Shahbaz Sharif took time out to visit the SMB Fatima School, where hundreds of girls of lower-income backgrounds have seen their lives transformed, thanks to an initiative by the Book Group and the Zindagi Trust of Shahzad Roy fame.

Shahbaz Sharif saw for himself how Sami Mustafa, who is the visionary behind the Book Group and the move to improve matters at SMB Fatima School, has managed to attract funds from Pakistanis at home and abroad to rebuild parts of the school that had fallen into disrepair but also improve the whole school experience. Today the SMB School’s building, particularly its library and computer lab, are second to none in the city. Why can’t one take inspiration from these modern-day heroes and the people who volunteer time and effort to work towards these goals? Why do we keep trashing the only country we have? It’s time for some national soul searching.
Email: kamal.siddiqi@thenews.com.pk

Post-Musharraf Pakistan: Back to the future trepiditions

Share

THE WORLD ACCORDING TO MUSHARRAF Beyond the headlines:An anatomy of the forces at play in Pakistan By Moin Ansari

Share

THE WORLD ACCORDING TO MUSHARRAF Beyond the headlines:

An anatomy of the forces at play in Pakistan By Moin Ansari

While the emergency in Pakistan was primarily imposed to eliminate a belligerent and overly active Supreme Court, there are other reasons for the draconian measures that have been taken by General Pervez Musharraf.

Originally only a Legal “State of Emergency” was to be imposed under the constitution and with the cognizance of the Supreme court and parliament. However certain external factors derailed the original legal plans, and Mushrraf went for a “go for broke” strategy to secure and consolidate power.

With huge setbacks in Afghanistan, there was intense pressure from Washington to overturn the impossible situation in Afghanistan. The worry for Musharraf is that the United States administration will continue to back him only as long as it believes that he is going to get through this period of turbulence and reach the relatively stability of that other bank after the elections.

The security situation in Afghanistan has reached crisis proportions. The Taliban’s ability to establish a presence throughout the country is now proven beyond doubt; exclusive research undertaken by Senlis Afghanistan indicates that 54 per cent of Afghanistan’s landmass hosts a permanent Taliban presence, primarily in southern Afghanistan, and is subject to frequent hostile activity by the insurgency.The Taliban are the de facto governing authority in significant portions of territory in the south and east, and are starting to control parts of the local economy and key infrastructure such as roads and energy supply. The insurgency also exercises a significant amount of psychological control, gaining more and more political legitimacy in the minds of the Afghan people who have a long history of shifting alliances and regime change.

 http://tinyurl.com/yu3sep

Shortly before Negroponte’s Nov. 18 visit, the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, Anne Patterson, sent a classified cable to Washington laying out suggestions for how to boost pressure on Musharraf without precipitously cutting assistance to a nuclear-armed ally critical to fighting the threat from militant Islam, officials said.

“Whatever we do from here, we should use the opportunity to make the aid more directed, more focused and more under our control,” said one official, paraphrasing elements of Patterson’s classified cable.

The US is planning to enlist tribal leaders in Pakistan’s border regions to allegedly fight against al-Qaeda and Taliban militants.

If adopted, the proposal would join elements of a shift in strategy that would also be likely to expand the presence of American military trainers in Pakistan.
The “Cambodiazation” of the Vietnam was the last big expansion of U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia in the 1970s.

Therefore, it is responsible to begin wondering whether the expansion of the war in Pakistan will bode equally adversely on South Asia. In short, the Khmer Rouge took over in Cambodia a few years after the U.S. began to depart Southeast Asia. As well, Laos fell to communist forces that were supported by the North Vietnamese and other communist states.

Ultimately, the “Cambodiazation” of the Vietnam War and the expansion of bombing in Laos eventually led to the greatest American backlash against America’s longest war. That is, the public began to be extremely vocal in demand that the U.S. presence in the Vietnam War and regional civil wars be brought to an end.

Oxfam warns that urgent action is needed to avert humanitarian disaster in Afghanistan where millions face “severe hardship comparable with sub-Saharan Africa”. Though the country has received more than $15bn (£7.5bn) in aid since 2001, the money is not getting to projects which could lead to sustained improvements in people’s lives, says Oxfam.

India has not reciprocated for declining violence in Kashmir. In fact it is arming anti-Pakistan elements. The bombing in and near the capital remind Pakistan of KHAD and KGB counter attacks during the 80s when Pakistan was fighting the USSR in Afghanistan.

India is forcefully supporting the Baluchistan Liberation Army (BLA). Paying back Pakistan for the Afghan jihad in the 80s, Khair Bukhs Marri as well as the Bugti sleeper cells were revived by RAW. Elements of the BLA were found in the Red Mosque in Islamabad

Indian and Afghan agents and mercenaries have infiltrated the insurgent ranks and posing as the Talibaan and Arab fighters in Waziristan and Swat

America is quiet on these developments and acquiescent of Indian moves

American Aid has not been enough to arm the Pakistan Army and the Frontier Constablary that needs to be built as an anti-insurgency force.

All political parties are too busy trying to secure power rather than working with the establishment to secure Pakistan.

Benazir Bhutto is simply reading the talking points from the American Neocon Agenda

Nawaz Sharif could be a security risk.

American advice is not considered the best medicine for Pakistan’s ills. Pakistan considers the following American actions as anti-Pakistan and not in good faith:

The Nuclear deal with India which is considered as discriminatory towards Pakistan.

b. The establishment of an non-Pashtun Northern Alliance regime in Kabul and the perpetuation of the anti-Pakistanc. The USA has been unable to restrain India and Kabul from interfering in Pakistan’s affairs.

d. The USA has not signed an FTA with Pakistan and refuses to allow free import of Textiles to the USA.

e. Amerca has not invested in Pakistani infrastructure improvement like freeways, Hi-speed trains, airports and sea-portsf. The American media is working on some sort of an anti-Pakistan agenda as if on cue

Because of the bellicose statements of American leaders, and the Viceroy type of diktats coming visiting American administration dignitaries, the Pakistani establishment is leery of any American advice.

The Pakistan-American relationship is considered as transactional rather than normal and America cannot be trusted as a “friend”.

America has no options but to support Musharraf and the army.

There is intense resistance to Benazir Bhutto from within the army who consider her an American prop.

The PML-Q was placing intense pressure to prevent Benazir Bhutto from becoming the next prime minister. There was opposition to Shaukat Aziz to become the next Prime Minister because PML-Q head honcho Chaudhry Pervez Elahi wants to be the next Prime Minister.

A butterfly that flutters its wings in the Poppy fields of the Hindu Kush causes hurricanes in the Atlantic. October is always full of surprises. Autumn is a wonderful season. “’tis the season of mists mellow fruitfulness, close bosom friend of maturing sun”. Lord Tennyson wrote an ode to Autumn. However if he was alive today, he would be ashamed of this fall.

American policy in the Middle East and South Asia is in pieces. The world is not safer. America is not safer. The blowback from failed policies will have international repercussions for generations.

One of the reasons for problems faced by President Musharraf of Pakistan is the “do more” harangue coming out of every US official that gets a microphone. After all President Musharraf and the Pakistan has done in the fight against Bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda, all the credit the Pakistan gets is muted and drowned out in “do more” mantra.

American politicians have not come to term with the CNN phenomenon. In the 60s and even the 70s, US officials could speak their mind in isolation. Today each and every word uttered in the US Congress and the Senate is heard, repeated analyzed around the world. Every talking head on MSNBC is heard around the world and his/her bigoted or anti-Pakistan and anti-Islam tirades works as catalysts to ignite the cannon fodder in extremist reaction around the planet.

Every time Tancredo or Peter King open their mouth, Musharraf is pushed another millimeter, the Talibaan gain a few minds and few hundred miles. Every time the American politicians reminds the Pakistanis about the 10 Billion Dollars it pushes the wrong buttons. Pakistanis scream “Friends Not Masters”. Every time the Neocons come and hurl insults at Musharraf the moderates wonder about the Plan for New American Century (PNAC).

Supporting and pushing a failed politician on Pakistan will create a “compensating feedback” and resistance to American props who are considered by many as a security risk to Pakistan.

Pakistan is not a new friend. Pakistan was a founding member of SEATO and CENTO (Asian NATOs), and a cold war ally that fought on the side of the US against the USSR. However Pakistan is the most mistreated “friend” in the world. It is un-American to treat friends they way the US has treated Pakistan.

The USA and the West walked away from the Afghan mess and left more than 30,000 mercenary fighters that it had imported from the Arab world for Pakistan to deal with. On top of that sanctions were imposed on Pakistan right after the Afghan war, and Pakistanis felt like used “Kleenex”. The world owes Pakistan a big debt for the destruction of the USSR. In the past few years more than 1000 Pakistani soldiers have lost their lives fighting the Taliaban and the Al-Qaeda. Several hundred Al-Qaeda have been sent to the USA for trial including KSM (Khalid Sheikh Muhammad), who President Bush mentioned as the mastermind of the 911.

The Taliban was a construct of the CIA and was armed by the CIA, ISI and the Saudis as a counter to a resurgent Russian-backed communist party and an antidote to the civil war in Afghanistan. Pakistan supported the Taliban in conjunction with the CIA who were arming it right up till 2000. The Taliban were visiting Governor Bush’s ranch in Texas. Pakistanis refuse to take foster-parentage of the sarcophagus of a failed Western foreign policy of the perfidiously myopic irredentist and revanchist Neocons. America has rejected the Neocon disquisitions and fulminations and the sane world clamors for the denouement of their sick vampirish philosophy.

This small cabal of myopic polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of perpetual mimetic wars that are not in America’s interests. Conquest is not in our principles. It is inconsistent with our government.

Thomas Jefferson Pakistani pleas for sanity in Afghanistan were ignored in 2001. Those who want to understand the irked Pakistani must know that the in 2001 the US installed a non-Pashtun, anti-Pakistan government in Kabul. The must also know that NATO allows the puppet Karzai government to continue to bark at Pakistan. The Pakistanis also know that despite being clod war allies for 50 years, Pakistan was threatened with annihilation in 2001. They also remember that $450 million paid for F-16s was never returned. Neither were the planes ever delivered. The delivery of Soya beans does not make up for paid-for but undelivered F-16s.

Pakistanis also remember that the world and Afghanistan abandoned 2 million refugees in Pakistan. The Pakistanis also note that the USA does not support the liberation of Kashmir. NATO allows the puppet Karzai government to continue to bark at Pakistan. To put salt on open wounds, the US signed a Nuclear deal with arch-rival-India, not the major Non-NATO ally (Pakistan). Many Pakistanis wonder why $30 Billion were offered to Turkey to support war in Iraq, while Pakistan only received 1 billion to Pakistan for fighting Al-Qaeda and the Talibaan. You need to look at the situation with sanity and calm. Selective amnesia is the favorite tactic those who have an agenda.

President Ayub Khan in 1966 said is best in his best selling book Pakistanis need “Friends not Masters”. Pakistanis desire want and cherish American friendship however Pakistanis are not the “little brown brothers” who can do the bidding of anyone. Pakistan is a 150 million strong nuclear state and a crucial pivot on the war on terror. President Musharraf said it quite bluntly, “no one can do more” and the West will go down on their knees and fail if Pakistan without the help of the ISI and the Pakistan army.

Those who deal with Pakistan need to learn some manners and some appreciation of the sacrifice of 1000 Pakistani soldiers who died fighting the war on terror. Pakistanis are sick and tired of lectures on “do more”. Pakistan and Pakistanis cannot do more. If anyone can find others who can do more, please use them!

The commentariat’s febrile invective is a compendium of discredited Neocon assertions, unsubstantiated discomfiting claptrap, outright anachronistic distortion, vapid insipid fatuous doltish dalliance and pure unadulterated balderdash. The repellent manic-obsession and paranoid conspiratorial delusions about Pakistanis are a transparent attempt to justify their irredentist and revanchist agenda.

If Pakistan is used as subcontracting, $800 million per year is akin to Nike exploitation of children in third world countries. If this is friendship, then a paradigm shift needs to occur in American Think Tank thinking.

The Pakistanis know that despite being clod war allies for 60 years, Pakistan was threatened with annihilation in 2001. They also remember that $450 million paid for F-16s was never returned.  Neither were the planes ever delivered. The delivery of Soya beans does not make up for paid-for but undelivered F-16s. Pakistanis also remember that the world and Afghanistan abandoned 2 million refugees in Pakistan. The Pakistanis also note that the world does not support the liberation of Kashmir. 

The Pakistani people also have some questions for Congress. Pakistan paid $450 million for F-16s. She neither got the planes nor the money, and the planes were resold for additional Dollars to Pakistan. What kind of friendship is this? More than 1000 Pakistani soldiers have died in the “war on terror”, but India got a Nuclear deal. What kind of friendship is this? Pakistan has been an ally of the USA for more than 60 years, a cold war ally, a founding member of SEATO and CENTO and currently a Major Non-Nato Ally (MNNA). However Pakistan get lectures to “do more” while the USA is unable to crush her enemies in Afghanistan and the NATO soldiers are unable to provide security to the Mayor of Kabul, the incompetent Mr. Karzai. How about more democracy for the Pashtuns of Afghanistan. Pakistan was instrumental in defeating the USSR, and liberating Afghanistan. As a reward Pakistan faced multi-faceted sanctions. What kind of friendship is this? Israel got $30 billion in aid. Turkey was offered $38 Billion for allowing American troops access for the war in Iraq. Pakistan got peanuts for waging this war. What kind of friendship is this? The USA has access to several Airforce bases in Pakistan. The price for lending the bases is a pittance compared to what is paid to Germany, Japan (Marshall plan) and other countries like the Philippines.

resident Musharraf declared that during the Civil War, Lincoln “broke laws, he violated the Constitution, he usurped arbitrary power, he trampled individual liberties.”

He quoted from Lincoln’s  1864 letter to Albert Hodges, in which Lincoln defended his actions by saying that “measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the Constitution, through the preservation of the nation.“ 

Mushraaf could have justified the lack of democracy in Pakistan by quoting the following:

James Madison’s Federalist Paper #10 discusses the issue of Democracies. In it he states:

“Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of Government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions and their passions.” We can see from this that Mr. Madison would never have advocated a pure Democracy for his new nation. http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/13/DEMvsREPUB.htm  About 370 BC, Plato wrote: “A democracy is a state in which the poor, gaining the upper hand, kill some and banish others, and then divide the offices among the remaining citizens Other lessons for President from Musharraf can be extracted from Abraham Lincoln. Accepting the Republican nomination for Senate in 1858, Lincoln delivered his famous speech:

“‘A house divided against itself cannot stand.’– I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other.”  

Lincoln was known for building a national consensus and appointing political rivals to positions in his diverse cabinet to keep in line all disparate factions of his party – and to let them battle each other and not coalesce against Lincoln. Hannibal Hamlin, Andrew Johnson, William H. Seward, Salmon P. Chase, William P. Fessenden, Hugh McCulloch, Edwin M. Stanton, Edward Bates, James Speed, Gideon Welles, Caleb B. Smith and John P. Usher.

Historians agree that except for Simon Cameron, it was a highly effective group. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto a former prime minister and perhaps Pakistan’s most popular leader after Jinnah tried a “Government of National Reconciliation” and produced Pakistan’s 1973 constitution. Bhutto brought in the Jamat e Islami as well as the NAP and at least started a process. Today more than ever, President Musharraf needs to create Mandela’s “Truth and Reconciliation” process.

Is Imran Khan as one of the few untainted politicians that can lead the nation to prosperity? Pakistanis are hardworking and entrepreneurial people. Pakistan needs a Marshall plan to pull it into the first world.

According to By ZAHID HUSSAIN and FASIH AHMED published in the Wall Street Journal on October 17th, 2007. “Gen. Pasha said as many as 600 foreign militants, including Uzbeks, Chechens and Arabs, were part of the Islamic militia which has over run Swat and were moving towards other areas. “We have clear evidence of the presence of foreign fighters,” said the major general, who is directing military operation in the area. He said the militants were receiving funds from other countries, but denied to name them. “They have strong linkages from outside elements,” he said. “They are well equipped and trained.”

This much is certain:

0) Why was the Red Mosque tolerated and then a military action taken. Why is that the attacks all of a sudden started almost on cue.

1) Musharraf and Pakistanis feel short changed. Compare to $38 Billion offered to Turkey and the amount given to Israel. More aid is needed. See Biden comments.

2) In one swoop action Musharraf has ended all criticism of him “to do more”. The press is aghast and Biden talks about tripling aid to Pakistan.

3) The real or perceived successes of the terrorists is being used to strike a blow to the weakened and stratified opposition.

4) The actions of the JUI and the JI (religious but not Taliabn parties) are examples of Musharraf’s “B” team who are publicly against him but actually with him

5) The current strategy of Musharraf seems to come from deep thinking by his Core commanders.

6) The situation for democracy in Pakistan remains very bleak, though economically there might be an upsurge.

7) BB remains totally discredited and her US script has not been accepted by Pakistanis. Her “Foreign Minister” Haqqani is so in the pocket of the Neocons that he could and should be charged with treason. He statements on AQ Khan and US forces are unacceptable.

8) Imran Khan despite the “Mir Jaffers” has come out of this clean and with integrity. He has not sold out to the establishment or to a foreign power.

9) I predict that elections will be held on time and slightly diminished press freedoms will be restored in a few weeks. Neither BB nor NS will be the next PM, Elahi will be. Kiyani will never move against Musharraf.

10) The US is planning a “Pakistan Awakening” based on the “Anbar Awakening” in the Tribal areas of Pakistan.

11) Musharraf’s trip to Saudi Arabia is to meet with Nawaz Sharif and offer him amnesty and a deal. Nawaz announced this during the last minutes of the Geo broadcast.

Sen. Biden believes that beyond the current crisis in Pakistan, there lurks a far deeper problem.  The relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan is largely transactional — and this transaction isn’t working for either party.  Sen. Biden believes we must beyond this transaction relationship – the exchange of aid for services – to the normal, functional relationship we enjoy with all of our other military allies and friendly nationsSen. Biden proposes a new U.S. approach to Pakistan rooted in four-parts:

 . 1 The U.S. must triple non-security aid, to $1.5 billion annually for at least a decade.  This aid would be unconditioned.  It would be the U.S.’s pledge to the Pakistani people.  Instead of funding military hardware, it would build schools, clinics, and roads. 2.   The U.S. must condition security aid on performance. We should base our security aid on clear results.  The U.S. is now spending well over $1 billion annually, and it’s not clear we’re getting our money’s worth. 3.   The U.S. must help Pakistan enjoy a “democracy dividend.”  The first year of democratic rule should bring an additional $1 billion – above the $1.5 billion non-security aid baseline.  Sen. Biden supports tying future non-security aid – again, above the guaranteed baseline – to Pakistan’s progress in developing democratic institutions and meeting good-governance norms.  4.   The U.S. must engage the Pakistani people, not just their rulers.  This will involve everything from improved public diplomacy and educational exchanges to high impact projects that actually change people’s lives.  http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=287046&

The Neocons want regime change ostensibly on the excuse that Musharraf has refused to wage war against the Tribal areas. They lament that fact that Musharraf has made a peace in North and South Waziristan. The obsequious Benazir Bhutto wanting to get power under any circumstances has pledged to do Bush’s bidding and declare an intense war on the Tribal areas. Pakistanis are leery of her “Made in Washington” speeches.If the course is not reversed and sanity is not brought to American foreign policy, America faces anther Iran and worse.

THE SOLUTION

Declaring Emergency will enable the General to use force to quell the problems in Swat and Waziristan.Without news coverage the army can use force to destroy the anti-Pakistan elements.

THE WORLD ACCORDING TO MUSHARRAF Beyond the headlines:An anatomy of the forces at play in Pakistan By Moin Ansari

Share

Kargil: Sharif's policy of plausible deniability exposes lies

Share

Kargil: Sharif’s policy of plausible deniability has not worked. His lies are an open book for all to see. 

General Pervez Musharraf has stated that kargil was a defensive measure to prevent India from pulling anohter Siachin and then holding on to it. The Kashmiri forces captures more than 300 peaks and liberated them.

Mr. Sharif lied to President Clinton and even to Prime Minister Vaypayee. Mr. Sharif went to the extent of handing over edited but taped conversaitons between Pakistani commanders to the Indians. After the coup Mr. Sharif and his son were in touch with the Indians.

Mr. Sharif has lied about Kargil. Mr. Sharif has denied that he was even aware of Kargil. Mr. Shairf should have waited for a few more weeks, and there would have been no Kashmir problem to solve. At some juncture, he ran to White House and surrendered in front of Mr. Clinton who treated him in a horribly humiliating manner.

Mr. Sharif was not even allowed into the White House, and had to beg the Clinton’s to get a photo op in the White House.  Right after the coup, he ran to India to get Vaypayee to support him in his struggle against Mr. Musharraf. Mr. Sharif then made a deal with Saudi Arabia to escape incarceration. On his return he turned to blood feuds with the army, Mr. Musharraf, the MQM and now with the PPP. His politics of hate and ethnicity will not succeed.

Here is an excerpt from Strobe talbot’s book about Kargil:

“Kargil War between India and Pakistan took place between May and July 1999 in the Kargil district of Kashmir. According to India the cause of the war was the infiltration of Pakistani soldiers and Kashmiri militants into positions on the Indian side of the Line of Control, which serves as the de facto border between the two states. During and directly after the war, Pakistan blamed the fighting entirely on independent Kashmiri insurgents, but documents left behind by casualties and later statements by Pakistan’s Prime Minister and Chief of Army Staff showed involvement of Pakistani paramilitary forces. The Indian Army, supported by the Indian Air Force, attacked the Pakistani positions and, with international diplomatic support, eventually forced a Pakistani withdrawal across the Line of Control (LoC). 

At the height of the Kargil conflict, former Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is said to have told then US President Bill Clinton that he was prepared to help resolve the crisis if India committed to settle the ‘larger issue’ of Kashmir in a specific time-frame, but the American leader snubbed him saying it would amount to a ‘nuclear blackmail.’ When Sharif visited Washington in 1999 to discuss Kargil with Clinton, he insisted, ‘I am prepared to help resolve the current crisis in Kargil but India must commit to resolve the larger issue in a specific time-frame,’ former US deputy secretary of State Strobe Talbot writes in his new book Engaging India – Diplomacy, Democracy and the Bomb.  

‘Clinton came as close as I had ever seen to blowing up in a meeting with a foreign leader,’ and told Sharif, ‘If I were the Indian Prime Minister, I would never do that. I would be crazy to do it. It would be nuclear blackmail. If you proceed with this line, I will have no leverage with them. If I tell you what you think you want me to say, I will be stripped of all influence with the Indians.’ ‘I am not – and the Indians are not – going to let you get away with blackmail, and I will not permit any characterization of this meeting that suggests I am giving in to blackmail,’ Talbot writes, adding, Clinton also refuted Sharif’s accusation that the Indians were the instigators of the crisis and intransigents in the ongoing standoff. When Sharif insisted he had to have something to show for his trip to the US beyond unconditional surrender over Kargil, Clinton pointed to the dangers of nuclear war if Pakistan did not return to its previous positions. Seeing they were getting nowhere, Clinton told Sharif he had a statement ready to release to press that would lay all the blame for the crisis on Pakistan. ‘Sharif was ashen.’  

‘Clinton had worked himself back into real anger – his face flushed, eyes narrowed, lips pursed, cheek muscles pulsing, fists clenched. He said it was crazy enough for Sharif to have let his military violate the Line of Control, start a border war with India, and now prepare nuclear forces (U.S. had received intelligence Pakistan was preparing nuclear forces for attack against India) for action,’ Talbot says in his book. ‘Sharif seemed beaten, physically and emotionally’ and denied he had given any order with regard to nuclear weaponry. Taking a break, Clinton spoke to then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee over phone and told him what had happened until then. ‘What do you want me to say?’ Vajpayee asked. ‘Nothing,’ Clinton replied, he just wanted to show he was holding.”

‘Sharif offered to back Kargil intrusion only if it succeeds’ 3 Jun, 2008, 1155 hrs IST, PTI

Islamabad: Former premier Nawaz Sharif was kept in the dark initially about the Pakistan Army’s plan to intrude into the Kargil but he later gave conditional support to the operation, a former aide of President Pervez Musharraf has said.Lt Gen (retired) Jamshed Gulzar Kayani, who served in the Inter-Services Intelligence and commanded the crucial Rawalpindi-based 10 Corps, said he believed Sharif was “not carried on board” during the initial stages of the intrusion into Kargil sector of Jammu and Kashmir by Pakistani troops in early 1999.

Kayani, who was then in the ISI, subsequently briefed the former premier on the Kargil issue at a high-level meeting on May 17, 1999. Sharif told Musharraf, who was then the army chief, that he would support the operation “as long as you succeed”.

However, Sharif also told Musharraf that it would be very difficult for him to back the operation “if there were reverses”, Kayani said in an interview aired on the Geo TV channel last night.

“In my individual opinion, he (Sharif) was not carried on board. If you go in for such an operation, you have to bring the chief executive on board. You have to give him comprehensive briefings on each and every step (as the Kargil operation) could have opened out into an all out war,” said Kayani, who is now part of a group of retired military officers pressing for Musharraf’s ouster from office.

Reacting to Kayani’s comments, Sharif said that Kargil was a “misadventure” by Musharraf who gave different versions of the operations to him and the army.

“Musharraf made a blunder. It was a misadventure. He told something else to the army and something else to me,” the PML (N) leader told an Indian TV channel.

Kayani also said that the persons who planned the Kargil operation did not anticipate a strong response from the Indian military, including the use of air power.

Despite the “gallantry of troops and young officers”, Pakistan suffered “reverses due to the intense response” by India, he said.

In the case of any military operation of the scale of Kargil, which could have expanded into all-out war, there are comprehensive briefings. The ultimate responsibility is of the Prime Minister, his clearance is a must for every step.”

During the briefing on May 17, 1999, Sharif was “uncertain” and asked the “high-profile” personalities present if it would “be correct to give the green signal for the Kargil operation”, Kayani said.

He quoted then Foreign Minister Sartaj Aziz as saying, “Sir, I will not be able to support it on the diplomatic milieu.” Certain generals present at the meeting also raised questions as to whether the Pakistan Army could logistically support the operation.

After consulting everyone present at the meeting, Sharif gave Musharraf the “green signal” and said the Kargil operation could go on “as long as you succeed”.

Kayani added: “But in cases of reverses, Nawaz Sharif said it will be very difficult for me to support the operation.”

The bodies of some dead Pakistani soldiers were never found and Sharif finally went to the US to work out an understanding to end the conflict as he wanted to save the dignity and respect of the Pakistan Army, Kayani said.

Kayani said an inquiry should be held to settle the issue of whether Sharif was aware when the Kargil operation was launched.

“Musharraf says Nawaz Sharif was carried on board, (so) let there be an inquiry. There should definitely be an inquiry, though it should be a closed-door inquiry as the matter involves a lot of very sensitive issues that should not come out in public.”

At the same time, Kayani said Kargil “was not the brainchild of Musharraf“. A similar military operation had been considered earlier too and had even been broached to Benazir Bhutto during her tenure as Prime Minister.

The Kargil event was also “the main reason for the differences which cropped up between Nawaz Sharif and Musharraf“, he said. After the “Kargil debacle”, Musharraf feared he “would be booted out” and Sharif “was sure there would be a coup against him”, he added.

Kargil: Sharif's policy of plausible deniability exposes lies

Share

Analysis: Musharraf accepts 58(2b), Judges. Exit with Bush 2009?

Share

The nuanced changes in Pakistan reverberate beyond its borders to the vneighboring hinterlands, as well beyond the mountains, but also beyond the oceans. The CIA has apparently gotten permission from the new government to continue to operate in FATA and other areas, but the drones are prohibited from targeting Pakistani citizens in Northwest Pakistan. If the PPP-PMLN government in Pakistan survives, the departure of Mr. Musharraf will be expedited. However if the cracks deepen and become a schism, the rule of Mr. Musharraf will be extended to the end of his term.

According to press reports, President Pervez Musharraf is ready to accept the restoration of the judges and elimination of 58-2(b) which clips the powers of the president to ceremonial duties. There are signals from Washington that Mr. Musharraf’s exit strategy includes an “NRO” amnesty for him. The expected departure of Mr. Musharraf will be 2009.

Some new realities may have brought New Delhi to the realization that destabilizing Pakistan is not in its own interest and that some extremists may actually enter India proper. Many Indian intellectual and some Indian politicians still think of Pakistan’s NWFP as Indian. This thinking allowed New Delhi to build relations with Kabul, to get the NWFP for itself, or for Kabul. This is not happening.

Perhaps it is a beleated appreciation of world realities, or a proper management of expections. Maybe it is a realization that India needs Pakistan and Iran to move towards its march towards progress.

China’s entry into the Pipeline game quickly changed India’s mind. With India realizing that Islamabad is essential to her growth, she will reduce or eliminate her support for the BLA in Baluchistan. The China-Pakistan nexus continues to grow and Iran puts pressure on India not to venture to go all the way in her dates with Uncle Sam. The relationship between China and Pakistan, China and Iran and Chian and Russia may have enlightened New Delhi to the dangers that she faces with a Iran-Pakistan-China nexus. Perhaps Mr. Kissinger living in the 70s should face the new realities. Waving goodbye to American Hegemony.

Has India realized that all energy routes lead through Islamabad.”The pipeline and cooperation with Iran and Pakistan requires India to eliminate its support of the BLA. BLA: A threat to International Peace. The BLA is a creation of Indian Intelligence agencies which are trying to create instability in the areas bordering Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan. Maybe the Indian relaization comes at the heals of the fiasco in Moscow, where India faces tough going. The declining Indo-Russian relationship. Delhi scrambles for new arms sources but they come with strings

Maybe Iran has managed to impress upon India that she has to work with her neighbors. Trilaterals triangulating in Pakistan. Brookings finally realizes that Pakistan is not being taken over by the extremists. Maybe the Indian think thank industry knows that the China Pakistan nexus is real, strong and can limit any Indian initiative anywhere. Pakistani Gwador to China links threaten Indian Chahbahar links to Kabul via Iran

Maybe India has understood the historical trade routes. Gwadar to China:- Trade lessons from the 5000 yr old Pakistani Indus Valley Civilization: The Harrappan Trade Corridor within the IVC (Dilmin, Mekan) and beyond is now being resurrected again

US reluctant to drop Musharraf: * New govt granting CIA permission to operate in Pakistan: report. By Khalid Hasan WASHINGTON:

“Some people in the Bush administration can’t quite let go of President Pervez Musharraf, even though Musharraf himself is letting go of Pakistan,” according to a commentary by Michael Hirsch on Newsweek magazine’s website.

A source inside the Pakistan government said President Musharraf had so little to do that he’s been playing a lot of bridge lately.

Expectations are that he’ll quietly step down around the same time United States President George W Bush leaves office in early 2009. He may be replaced by Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) Co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari. Hirsch writes that the new Pakistani government is betting on a classic counterinsurgency strategy: deploying the military while winning hearts and minds by pouring aid into the tribal regions where extremists hide out.

The Bush administration adopted such a policy for Sunni insurgents in Iraq, but is not entirely ready to do so in Pakistan. Some officials in the US National Security Council fear a repeat of the deal that Musharraf struck with militants in 2006, which was promptly ignored by them.

Others in the administration, especially Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Central Investigation Agency (CIA) Director Michael Hayden, agree with the new government in Pakistan, namely that a sophisticated counterinsurgency strategy, including a “vigorous reconstruction programme” in the Tribal Areas, is the way to go.

CIA: In talks with Washington, the new government is conceding that the CIA will be permitted to operate within the Pakistani territory as long as it is completely confident about the accuracy of its intelligence.

The report quotes incoming ambassador Husain Haqqani who wrote in a book published in 2005 that as long as military strongmen run Islamabad, radical Islamists will always have a safe haven inside Pakistan. Haqqani wrote that democracy, “can gradually wean the country from Islamic extremism. Musharraf cannot…”. Haqqani’s views are believed to be shared by Gilani, Zardari and other PPP leaders, adds Hirsch.

Analysis: Musharraf accepts 58(2b), Judges. Exit with Bush 2009?

Share

Advani: Peace process for "India Pakistan confederation"

Share

The purpose of the peace process is to form a confederation between India and Pakistan. This was stated by Indian leader Advani which represents the thoughts of the majority of the Indians and the Indian leadership.

The hawks in the Pakistani body politics understand that the “peace process” is a ruse to eliminate the Radcliff line and build the “Akhand Bharat” from Kabul to Raj Kalhani (a mythical land East of Bali, Indonesia. The US right now wants India and Pakistan together to confront China.

The doves in Pakistan don’t have a clue and think that the peace process will lead to peace and prosperity.

THE CHARISMATIC ZULFIQAR ALI BHUTTO WAS HATED IN WASHINGTON :  The youngest Foreign Minister of Pakistan, the mercurial Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was building Pakistani bridges with China. He wanted to close the US base in Pakistan, which he succeed in doing. President Johnson told President Ayub Khan  ”Bhutto must Go! Bhutto must Go!”. Soon thereafter Bhutto resigned a created the Pakistan Peoples Party.

The favourite slogan, the one that caught on during the May 1968 fête in France was “it is forbidden to forbid”. There is nothing to forbid the youth of Europe to reject both communism and capitalism. What will they build in the absence of both systems? Will their concept of building a new structure with a new philosophy mean willful self-destruction? This sounds insane but the youth of Europe is not insane. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto A letter from the Death Cell (2007)] p. 15  p. 20

BHUTTO’S UNIQUE BRAND OF ISLAMIC SOCIALISM APPEALED TO THE PEOPLE OF PAKISTAN: Bhutto was “Left leaning” and a Socialist. President Johnson wanted President Ayub Khan to fire Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. Bhutto launced a movement and forced Ayub Khan to resign. disappointed with the Americans after 1965, President Ayub Khan wrote a book called “Friends Not Masters” for America. Bhutto wrote a book called “Myth of Independence” in which he wanted to eliminate American influences on Pakistan.After 1971 Bhutto was elected Prime Minister and started Pakistan’s nuclear program.

“We badly need to gather our thoughts and clear our minds. We need a political ceasefire without conceding ideological territory.We need a ceasefire to bury dead thoughts and to overcome fatigue. The modus vivendi has to be honourable and above board. Both sides have lost or, should I say, neither side can win. During the ceasefire a combination of existing forces might create a new order or a new equation between existing forces. Whatever the formula, it cannot be evolved on the battlefield of the old or new cold wars. The new international order has to emerge through the demands of a Third World summit conference. The answer to the North-South conflict, which is more serious than the East-West conflict, has to be found honestly and with unimpeachable integrity. Genuine disarmament will not come on its own or by platitudes at special sessions of the United Nations on disarmament, although, I was among the first to propose such a conference eighteen years ago. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto A letter from the Death Cell (2007)] p. 15  p. 28

KISSINGER THREATENED BHUTTO: In May 1974 India exploded a Nuclear device which it called “peaceful”. Following India’s explosion, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto pledged to press ahead with Pakistan’s nuclear program.

“We will eat grass… “Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s Referring to financing the Pakistani Nuclear program. 

Insistence on Kashmir will do Pakistan no good: Advani By Nayyara Rahman

NEW DELHI, April 19: Senior leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party and leader of the opposition in the Indian parliament L.K. Advani has said that Pakistan’s insistence on describing Kashmir as the core issue “would not achieve anything”.

In an exclusive interview with DawnNews TV, Mr Advani spoke of communalism in India, his party’s role in national politics and the prospects of peace between India and Pakistan.

The BJP leader said although he encouraged the Composite Dialogue between the two countries, he believed that other issues, like information and commerce, should precede Kashmir. “Kashmir later,” he said.

However, he remained optimistic that although the Kashmir problem would take time to resolve, a day would come when India and Pakistan would form a confederation, to solve the issue.

In comments pertaining to the Agra Summit, Mr Advani said he was ‘incorrectly’ blamed for its failure by President Pervez Musharraf. Far from being the cause behind its failure, he said, he was in fact one of the architects of the summit.

According to Mr Advani, it was President Musharraf’s inflexibility that led to the summit’s failure. “Musharraf just would not admit that there is any such thing like terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir, or in Punjab, which has been inspired by him or his country. And he maintained that what was happening in Jammu and Kashmir or in other parts of the country… cannot be called terrorism. It is a ‘freedom struggle’ of the people of Jammu and Kashmir for their own freedom.”

Mr Advani stressed that cross-border terrorism was a serious bone of contention in the India-Pakistan peace process. While agreeing that militancy had decreased along the borders, he said it could be attributed to the Joint Statement reached by India and Pakistan, and was still there in the country. He was of the view that until this problem was dealt with, there could be no progress on the peace process.

When asked why diplomacy was not initially used to solve the Kargil crisis, he said that it was not diplomacy that resolved the issue, but intervention by the United States. He believed that it was a ‘war of a kind’ in which ‘Pakistan refused to accept its own dead bodies’ and implied that Pakistan had capitulated before the US while India had not.

The former deputy prime minister also spoke at length about his party’s communal image and its role in nationhood. He implied that religion was inherent in any democracy, since ‘religion is a considerable part of life’, and anyone not subscribing to the view could live in a ‘communist country’.

“The role of religion is not much. But it is considerable in life. In a democracy religion is important. In a communist state, it isn’t.”

He consistently denied accusations of playing the communal card, but was less successful in projecting a non-communal image of his party. When asked to comment about his support for Chief Minister Narendra Modi, after the ‘post-Godhra’ riots, instead of defending his actions he quoted the onslaught India’s Sikh community faced after Indira Gandhi’s assassination in 1984.

“They were not riots. Not a single Hindu was killed. About 3,500 Sikhs were killed. Congress said, ‘So what? When a huge tree falls, the earth is bound to shake.’

“How can I find fault with the [Gujarat] government then? I am bound to say that this is not fair to the Gujarat government and this is why I defend it.” Furthermore, he said, the votes spoke for themselves.

Responding to whether the Gujarat killings followed an ‘action-reaction’ logic to Godhra, he said he agreed to the suggestion to some extent.

When asked if Pakistan’s ‘Islamic Republic’ status bothered India, he said, “A theocratic state does bother us… it does.” But he insisted that Jinnah was inherently a secular leader, and had his 11th August, 1947 speech been implemented, Pakistan too would be a secular state.

Mr Advani said his party’s hard-line resolution on Pakistan following his 2006 visit to the country, was because Jinnah’s speech ‘was pushed beneath the carpet’.

The most striking moment of the interview, however, was when Mr Advani, in his own words, clarified his stand on Ayodhya for the first time. He said that while he stood by the Ayodhya Movement, and embraced it, he was saddened by the demolition of the Babri Mosque.

BJP’s subsequent electoral victory, he said, was because the Ayodhya Movement, and not the demolition, reflected the people’s aspirations. “I believe a temple should have been built at the site. But the demolition disturbed me.”

It would have been interesting to see how a mosque and a temple could have co-existed on exactly the same spot in Ayodhya.

Advani: Peace process for "India Pakistan confederation"

Share

Pakistan: Foreign Investment increases exponentially: $8 Billion from Qatar, Muscat

Share

The Pakistani Stock Market is the worlds fastest growing stock market in 2008. In 2007 despite earthquakes and elections the Pakistani Stock Market reached records heights. Qatari, Muscat, Saudi, UAE, Arab, Chinese, Malaysian, and other Asian investment in Pakistan is increasing exponentially. Western investment is also expected to increase with the new aid package with the USA. The FTA with China, the new plans in energy, defense, train, pipelines will further enhance the pace of growth. With UAEs Emaar heavily entrenched in Pakistan homes (pun intended), it is investing $28 Billion in building two islands near Karachi. Additionally other Arab investments are coming to totally transform Manora and the Hawkesbay area into a “mini Dubai”. The FTA with Malaysia and Qatar will bring new benefits to Pakistan by opening up ASEAN, UAE and Arab markets. With the Iran Pakistan pipeline in the works, and the Tukmenistan Pakistan pipeline being planned, and the $7 Billion package from the USA, Pakistani exports will increase dramatically. Pakistan is also ready to export Al-Khalid tanks and JF-Thunder fighter jets to friendly countries which is a boom to the export industry and also to the 2nd and 3rd tier manufacturers in Pakistan. The Pakistani IT industry is expected to reach $11 Billion within a few years. This baseline will improve the track to make it into a robust industry. An FTA with the USA has not been approved, but Pakistan is working on the plans to convince the Americans on expanding the Reconstruction Opportunity Zones (ROZ)  from the border areas, FATA to all of NWFP and Baluchistan. 

Now the latest news from Qatar and Muscat informs us that another $8 Billion will be invested in Pakistan. The exponential affect of these huge investments will further expedite the growth of Pakistan’s indigenous entrepreneurs and have a trickle down effect on increasing the growth.

Qatar, Muscat to invest $8 bn in Pakistan Updated at: 2040 PST, Saturday, April 19, 2008

ISLAMABAD: Qatar will invest 5 billion dollars in Pakistan while Muscat 2.75 billion dollars in various projects in Balochistan.

This was stated by ambassadors of Qatar, Jordon and Muscat during their meeting here with Federal Minister for Finance, Revenue, Economic Affairs and Statistics, Senator Ishaq Dar.

Hamad Ali Al-Hanzab, Ambassador of Qatar said that Qatar would be investing in all US $ 5 billion in Pakistan.

He said that Qatar has launched Islamic Taqaful Insurance Company in Pakistan and hoped that more investment would be made in the financial sector to tap Pakistan’s investment potential for the mutual benefit of the two countries.

The two sides also agreed to convene the meeting of Joint Ministerial Commission at the mutually convenient dates.

Dr. Saleh Ahmed Aljawarneh, Ambassador of Jordan proposed convening of the meeting of the Joint Economic Ministerial Commission and the meeting of Joint Business Council to increase economic cooperation between the two countries.

He informed the Finance Minister that Free Trade Agreement (FTA) wasexpected to be signed in August between the two countries.

The two sides also reviewed the cooperation in the fields of agriculture and railways. Possibilities of Joint venture in manufacturing of phosphate fertilizer was also discussed.

The Ambassador of Muscat, Mohamed Said Mohamed Al-Lawati discussed role of Pak-Oman Investment Company in promotion of economic cooperation between the two countries.

He said Muscat by financing various projects has been instrumental in accelerating development in Balochistan.

It was also noted that Pak-Oman micro finance is playing a positive role in poverty alleviation in Pakistan.

The two sides agreed to accelerate implementation of various projects in Balochistan costing around US $ 27.5 million being financed through grant from Muscat.

The two sides also noted positive development of purchase of 65 percent shares by Pak-Oman Joint Investment company of World Call shares, its interest in telecommunication and power sector.

The Muscat Ambassador also expressed the interest to develop tourism in Balochistan.

Finance Minister, Senator Ishaq Dar assured the envoys of his full cooperation for promoting increased economic cooperation

Pakistan: Foreign Investment increases exponentially: $8 Billion from Qatar, Muscat

Share

We loved Pope John Paul. This new one..what's his problem?

Share

 Mr. Gratzinger disliked by Jews, Muslims, and Protestants

Pope, Papa John Paul the 2nd beloved by Jews and Muslims

We would like to respond to the Pope’s recent message denigrating the prophet Muhammad and misinterpreting Islam and misunderstanding jihad (self control).

Papa John Paul. May God Bless his soul. He was a saint and did much for harmony among the religions.

1) John Paul II was the embodiment of the love of Jesus and he endeared people to him and Catholicism. Praying to the common God and joint prayers were a fantastic manifestation of our common humanity. Any other direction will alienate Muslims, Christians and Jews away from each other.

2) Arab armies never conquered or stayed in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, or Bangladesh, where 80% of all Muslims reside. Arab armies did reach the Indus, but Mohammad bin Qasim quickly withdrew. The conversions for a vast majority of Muslims (who now live in Asia)was by Sufis and traders and by example and because Islam was LOGICAL and simple…pray to one God.

3) In the 7th century, Arab armies comprised of less than 25,000 able bodied men as soldiers, out of a population of 50,000. It is a physical impossibility to spread Islam to millions with such a small army or by force of arms. Muslims could not have spread Islam through the sword from Arabia to Morocco and destroyed the Byzantine and Roman empires, if Islam did not have grass level appeal based on “Arianism” (unity of God), which was never actually eliminated even though Emperor Constantine had imposed trinity at the Council of Nicea in 325AD.

4) The idea of holy war or jihad (which is about defending the community or at most about establishing rule by Muslims, not about imposing the faith on individuals by force) is also not a Quranic doctrine. The doctrine was elaborated much later, on the Umayyad-Byzantine frontier, long after the Prophet’s death. In fact, in early Islam it was hard to join, and Christians who asked to become Muslim were routinely turned away. The tyrannical governor of Iraq, al-Hajjaj, was notorious for this rejection of applicants, because he got higher taxes on non-Muslims. Arab Muslims had conquered Iraq, which was then largely pagan, Zoroastrian, Christian and Jewish. But they weren’t seeking converts and certainly weren’t imposing their religion. http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/09/15/18311787.php 5) But there have been many schools of Islamic theology and philosophy. The Mu’tazilite school maintained exactly what the Pope is saying, that God must act in accordance with reason and the good as humans know them. The Mu’tazilite approach is still popular in Zaidism and in Twelver Shiism of the Iraqi and Iranian sort. The Ash’ari school, in contrast, insisted that God was beyond human reason and therefore could not be judged rationally. (I think the Pope would find that Tertullian and perhaps also John Calvin would be more sympathetic to this view within Christianity than he is).As for the Quran, it constantly appeals to reason in knowing God, and in refuting idolatry and paganism, and asks, “do you not reason?” “do you not understand?” (a fala ta`qilun?)http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/09/15/18311787.php

6) The idea of holy war or jihad (which is about defending the community or at most about establishing rule by Muslims, not about imposing the faith on individuals by force) is also not a Quranic doctrine. The doctrine was elaborated much later, on the Umayyad-Byzantine frontier, long after the Prophet’s death. In fact, in early Islam it was hard to join, and Christians who asked to become Muslim were routinely turned away. The tyrannical governor of Iraq, al-Hajjaj, was notorious for this rejection of applicants, because he got higher taxes on non-Muslims. Arab Muslims had conquered Iraq, which was then largely pagan, Zoroastrian, Christian and Jewish. But they weren’t seeking converts and certainly weren’t imposing their religion. http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/09/15/18311787.php
7) Did the Pope have selective amnesia about tolerating the holocaust, sprinkling holy water on the marching Nazi soldiers, directing the crusades, supporting the ethnic cleansing of native Americans, supporting conquistador invasions, administering the Spanish inquisition, encouraging colonialism to civilize the natives, and finding quotes in the Bible to support slavery.

7) Finally, that Byzantine emperor that the Pope quoted, Manuel II? The Byzantines had been weakened by Latin predations during the fourth Crusade, so it was in a way Rome that had sought coercion first. And, he ended his days as a vassal of the Ottoman Empire. http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/09/15/18311787.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Crusade

8) Emperor Manuel II Paleologos of the Byzantine Empire did not agree with the Vatican. He wrote the quote during the siege of Constantinople.
9) The propaganda against our prophet has been waged for centuries, and Muslims keep growing. The more they send crusades, the more Islam grows.

10) [2:62] Those who believe (in the Qur’an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians– any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. ‘

11) This is one of the best responses that I have seen: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/spiritual-niggers-islam_b_29663.html

12) “As Politi points out, the underlying question now facing the Church is the following: ‘Does Ratzinger want to deal with the Islamic world as merely a cultural partner, or is he willing to recognise that Islam should enjoy the same status as Christianity?”(© 2006 dpa – Deutsche Presse-Agentur, http://news.monstersandcritics.com/europe/article_1202570.php/Pope_Benedicts_Islam_blunder_undermines_dialogue)

13) “Rather than rail at the pope’s characterization of Islam, Muslims might have responded as follows: “Excuse me, Your Holiness, but did we hear you say that you represent a religion of reason, whereas Allah is a god of unreason? Do you not personally eat the body and blood of your god – at least things that you insist really are his flesh and blood – every day at Mass? And you accuse us of unreason!”"

Regarding Benedict XVI’s statement that the characterization of the Prophet Mohammed did not reflect his “personal opinion”: In 1938, at the peak of Stalin’s terror, a Muscovite called the KGB to report that his parrot had escaped. The KGB officer said, “Why are you calling us?” The Muscovite averred, “I want to state for the record that I do not share the parrot’s political opinions.” (http://atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HI19Aa02.html)

In one of the most conceited statements of the century, the Pope full of hubris said he was sorry because his remarks had been misunderstood. e said that deeply sorry” that Muslims were offended. This is not an apology, it is an indictment on Muslims who were unable to comprehend his message. Therefore the onus of the problem is on the Muslims still.

I miss John Paul 11 (papa) who did so much for Muslim-Catholic and Catholic-Jewish dialogue. Such grace, such beuty, such class. In spite of the fact that John Paul apologized to the Jews for the inquisition, but did not apologize to the Muslims for the Crusades or the inquisition, he was near and dear to Muslim hearts. Pope Benedict should not have made the remarks, and he needs to withdraw them, apologize properly and make restitution to Muslims around the world. He should also apologize for historical wrongs against Muslims, including, the crusades, colonialism, and the inquisition.

May God forgive the sins of the Pope and may he find enlightenment. God Bless him.
GreenPeaceIslam

We loved Pope John Paul. This new one..what's his problem?

Share