Rupee News

Rawalpindi Express Shoab Akhtar should not be banned!

Share

Dr. Nasim should be banned from Cricket

The Rawalpindi Express is a huge asset for Pakistan. Imran Khan says, that we shoudl cherish and nurture our assetts. The Rawalpindi Express should not be banned. This is ridiculous. Shoab Akhtar is a bit wild, but so was Imran Khan. The nation should cherish its assets and use them to build other bowlers.The PCB itself should be disbanded and all the officers fired for banning Shoad Akhtar for five years. Dr. Nasim Akhtar should be send back to Medical practice and Shoab Akhtar should be restored before Pakistan loses him for good.
Pakistan cricket board bans fast bowler Akhtar for five years

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan – Pakistan’s cricket board banned fast bowler Shoaib Akhtar from international and domestic cricket for five years for repeated breaches of discipline.

Akhtar’s comments and actions were harming the team and had even “affected the image of the country,” board chairman Nasim Ashraf said after announcing the ban Tuesday.

“He was given lot of chances but he was involved repeatedly in habitual offences,” Ashraf told a news conference. “We will never tolerate indiscipline.”

Ashraf said Akhtar can appeal the decision and noted that the bowler would also be free to play in the Indian Premier League, where he can earn US$425,000 a season playing for Calcutta in the Twenty20 competition.

However, if the ban is upheld, it could spell the end of the 32-year-old Akhtar’s international career.

Akhtar, who at his peak was the fastest bowler in cricket, appeared earlier Tuesday before a disciplinary committee after he criticized the PCB for omitting him from its roster of the top 15 contracted players. He refused to sign a lesser contract.

Akhtar was already on probation after the PCB fined him about S$52,000, ordered him to undergo psychiatric counselling and imposed a 13-match international ban last year for hitting fellow bowler Mohammad Asif with a bat before the Twenty20 world championship in South Africa.

Akhtar last played a test match against India in December before he was sidelined due to back problem.

He declared himself fit to play in a five-match one-day series against Zimbabwe in February but was left out. Selectors also overlooked him for the 16-member squad to play two one-day internationals against Bangladesh next week.

Dubbed the “Rawalpindi Express” for his express pace, Akhtar’s career was restricted by injuries to 46 Tests after making his debut against the West Indies in 1997 and tarnished by a doping allegation.

Akhtar tested positive for steroids in 2006 in a PCB-conducted, out of competition test, but had his two-year ban overturned by a Pakistani appeals committee.

He has 178 test wickets at an average of 25.69 and 219 wickets at 23.2 in 138 limited-overs internationals.

Rawalpindi Express Shoab Akhtar should not be banned!

Share

Angry Russia throws mercy line to desperate NATO in Afghanistan

Share

NATO’s defeat in Afghanistan is akin to the defeat at Maiwind for the British forces in 1880. Maiwind cleared the way for the ultimate departure of all British forces from Afghanistan in the “Back to the Indus” policy. Russia has had a very limited role in Afghanistan after the defeat of the USSR in Afghanistan in the 90s. Now Russia wants to get back into the game. The Russians want to resurrect a kind of “Yalta Conference” to address the future of Pakistan. To pressure Pakistan into agreeing to the demands, the Russians have indicated that they could provide a safe passage to goods and supplies through Afghanistan, for a price. This means that Pakistan would lose about $5 Billion per annum in transit fees and logistical support and Russia would make that amount for herself.Please see the article published in Rupee News on “Inviting Russia Back: The Impact”

Karl Indurfurth is right. No American or NATO plans for Afghanistan will succeed without taking into account the Pakistani interests in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is in the Paksitani sphere of influence and no anti-Pakistani government in Kabul can hope to succeed without the blessings of Islamabad.

‘Circle of freedom’

In a keynote speech hours before the two-day summit of the 26-nation alliance, Mr Bush said: “As [French] President Sarkozy put it in London last week, we cannot afford to lose Afghanistan.

If we do not defeat the terrorists in Afghanistan, we will face them on our soil

President Bush

Ashdown’s Afghanistan warning

“Whatever the cost, however difficult, we cannot afford it, we must win.

“If we do not defeat the terrorists in Afghanistan, we will face them on our soil.”

His attempts to rally new troops came as Lord Ashdown, the former UN envoy to Bosnia who was blocked from being UN envoy to Afghanistan by President Hamid Karzai, warned the Nato-led alliance was “getting pretty close” to losing control of the country.

Mr Bush arrived in the Romanian capital, Bucharest, late on Tuesday. He has since left to meet Romania’s President Traian Basescu in the Black Sea resort of Constanta.

On the eve of his last Nato summit, Bush set out his agenda in a wide-ranging, half-hour speech.

In addition to asking for more troops, he also pushed for Nato’s eastern expansion and appealed to Russia to drop opposition to US plans to establish missile defence installations in Nato members Poland and the Czech Republic.

President Bush said the “circle of freedom”, as he put it, must be extended to include new Nato members from the Balkans.

He said invitations would be issued to Albania, Croatia and Macedonia to join Nato.

Russian bid to replace Pakistan as supply route: War in Afghanistan By Anwar Iqbal
WASHINGTON, April 1: At the Nato summit, which begins in Bucharest on Wednesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin is expected to offer an alternative route for supplying US and Nato troops in Afghanistan.

The proposal, if accepted, will change the course of the war in Afghanistan and will also have far-reaching consequences for Pakistan as Nato’s 43,000 troops in Afghanistan rely heavily on supplies transported via Pakistan.
Diplomatic sources in Washington told Dawn that Russian and Nato diplomats have already held a series of “productive and successful” talks on a plan that would allow non-military material – such as clothing, food and petrol – to cross Russia by land.

The plan, however, could later be expanded to include ammunition and light weapons as well, the sources said.
Russia’s new ambassador to Nato Dmitri Rogozin played a key role in selling this plan to the members of this US-led alliance, telling them that this will be a reliable alternative route free of violence and political troubles.
While America’s European allies have shown great interest in the proposal, the Americans are still reluctant as they do not want to bring Russia back to a region from where it was forcibly ousted in 1989, after battling Afghan freedom fighters (now Al Qaeda and Taliban militants) for almost 10 years.

Despite Washington’s reluctance, the Nato has held intensive talks with Russian officials on the precise routes to be used and hopes to reach agreement at this week’s summit in Bucharest.

If approved by the summit, the supplies can begin as soon as Nato wants as the Russians already have a functioning route passing through Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.

Under the proposed agreement, Russia and the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, a military alliance of former Soviet republics, will jointly guarantee an interrupted supply of essential goods to the Nato forces.
Western diplomatic sources in Washington told Dawn that Nato sees the proposed route as a good alternative for supplies going through Pakistan which faces political uncertainty and may not be a reliable route for long.

The Pakistan route, according to these sources, passes through the Taliban-infested tribal zone and has become increasingly dangerous. Last Sunday, militants blew up a convoy of 36 oil tankers meant for US forces in Afghanistan.
Russian diplomats promoting their proposal also have underlined a so-called “crisis of trust” between the United States and Pakistan, where the new government plans to engage militants in a dialogue opposed by Washington.
They also argue that Russia has always had a strong interest in seeing the Nato mission in Afghanistan succeed because Moscow wants to prevent Muslim extremists enter the former Soviet republics.

But there are others in Washington who warn that an attempt to disassociate Pakistan from any plan for Afghanistan may have dangerous consequences.

In an article published on the eve of the Nato summit, Karl F. Inderfurth, a former US assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asian affairs, describes Pakistan as “one country that can make or break (Nato’s) mission” in Afghanistan.

He notes that Nato’s Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has promised to visit Islamabad as soon as the new Pakistan government is in place.

“After Bucharest there is no better destination to reinforce Nato’s Afghan mission,” says Mr Inderfurth while backing the proposed visit.

Mr Inderfurth urges Nato leaders to work on a “new compact” that addresses Afghanistan and Pakistan’s political, economic and security concerns and seeks to neutralise regional and great power rivalries.

To attain this, he proposed an UN-sponsored, a high-level conference of all Afghanistan’s neighbours and concerned major powers for talks on a multilateral accord that addresses Pakistan’s concerns about developments in Afghanistan.
The proposed accord should recognise Afghanistan’s borders with Pakistan, pledge non-interference in Afghanistan’s internal affairs, recognise Afghanistan as a permanently neutral state and establish a comprehensive international regime to remove obstacles to the flow of trade across Afghanistan.
Mr Inderfurth also warns that any large-scale outside military intervention in Pakistan’s tribal areas would be disastrous for the Pakistani state and US interests.

Instead, he urges working with Pakistan’s new leadership to integrate the tribal region into the Pakistani political system and provide substantial assistance to build up their economy and social infrastructure.

Angry Russia throws mercy line to desperate NATO in Afghanistan

Share

Destabilisation game by Ahmad Quraishi

Share

The last “Mayor of Kabul”. Mr. Karzai.“You can call me a US puppet ”

Failure and defeat in Afghanistan. Payback for Pakistan

Pakistani Cheese for Western “whine”. Invoices for services rendered.

http://rupeenews.com/2008/01/28/pakistani-cheese-for-western-whine-countering-do-more-mantra-selling-pakistan-too-cheap-tit-4-tat-diplomacy-countering-requests-with-formal-invoices-and-charging-market-prices-for-service/

The trail of terror from Delhi to Dushambe to Indian consulates in Afghanistan to Dera Ghazi

The Indian consulates are dens of evil in Afghanitan

Another brilliant article by Ahmad Qureshi. You can reach him at ahmaquraishi.com or the email address at the bottom of this article

Destabilisation game Tuesday, February 12, 2008, Ahmed Quraishi

“The Pakistanis,” said former US president Richard Nixon, “are straightforward and sometimes extremely stupid. The Indians are more devious, sometimes so smart that we fall for their line.”

In their desperation to salvage their near-failure in Afghanistan, the Americans are certainly falling for the latest line the Indians and their Afghan proxies in Kabul have been feeding them for months now: If you want to reign in the Taliban in Afghanistan, go after the Pashtuns in Pakistan.

So while the US military chief, Admiral Mike Mullen, spent time in Islamabad over the weekend, an unnamed American official in Washington singled out Pakistan’s Pashtuns as the source of all evil, highlighting the “very clear Pashtun tribal links” connecting the Afghan insurgency to Pakistan. He also alleged that Mullah Omar and Al Qaeda leaders were hiding in Quetta.

Weakening the Pashtuns fits in well with the current Afghan power holders in Kabul and their Indian friends, who insist on keeping Afghanistan’s traditional rulers away from power after the bitter experience of the 1990s.

But there is more to this anti-Pashtun tirade than meets the eye. There are signs that, after the attempt to spark an ethnic war in Balochistan in 2005 a situation is being created on the ground for a Pashtun rebellion in Pakistan. And in both cases, support, weapons and finances are pouring in from unnamed and unknown actors based in Afghanistan. The already inflamed Pashtun passions received another setback last week when scores of Pashtun-dominated ANP activists were killed in a suicide attack only days after the assassination of a senior ANP leader in mysterious circumstances in Karachi.

It is ironic that in this dangerous mix, Pakistani politics appear to have no room now for nationalist Pakistanis who believe in a strong, rising Pakistan. Given the chance, every one of these parties is willing to descend into ethnic and linguistic politics. And none of them have a realistic agenda reflecting the strengths of the nation. All of these political parties are conveniently hiding their ineptitude behind a one-point, anti-Musharraf campaign.

The Indians, now comfortably based in Afghanistan under the American watch, have historically shown a special interest in nurturing ethnic insurgencies inside Pakistan. The game plan now is to try to convince Pakistani Pashtun nationalists to join hands with religious parties to fan unrest after next week’s elections.

It would be wise for most Pakistanis to view the role of the United States in this whole situation with a healthy dose of skepticism and suspicion. US officials have been trying to convince Islamabad that the Afghan Taliban and the Al Qaeda are shifting their attention from Afghanistan to Pakistan. Interestingly, the Afghan Taliban are wearing to the Pakistanis that they have nothing to do with the insurgencies of Baitullah Mehsud and the couple of other shadowy religious groups that have sprung up in parts of NWFP.

To underscore this point, Mullah Omar has publicly disowned Mr Mehsud, isolating this warlord and raising serious doubts about the sources of his weapons and funding. Seeing these terrorists isolated and exposed, Pakistani authorities swooped in on Mehsud and the rest of his allies and crippled them militarily.

Our American friends continue to use the good-cop-bad-cop routine on their Pakistani ally. After successfully raising a false global alarm over the security of Pakistani nukes, they sent their top military chief to tell the world from Islamabad that our nukes are safe. While US officials tell their Pakistani counterparts how much they value the relationship, it is a disturbing fact that the US media and the think-tank circuit continue to depict Pakistan as the next Iraq and churn out endless scenarios about the breakup of the country.

In this environment, it is expected that the Americans will exploit the shaky foundations of a flawed and weak Pakistani political system to interfere and exert political pressure on Islamabad. We as Pakistanis have no option but to reform this political system by creating a strong and stable civilian political setup closely backed by the military institution, without whom this process of strengthening the system cannot succeed.

The writer is a host of a foreign policy talk show. Email: aq@ahmedquraishi.com

Destabilisation game by Ahmad Quraishi

Share

Microsoft buying SAP? Yahoo! $44.6bn deal dead

Share

Now that the Yahoo deal is dead. Will Microsoft begin looking at SAP?

It is said that Bill Gates was looking at the want ads on the Google site at 2 in the morning. An emergency Microsoft meeting was called to discuss why Google was hiring the same type of people as Microsoft was hiring.

Google is now competing with the desktop space with Microsoft and has its own word processing and presentation software available on the net without having to deal with the software solutions on the desktop. 

The purchase of Yahoo was to compete directly with Google in the search engine space. By attempting to purchase Yahoo Microsoft has conceded defeat and will merge its own search engines with Yahoo technology.

The Yahoo deal would have allowed , Bill Gates to repeat success–acquiring DOS, Windows technology from Apple, Excel technology from Lotus, Word technology from Word Prefect etc. 

Microsoft might just be about to get much bigger. Microsoft’s buying plans have been rumored for months. One of the two hot rumors was just made official. 

SAP is supposedly negotiating with IBM and also Microsoft. The Enterpirse consoldiation between Mocrosoft’s Front Office suite and SAP’s back office suites would create a huge competitor for Oracle still struggling with is own buy spree and fusion project.

Microsoft purchasing Yahoo! – $44.6bn offered. Just breaking on “the wires” right now is schock news for the online world. – it has just proposed a deal to buy long-time internet nearly-company Yahoo! for a vast total fee of $44.6bn – that’s $31 a share. The deal between the two mega-corporations was first rumoured a year ago but is now official.

The Microsoft-Yahoo deal would give Google a run for their money.

technorati.com/faves?sub=addfavbtn&add=http://moinansari.wordpress.com
technorati.com/faves?sub=addfavbtn&add=http://RupeeNews.com
technorati.com/faves?sub=addfavbtn&add=http://PakPunch.com

——————————————————————————–

February 24, 2008 Digital Domain Maybe Microsoft Should Stalk Different Prey By RANDALL STROSS
OVER the years, Microsoft has pummeled countless rivals, including the superheavyweight I.B.M. But it has never faced a smaller foe as formidable as Google. The tale of the tape gives Microsoft a $100 billion advantage in market capitalization, but it counts for little: Google appears to be its superior in strength, speed, smarts.

Having exhausted its best ideas on how to deal with Google, Microsoft is now working its way down the list to dubious ones – like pursuing a hostile bid for Yahoo. Michael A. Cusumano, who has written several books about the software industry and about Microsoft, is not impressed with Microsoft’s rationale for its Yahoo offer. He said the bid seemed to be a pursuit of “an old-style Internet asset, in decline, and at a premium.”

Determined to match Google in search and online advertising, Microsoft has managed to overlook a plain-vanilla strategy, the oldest one in the book: build on its own strengths. What it does best is to sell software to corporations, for all sorts of applications, visible and not so visible, at a handsome profit.

If Microsoft thinks this is the right time to try a major acquisition on a scale it has never tried before, it should not pursue Yahoo. Rather, it should acquire another major player in business software, merging Microsoft’s strength with that of another. This is more likely to produce a happier outcome than yoking two ailing businesses, Yahoo’s and its own online offerings, and hoping for a miracle.

For an illustration of how Microsoft could select targets more judiciously, Mr. Cusumano, who is a professor at the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, pointed to the Oracle Corporation’s strategic acquisitions and its prudent use of capital to “roll up firms with similar products and customers to its own.” With impressive regularity – 13 strategic acquisitions in 2005, another 13 in 2006 and 11 in 2007 – Oracle has picked up key products and customers while avoiding an “oops” slip, venturing too far away from its core business, or paying too much. At no point along the way has it acted in a fit of desperation.

Last month, Oracle pulled in another major prize, BEA Systems, a leading software company, for about $8.5 billion. You’ve probably never heard of BEA: it’s doubly obscure, producing the behind-the-scenes infrastructure that large companies use to build behind-the-scenes software systems for their entire business, or “enterprise software.” Both Oracle and BEA are based in Silicon Valley, but their side of the street is not lit by klieg lights and does not get the same attention as the Googles and Yahoos.

And, to be honest, it’s not much fun hanging out on the enterprise side of the software business. BEA says its software helps organizations “ensure that business processes are optimally defined, managed, executed and monitored.” Unless you’re playing Business Jargon Bingo, it’s hard to sit still and remain attentive. You have to admire Oracle’s ability to remain focused on the business that serves business and to not be distracted by the buzz of the Web crowd gathered across the street.

Microsoft does business software well. Approximately half its revenue comes from business customers for its e-mail infrastructure, database systems, developer tools, Office productivity applications and other mainstays. It has also assembled, through acquisitions, a fledgling line of enterprise software that it calls Microsoft Dynamics. Microsoft would like Dynamics to be viewed as competing head to head with the No. 2 name in enterprise software, Oracle, or the No. 1, SAP of Germany. For the moment, however, Microsoft Dynamics’ parity with those big names is nothing more than wishful aspiration.

Professor Cusumano has a suggestion: Rather than acquire Yahoo, Microsoft should pursue SAP.

It’s not an outlandish idea. The two companies held merger talks in late 2003, and perhaps since then, too. Microsoft is in an enviable position: it is a nearly universal presence in corporate data centers, and large enterprise customers are arguably the best customers a software company can have. Clients pay very dear prices for the complex, semicustomized software that runs their business. And once they’ve got their systems running – a process that can take years to complete – they aren’t inclined to change vendors lightly.

A few dozen well-paying Fortune 500 customers may actually be more valuable than tens of millions of Web e-mail “customers” who pay nothing for the service and whose attention is not highly valued by online advertisers.

Today, SAP’s market capitalization is about $59 billion, and a sizable premium to get a deal done would send its price well north of that. Microsoft cannot put both SAP and Yahoo in its shopping cart, deals that together might run well over $120 billion. Microsoft must pick one or the other.

Suppose that Lawrence J. Ellison, the chief executive of Oracle, were the head of Microsoft and was doing the shopping. Which deal would he choose? Past experience suggests that it would not be Yahoo. That acquisition would bring little but duplication headaches – and no large enterprise customers.

It’s amusing to note that the most Larry-like choice, Microsoft’s acquiring of SAP and leaving it alone as an autonomous division to avoid a cross-cultural integration fiasco, is the course that would be most discomfiting to Oracle. Frank Scavo, president of Computer Economics, an information technology research firm, in Irvine, Calif., said that “a Microsoft-SAP combination would be Oracle’s worst nightmare.”

Google would not be happy with a conjoined Microsoft and SAP, either. It has made a pro forma expression of its own opposition to a Microsoft-Yahoo merger, but we can speculate that it may be cheering that deal on. Working in Google’s favor are the hostile nature of Microsoft’s bid, the colossal potential for integration problems, and organizational paralysis in, and exodus of talent from, Yahoo.

But were Microsoft to turn and head in SAP’s direction, Google would have reason for concern. Whatever strengthens Microsoft is bound to influence, later if not sooner, its continuing competition with Google. For its own part, Google is keen to expand its foothold inside large companies. Last year, it acquired Postini, whose software filters corporate e-mail. Google has not done so well with corporate customers on its own, however. Google Apps has conspicuously failed to win adoption quickly.
If Microsoft is to rededicate its attention to its most valuable assets, business customers, a prerequisite is dropping its ill-advised bid for Yahoo. And to find the best acquisition strategy, ask, “What would Larry do?”

If Microsoft tries to fight Google with wobbly legs, scared witless, it will lose.

Randall Stross is an author based in Silicon Valley and a professor of business at San Jose State University. E-mail: stross@nytimes.com.

Home
World U.S. N.Y. / Region Business Technology Science Health Sports Opinion Arts Style Travel Jobs Real Estate Automobiles Back to Top
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
Privacy Policy Search Corrections RSS First Look Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map

Microsoft buying SAP? Yahoo! $44.6bn deal dead

Share

Afghanistan fubar: A crumbling alliance?-Canada and Australia withdrawing?

Share

Troops in Afghanistan: United States – 15,038, United Kingdom – 7,753, Germany – 3,155, Italy – 2,358, Canada – 1,730, Netherlands – 1,512, France – 1,292, Turkey – 1,219, Poland – 1,141, Australia – 892, Source: Nato

“the greatest threat to Afghanistans future is abandonment by the international community.”The Mayor” of Kabul: Mr. Karzai

“the mission in Afghanistan needed more troops and equipment, such as helicopters, … “too few of our allies have combat troops fighting the insurgents especially in the south.” Mr Boucher

Karzaiistan is shrinking and is confined to Kabul

ISAFistan is shrinking

Talibanistan is growing

The situation in Afghanistan is grim for NATO. They control a few of the provinces mostly in the North. Southern Afghanistan is fully under the control of the Taliban and Mulla Umar. They have now seeped into Waziristan and threaten Pakistani settled areas. However the mercenary splinter group in Wat has been decimated and Mr. Mehsud has been disowned by the main Tlaiban group. That Taliban want to concentrate on Afghanistan this spring America has recently sent 3000 new troops but these are not enough.

Japan withdrew forces in Nov 2007. Australia is withdrawing forces from Iraq and may also withdraw forces from Afghanistan, though no date has been set for the withdrawal. The Dutch are also in the same process. The UK is also under tremendous pressure at home to withdraw forces.

Mr. Gates the US Secretary of State wrote an urgent letter to NATO to ask the NATO forces to move south into “Talibanistan”. The Germens say “No Bid”. “We have agreed on a clear division of labor,” Jung told reporters on Friday. “I think that we really must keep our focus on the North.” Herr Jung-Germany

“ you have a little German Afghanistan in the north, an Italian Afghanistan in the west, Dutch Afghanistan in Uruzgan and a Canadian Afghanistan in Kandahar, and so on. Geographically NATO has been fractured, and also sectorally with equal ineffectiveness–like giving the justice sector totally to the Italians, counter-narcotics to the British, the police to Germans and anti-terrorism to the Americans. Daan Everts, former civilian representative of the NATO Secretary General in Kabul:

A frustrated Mr. Karazi has requested a dramatic increase in the troop level but the NATO response has been feeble.

There are 950 Australian troops (ADF) in Afghanistan. There is a new government in Australia and the new Prime Minister promised to withdraw troops.

• A National Command Element in Kabul;
• Reconstruction Task Force based in Tarin Kowt, Oruzgan Province as part of an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) Provincial Reconstruction Team;
• a Special Forces Task Group deployed to Oruzgan province as part of ISAF operations against insurgents;
• an RAAF air surveillance radar capability deployed at Kandahar Air Field; and
  a Chinook helicopter group based at Kandahar in Helmand province in support of ISAF operations, temporarily returned to Australia until April 2008.
   

The Canadian government is also under tremendous pressure to withdraw troops from Afghanistan. On the 5th of February, the Canadian Prime Minster Mr. Harper informed Mr. Sarkozi that Canada would withdraw her forces if NATO does not deploy at least another 1000 troops. Sarko the American had promised to join NATO, but now the old fissures are rising again. “What are we doing there?”,” What are we fighting for”

Canada informs UK about possible troops withdrawal, TORONTO: Prime Minister Stephen Harper stepped up pressure on his NATO allies Thursday, cautioning his British counterpart a day after issuing a similar warning to US President George W. Bush that Canada will end its military mission in Afghanistan if the alliance does not assume a greater role in the dangerous south.

Harper, under pressure to withdraw Canada’s 2,500 troops from Afghanistan, spoke to Gordon Brown about an independent Canadian panel recommendation to extend the mission only if another NATO country musters 1,000 troops for Kandahar, said his spokesman, Michael Aubie. Harper conveyed the same message to Bush on Wednesday during a phone call.

Canadians have grown increasingly weary of the conflict in Afghanistan, which has claimed the lives of 78 of their troops and one diplomat. Opposition parties have threatened to bring down Harper’s minority government if he does not withdraw the forces. The mission is set to expire in 2009 without an extension by Canadian lawmaker.

The refusal of some major European allies to send significant number of troops to the southern front lines has opened a rift within NATO.

Troops from Canada, Britain, the Netherlands and the United States have borne the brunt of a resurgence of Taliban violence in the region, with support from Denmark, Romania, Estonia and non-NATO nation Australia.

“Canada should remain in Afghanistan beyond February 2009, but only if NATO Allies supply additional combat troops for Kandahar Province and our troops have additional equipment. Without that, Canada’s mission will end in a year’s time,” Aubie said in a statement detailing the conversation.

The two leaders decided to pursue the issue further in the coming weeks as Harper talks to other NATO leaders and key players before the government delivers its final decision later this spring.

Britain has about 7,700 soldiers in Afghanistan, up from 3,600 in2006.

The U.S. contributes one-third of NATO’s 42,000-strong International Security Assistance Force mission, making it the largest participant, on top of the 12,000 to 13,000 American troops operating independently.

Harper has promised to put the future of the mission to a vote in Parliament, where the opposition parties hold the majority of seats. NATO urged Canada on Wednesday not to pull its troops and pledged to help find the 1,000 troops.

We still beleive that the only solution for the Afghan quagmire is to end the ISAF occuption, eliminate Mr. Karzai’s Northern Alliance Government and hand over the Pashtun provinces to Pakistan.

Afghanistan fubar: A crumbling alliance?-Canada and Australia withdrawing?

Share

Pakistani Opposition Leader Imran Khan on Musharraf, Bhutto, and How the U.S. Has Undermined Pakistani Democracy

Share

We attended a Tehreek e Insaaf meeting in Long Island, New York and shared lunch with Mr. Imran Khan. It was a remarkable moment. More than 500 people and all major TV channels were present. A fantastic lunch was provided. Even Bangladeshi columnists were there.

Several American Tehrik e Insaf  leaders were present. Shaikh Elahi of the East Coast and the head of the TI International as well as of New York were present. Mr. Dabbir introduced Imran Khan with fantastic poetry.

Imran Khan spoke for an hour with confidence and charisma. The incorruptible politician with integrity defined his mission to explain to the American Congressman and politicians that it was not in the interest of America to support a military dictatorship. He asked for the complete restoration of the judiciary and “rule of law” in Pakistan. He referred to Mr. Dabbir as “the walking talking Tehrik e Insaaf“. Imran Khan spoke about the tremendous potential of the Pakistani nation. However progress was dependent upon building and preserving the institutions. He defended his position on boycotting the elections and said that the army should go back to the barracks. He also praised the Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry whom he called one will be described “as a real hero” of Pakistan. He narrated several cricket analogies to the hard working people of Pakistan.

Rupee News: Every politician says that he or she is “L’etat, cest moi” (I am the state). If you don’t elect me something will happen to Pakistan. What do you say.

Imran Khan: We have to build institutions that will save Pakistan 

Rupee News: What do you think about external factors in creating instability of Pakistan?

Imran Khan: If you create a a swamp, the mosquitoes will come. The Musharraf government has attacked the Tribals and is using our armed forces to kill our own people. This must stop. 

Rupee News: Bhutto gave Pakistanis a vision. Imran can you give us a vision of Pakistan for 2010 or 2050?

Imran Khan: Roti Kapra Makan was not a vision. My vision is to have good strong stable institutions and the army back in the barracks. Investment will come by itself.

Rupee News: Pakistan should calculate the amount of expenses and losses incurred by Pakistan as a result of the US “Global War on Terror (GWOT).

Imran Khan: We didn’t know. When we asked the questions in parliament we were not informed. We heard about the $10 Billion in newspapers.

Rupee News: What about Muslim terrorists?

Imran Khan: Every religion has terrorists, why aren’t terrorists of other religions also identified by their religion….

Rupee News: Can you give us your email address?

Imran Khan: Yes! Here it is.

 http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/30/pakistani_opposition_leader_imran_khan_on

Pakistani Opposition Leader Imran Khan on Musharraf, Bhutto, and How the U.S. Has Undermined Pakistani Democracy

Share

Book Reveiw: The Last Days of the American Rupublic

Share

Mr. Chalmers Johnson’, is “The Last Days of the American Republic is the third in a trilogy (Blowback and The Sorrows of Empire”). He is the president of the Japan Policy Research Institute. A contributor to the Los Angeles Times, the London Review of Books, Harper’s, and The Nation, among others, he appears in the 2005 prizewinning documentary film Why We Fight. He lives near San Diego.

From Publishers Weekly: Like ancient Rome, America is saddled with an empire that is fatally undermining its republican government, argues Johnson (The Sorrows of Empire), in this bleak jeremiad. He surveys the trappings of empire: the brutal war of choice in Iraq and other foreign interventions going back decades; the militarization of space; the hundreds of overseas U.S. military bases full of “swaggering soldiers who brawl and sometimes rape.” At home, the growth of an “imperial presidency,” with the CIA as its “private army,” has culminated in the Bush administration’s resort to warrantless wiretaps, torture, a “gulag” of secret CIA prisons and an unconstitutional arrogation of “dictatorial” powers, while a corrupt Congress bows like the Roman Senate to Caesar. Retribution looms, the author warns, as the American economy, dependent on a bloated military-industrial complex and foreign borrowing, staggers toward bankruptcy, maybe a military coup. Johnson’s is a biting, often effective indictment of some ugly and troubling features of America’s foreign policy and domestic politics. But his doom-laden trope of empire (“the capacity for things to get worse is limitless…. the American republic may be coming to its end”) seems overstated. With Bush a lame duck, not a Caesar, and his military adventures repudiated by the electorate, the Republic seems more robust than Johnson allows. (Feb.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. –This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

From AudioFile
We are, the author contends, headed for monumental economic disaster because of selfish, secret, and reckless military spending. As Johnson outlines the “dangerous path” the United States has forged., narrator Tom Weiner’s steady, deep voice offers comfort to a rocky journey. The book’s only flaw is the extent of the author’s tangential explanations. But the gem is the section on the erosion of freedom of information. The author’s theme is clear early on: “Imperialism requires that a . . . domestic democracy change into a domestic tyranny.” Weiner’s voice of reason resonates as listeners are left questioning our future. M.B. © AudioFile 2007, Portland, Maine– Copyright © AudioFile, Portland, Maine –This text refers to the Audio CD edition.

From Booklist
The third book in a series begun with Blowback (2000), which predicted harsh comeuppance for the post-cold war American “global empire,” and The Sorrows of Empire (2004), which continued Johnson’s thesis with a lambasting of American militarism pre- and post-September 11, this book continues the author’s broad condemnation of American foreign policy by warning of imminent constitutional and economic collapse. In a chapter analyzing “comparative imperial pathologies,” Johnson reminds readers of Hannah Arendt’s point that successful imperialism requires that democratic systems give way to tyranny and asserts that the U.S. must choose between giving up its empire of military bases (as did Britain after World War II) or retaining the bases at the expense of its democracy (as did Rome). Johnson also predicts dire consequences should the U.S. continue to militarize low Earth orbits in pursuit of security. To some extent a timely response to recent arguments in favor of American empire, such as those of Niall Ferguson in Colossus, this account also reiterates Johnson’s perennial concerns about overseas military bases, the CIA, and the artifice of a defense-fueled economy. Brendan Driscoll
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved –This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

Eugene Jarecki, Director of Why We Fight Grand Jury Prize Winner, Sundance Film Festival
“An urgent warning for a country… Johnson is a national treasure. Let’s hope we listen this time.” –This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

Review

“Chalmers Johnson, a patriot who pulls no punches, has emerged as our most prescient critic of American empire and its pretensions. Nemesis is his fiercest book-and his best.”-Andrew J. Bacevich, author of The New American Militarism

“Nemesis, the final volume in the remarkable Blowback trilogy, completes a true patriot’s anguished and devastating critique of the militarism that threatens to destroy the United States from within. In detail and with unflinching candor, Chalmers Johnson decries the discrepancies between what America professes to be and what it has actually become-a global empire of military bases and operations; a secret government increasingly characterized by covert activities, enormous ‘black’ budgets, and near dictatorial executive power; a misguided republic that has betrayed its noblest ideals and most basic founding principals in pursuit of disastrously conceived notions of security, stability, and progress.”
-John Dower, author of Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II

“Chalmers Johnson’s voice has never been more urgently needed, and in Nemesis it rings with eloquence, clarity, and truth.”-James Carroll, author of House of War

“Nemesis is a stimulating, sweeping study in which Johnson asks a most profound strategic question: Can we maintain the global dominance we now regard as our natural right? His answer is chilling. You do not have to agree with everything Johnson says-I don’t-but if you agree with even half of his policy critiques, you will still slam the book down on the table, swearing, ‘We have to change this!’”
-Joseph Cirincione, Senior Vice President for National Security and International Policy, Center for American Progress

“Nemesis is a five-alarm warning about flaming militarism, burning imperial attitudes, secret armies, and executive arrogance that has torched and consumed the Constitution and brought the American Republic to death’s door. Johnson shares a simple, liberating, and healing path back to worthy republicanism. But the frightening and heart-breaking details contained in Nemesis suggest that the goddess of retribution will not be so easily satisfied before ‘the right order of things’ is restored.”-Karen Kwiatkowski, retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel

“Last fall a treasonous Congress gave the president license to kidnap, torture-you name it-on an imperial scale. All of us, citizens and non-citizens alike, are fair game. Kudos for not being silent, Chalmers, and for completing your revealing trilogy with undaunted courage.”-Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst; co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

–This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

New York Observer
“Fascinating.” –This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

The San Diego Union-Tribune
“Nemesis is particularly good in sounding the alarm. Johnson’s book is a primer on what needs to be done.” –This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

Kirkus Reviews
“A sobering read.” –This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

Book Description
A New York Times bestseller, Nemesis is Chalmers Johnson’s ‘fiercest book-and his best’ (Andrew J. Bacevich) In his prophetic book Blowback, Chalmers Johnson linked the CIA’s clandestine activities abroad to disaster at home. In The Sorrows of Empire, he explored the ways in which the growth of American militarism and the garrisoning of the planet have jeopardized our stability. In Nemesis, the bestselling and final volume in what has become known as the Blowback Trilogy, he shows how imperial overstretch is undermining the republic itself, both economically and politically. Delving into new areas-from plans to militarize outer space to Constitution-breaking presidential activities at home and the devastating corruption of a toothless Congress-Nemesis offers a striking description of the trap into which the reckless ambitions of America’s leaders have taken us. Johnson confronts questions of pressing urgency: What are the unintended consequences of our dependence on a permanent war economy? What does it mean when a nation’s main intelligence organization becomes the president’s secret army? Or when the globe’s sole ‘hyperpower’ becomes the greatest hyper-debtor of all times? Writing ‘as if the very existence of the nation is at stake’ (San Francisco Chronicle), Johnson offers his most ‘bracing’ and ‘important’ (Los Angeles Times) exploration of the crisis facing America.

Book Reveiw: The Last Days of the American Rupublic

Share

Army democracy logic: Rebuttal to Mr. Akbar of the Khaleej Times

Share

Dear Editor Khaleej Tiimes and Mr. AkbarAAKhaleej times for whatever reason in the world allows 250 character to form a response!!!!! Why is Mr. Akbar employed? To disgrace Pakistan and challenge its existance? Soon the Khaleej times will be printed from Karachi. Do you think that people in Karachi will put up with the writing of this person–Mr. Akbar? we know you will not print this, so we will post the response on http://RupeeNews.com and on http://www.PakPunch.com

You have the opportunity to build bridges and create a vision, you harp beating down Pakistan is every column of yours.

You seem to be in a fish bowl and the world is moving ahead faster than you can analyze the bits and pieces that you have access to.

It is amazing that all your articles start by disparaging Pakistan and its existence (Army Democracy logic,Fullstop etc) . We have heard your inane views and understand your befuddled animus against Pakistan. But does each and every insipid article have to start with a prophecy of doom for Pakistan? (Rhetorical question, you don’t have to answer it!we know your answer!). Is your ridicule of Pakistan meant for your Indian audience and you are trying to prove that your are more Catholic than the Pope?

Your arrogance on this so called dynastic “democracy” in India is laughable….come down a few notches. No one buys it! Read what the New York Times is saying about China and Europe…India has missed the boat totally!http://rupeenews.com/2008/01/26/waving-goodbye-to-hegemony-by-parag-khanna-dawn-of-a-multipolar-world-with-china-and-europe-and-maybe-russiaindia-embroiled-in-penury-is-absent/While you relish your so called “democracy” China, Singapore, Taiwan, Korea, Malaysia are laughing their way to the bank. India’s competition is China…and India is found absconding….with 89 insurgencies…and the lowest per capita on GNP in the Subcontinent….we wonder how you can ever talk about Pakistan
http://rupeenews.com/2008/01/26/waving-goodbye-to-hegemony-by-parag-khanna-dawn-of-a-multipolar-world-with-china-and-europe-and-maybe-russiaindia-embroiled-in-penury-is-absent/About your assumption that the violence in Pakistan is not sponsored by India. Read plenty of information posted on http://www.RupeeNews.com. Even the Peoples Daily and the Tehran Times listed triangulation on Pakistan as prolifically described by M.K. Bhadrawar in http://www.atimes.comON CHINESE THREAT TO INDIA: http://rupeenews.com/2008/01/28/china-to-cia-raw-and-mossad-no-more-turmoil-in-pakistan-is-permissible-china-agains-comes-to-help-of-pakistan-in-its-hour-of-need-she-she/

ON THE CIA INDOLENT IN THE ASSASSINATION OF BHUTTO: http://rupeenews.com/2008/01/06/the-cia-connection%e2%80%a6-benazir-bhutto%e2%80%99s-assassination-was-pre-planned-the-zia-model-with-a-twistthe-continued-cia-involvement-in-pakistan-the-great-game-continues-when-the-elephants-d/

ON THE HISTORIC REALIGNMENT: http://rupeenews.com/2008/01/30/pakistan-an-historic-realignment-china-pakistan-russia/

ON NATO ATROCITIES IN AFGHANISTAN: http://rupeenews.com/2008/01/30/is-nato-committing-genocide-in-afghanistan-byliaqat-ali-khan/

we have no expectations of you. We know you cannot change your stripes. Your hatred costs lives and people continue fighting because of the things that you write.Pakistan was born on the 27^th of Ramadhan and hordes of mercenaries sent across the border cannot destroy it. We are used to your prophecies of doom, they started in 1947.In your hubris you seem to think that your opinions are fact. In fact your opinions on the Two Nation Theory, the creation of Pakistan, the events of 1971 and Indian aggression against Pakistan are just opinions. In my mind your opinions are worth about 2 cents which won’t even buy me a cup of coffee here in New Jersey.In Islamabad 2 cents may buy you a kilo of flour though!God Bless you and take care. Was Salaam 

Army democracy logic: Rebuttal to Mr. Akbar of the Khaleej Times

Share

Decoding Pakistani Venus Jalebee answers and USA Mars pretzel questions

Share

Trying to decipher the thought processes in a pictorial format. What the diplomats are saying publicly, what the Thinktanks are thinking, what the Intelligence Agencies are assessing, and what external factors are influencing the decision making process. How Americans see themselves and see others. How Pakistanis see themselves and see others are factors that influence actions.

There is a disconnect. How do  Pakistanis from Venus talk to Americans from Mars and make them understand? How do we decode the pretzels questions and the “jalebi” answers?

THE PRETZEL VS. THE JALEBI (Mars and Venus stated positions) 

American interests are simple, why don’t the Pakistanis get it? The US intentions can be described in one sentence listed below (A).

A) Pretzel-USA-Mars policies: Eliminate terrorism so that American presidents and Congresspersons can keep their jobs.

Pakistani interest are simple, who don’t the Americans get it? The Pakistani interests can be described in the sentence below (aliph).

Aliph) Build Pakistani infrastructure, have  peace and a stable economy to eliminate existential threats to Pakistan.

At the highest level the objectives (Aliph and A)seem to be congruent. Because these are the stated positions, the diplomats agree 100% on these. However Pakistani from Venus have serious translation issues with Americans from Mars in unstated positions:

THE PRETZEL VS. THE JALEBI (Mars and Venus un-stated positions). The US unstated position is the Plan for a New American Century (PNAC) type of future plans for the USA. This can be described in one sentence (B).

B) Pretzel-USA-Mars policies: Create buffers against China and secure the Central Aisan Oil reserves. This is a simple objective of the US–to encircle China.

The Pakistani position (Bay) can be described in one sentence.

Bay) Jalebi-Pakistan-Venus: Secure a pro-Pakistani government in Kabul, not be used as a buffer against China and build herself up to avoid Indian agression against Pakistan

Pakistani from Venus have serious translation issues with Americans from Mars: There is an inherent clash between the two objectives (Bay and B). That is why the questions and “diktats” are coded and now look like pretzels to Pakistan. Pakistan does not want to be a buffer against China because it sees China as its lifeline. Therefore Pakistanis from Venus give pretzel answers to Americans from Mars. 

THE PRETZEL VS. THE JALEBI (Mars and Venus un-stated positions) American Thinktanks influenced by Indian and Neocon writings.

C)  Pretzel-USA-Mars: Based on what we hear from the Indian and Indian puppets in Afghanistan, there are serious issues and half-truths.

Pay) Jalebi-Pakistan-Venus: Based on our own experiences, and double-talk, we are confused.

THE PRETZEL VS. THE JALEBI (Mars and Venus un-stated positions). Media on both sides are quaralling at this level.

D) We don’t trust the Pakistanis

Tay)  We don’t trust the Americans.

THE PRETZEL VS. THE JALEBI (Mars and Venus un-vocalized thinking)

E) White man’s burden to civilize these tribes. Darn these Muslims. Take out the nukes and create Baluchistan!

Say) “White man speaks with forked tongue”. Another Crusade.

So how do we get out of this quagmire?How do we straighten the spaghetti after it has been boiled?

Can it be done?

Ahmad Qureshi, an influential Pakistani journalist of international repute discusses US-Pakistan relations.

…Time for some blunt speak from Islamabad. Truth is, ever since our American friends seized Afghanistan in 2001, that country has gradually turned into a staging ground for destabilization in neighboring Pakistan. If Washington is focused on terrorists crossing our mountainous border into Afghanistan, Islamabad is more concerned at how Afghanistan has become a haven for an assortment of underground forces that consider Pakistan the enemy. These forces remain hostage to a Cold War mindset, and draw support from players beyond Afghanistan’s borders.To paraphrase Ambassador Paterson’s words, terrorist attacks on us from the Afghan soil have already become catastrophic for Pak-U.S. relations, fueling doubts about U.S. intentions.”

• Pakistani Cheese for Western “whine”. Invoices for services rendered.
• Wish list of Pakistani people
• Invoice for Defeating terror, Securing Pakistani Nukes $150 Billion per annum
• Kissinger and other Americans threatened Pakistan
• The Taliban was a construct of the CIA. Rohrbarker

Decoding Pakistani Venus Jalebee answers and USA Mars pretzel questions

Share

That time hasn't come, has it? Translated by Rais Ahmad Khan from Urdu into English.

Share

http://www.brecorder.com/index.php?id=685900&currPageNo=1&query=&search=&term=&supDate

Business Recorder, Tuesday January 29, 2008
Pakistan’s First Business Financial Daily

That time hasn’t come, has it?KARACHI (January 29 2008): The following is an unconfirmed and unverified account of a person who wishes to remain anonymous. The account is the narration of experiences of a senior foreign ministry official who, according to the writer, was privy to ZA Bhutto-Henry Kissinger talk and later witness to General Ziaul Haq’s outburst of anger against US in front of its ambassador.

The question of veracity of this write-up remains unanswered and the identity and whereabouts of the official and the author of this story are yet to be ascertained, it makes for interesting reading, nevertheless:

It was the year 1976 and the US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was on a visit to Pakistan, to meet the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Zulkiqar Ali Bhutto. The Americans wanted Pakistan to give up their nuclear project, and Henry Kissinger was on a mission to deliver the US President’s message to Bhutto. Mr Bhutto listened to Kissinger very patiently and then addressed him, “you are my friend, please advise me what I should do.” Kissinger smiled a bit, and said softly, “Mr Prime Minister! In the game of diplomacy and power, nobody is any one else’s friend. I am only a messenger at this time. You should consult one of your own advisors”. Bhutto smiled and replied in a beautiful tone, “I still consider you my friend despite that and so request your advice.” Henry Kissinger laughed heartily, and looking at Bhutto, said, “you are really a chess master.” Bhutto stared at him silently.

Kissinger waited for a while, and said in a cultured tone, “Basically I have come not to advise, but to warn you. USA has numerous reservations about Pakistan’s atomic programme; therefore you have no way out, except agreeing to what I say”. Bhutto smiled and asked, “suppose I refuse, then what?” Henry Kissinger became dead serious.

He locked his eyes on Bhutto’s and spewed out deliberately, “Then we will make a horrible example of you!” Bhutto’s face flushed. He stood up, extended his hand towards Kissinger and said, “Pakistan can live without the US President. Now your people will have to find some other ally in this region.” Bhutto then turned and went out.

This story was related to me by a senior foreign ministry official, who became quite friendly with General Ziaul Haq after Bhutto, and gradually rose in rank to join the General’s elite close circle. In 1987 Russian forces started evacuating Afghanistan, and President General Ziaul Haq was left isolated all of a sudden.

It was a great blow to his ego, and he started berating the CIA officers and US Embassy officials present in Pakistan at the time. Once, during that time, the President accidentally came face to face with the US Ambassador in a function, and in the presence of dozens of other people, admonished the Ambassador.

The General addressing him directly told him, “You people think that we cannot live without your help. Remember that Pakistan is a strong and powerful country, and if we can make Russia run away from Afghanistan, then we can also cope with USA.” The US Ambassador kept silent. General Ziaul Haq caught the ambassador by the chin, and pushing his face up, said, “Tell your government that you have no option except our friendship.”

The Ambassador shook his head left and right. The Foreign Ministry official who narrated the story, was personally present at that function, and was an eye-witness to this incident.

This officer went to see General Ziaul Haq the next day, and pleaded with him very humbly, “Sir, ten or eleven years ago I was working with Mr Bhutto. Sir, I saw and heard the dialogue between Henry Kissinger and Mr Zulfikar Ali Bhutto myself personally. Mr Bhutto looked very confident after this conversation, but Kissinger looked grim. Mr Bhutto had later started challenging the USA even in his public utterances.

However, Sir, a time came when you dethroned Bhutto and delivered him to the Judiciary. The courts sentenced him to gallows, and thus Mr Bhutto really became an example of retribution for the world!” General Ziaul Haq looked at him furiously. The official was flustered, but continued, “Sir, when you were berating the US Ambassador publicly, to me he looked very much like Henry Kissinger at the time.

Sir, based on my experience, I know that a time comes during friendship with America, when it becomes difficult for US friends to maintain that friendship, and the amity pinches like a thorn in the shoe”. The general kept quite. The official persisted “Sir, during our return in the car I had tried to advise Mr Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto also, but he stopped the car and had asked me to get out. Mr Bhutto believed that he knew the Americans better than the Americans knew themselves.

Sir, I know that you also will not be pleased with what I have to say, and perhaps this time also I may meet the same treatment, but Sir, in this delicate hour, I consider it my duty to advise you. Please don’t get entangled with the Americans at this time.

They are a generation of ‘disposable’ culture. In their view, faithfulness and constancy are meaningless words.” General Ziaul Haq lost his patience. He stood up and extended his hand (in dismissal). That official also rose and immediately left the General’s office, and for a long time thereafter, did not re-enter that room.

I met that officer countless times, and whenever the talk turned to Mr Bhutto and General Ziaul Haq, he would say, “Both of my bosses did not accept my advise; therefore both of them met a tragic end.” I asked him what was the reason for that. He had this stock reply: “This is American nature. In reality, they cannot maintain companionship with any one for a long time. Only if you have a love/hate relationship with the US, you can keep their company for a long period.

Like Europeans, Australians and Latin Americans, you should listen to them occasionally, and defy them some other time, then you will have good time. We can also give here an example of Japan and China. Both these countries are friends and foes at the same time. They trade with the USA, but also confront them, so Americans have no issue with them.

On the contrary, we are always obedient to the US and go out of our way in our love for USA, to the extent of altering our own constitution and laws even. After that, we start getting demands from USA to “do more”, and then a time comes when it becomes impossible for Pakistan’s authorities to accept American demands.

When a Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto or a General Ziaul Haq explains to the Americans his legal or constitutional constraints, they do not believe him. Americans think that every thing is ‘possible’ in Pakistan, and that their “friend” is now deceiving them.

Therefore, the Americans change their attitude, after which the Pakistani ruler reminds them of all the services rendered by Pakistan to the USA. He recalls, with big gusto, all his acts of good faith performed in the service of the USA but the Americans shrug their shoulders and reply, “In return we had given you the opportunity to govern Pakistan.”

Answering them the Pakistani ruler starts to threaten the US government, and then, whether it is Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto or General Ziaul Haq, Both of them meet a dreadful, exemplary end.” The official then became silent.

For the last two days, I am sensing changes in President Musharraf and US relations. President Pervez Musharraf granted an interview on January 11 to the Singapore daily “Straits Times’, and in that interview challenged America, “If US forces intruded into our tribal territory, we will deem it as an invasion of Pakistan, which will be an affront to our sovereignty, and I challenge USA to dare come to our hills.

They will rue the day.” The President also gave an interview to the French daily, ‘Figaro’, and in that interview also he announced “if Americans do not help us in the war against terror, then they should search for some other ally for themselves”.

I don’t know why, ever since I read reports of both these interviews of the President, I keep remembering that old diplomat, and I think again and again, that God forbid, if the time has not come once again in Pak-American relations who Condi comes to Pakistan and sitting in our Chamber of authority announces, “you have no other option”.

My spirit shivers when I think of this.

Translated by Rais Ahmad Khan from Urdu into English.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2008

That time hasn't come, has it? Translated by Rais Ahmad Khan from Urdu into English.

Share