Monday, July 31, 2006

Finally!

Daily Times, August 1, 2006
NAB files case against Gen Zahid Akbar
By Zulfiqar Ghuman

ISLAMABAD: The National Accountability Bureau on Monday filed a corruption reference against Lt General (r) Zahid Ali Akbar, former chairman of the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) and the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB), in an accountability court in Lahore on Monday.

Gen Akbar is among 14 military personnel working in civil departments against whom NAB started corruption investigations in 2003. He also served as the corps commander of Rawalpindi during the military government of Gen Ziaul Haq.

Gen Akbar is accused of corruption as WAPDA chairman and PCB chairman from 1987 to 1992, says a press release issued by NAB headquarters. The NAB investigation found that Gen Akbar has assets worth Rs 176 million in his name and in the names of his dependants. These include 77 bank accounts in rupees and US dollars in Pakistan in his name and in the name of his relatives and business concerns. He made outward foreign remittances of $706,200 (Rs 32.4 million at the rate of Rs 46 per dollar) from 1993 to 1998, says the press release.

NAB said his assets were disproportionate to his known means of income and he could not reasonably account for these assets.

"Winning Muslim Hearts and Minds": A Project in Doldrums?



Guest post for Watandost
Project "Winning Muslim Hearts and Minds" in Deep Trouble
Omar Khawaja from Chicago - July 31, 2006

Watching media images of massacred children in the city of Qana in Lebanon is very painful for any human being. For the Bush administration's efforts to win over the hearts and minds of Muslims, this is devastating. The "mistake" was committed by Israel, but Muslims see the United States in every frame.

The Israel-Hezbollah bloody conflict is in its fourth week (now) and civilians on both sides of the border have paid heavily, though the destruction of infrastructure and loss of human life is much more pronounced in Lebanon. Israeli claims that they are (very) cautious not to target civilians cannot be taken at its face value given the facts on ground. Hezbollah is not blameless, but Muslims believe that Israeli technology and resources are so great that calling civilian casualties "collateral damage" has a hollow ring.


A glance at the newspapers in the Muslim states indicate growing frustration and humiliation. Gruesome images are broadcast almost round the clock throughout the Muslim world. For instance, Pakistani popular television networks GEO TV and ARY have correspondents in Lebanon showing death and destruction every hour. And these channels are run and managed by progressive and liberal people - in one case by an American-educated Pakistani who is pro-Western.

The heart of this argument is that mainstream Muslims are deeply influenced by this crisis and what they see is undeniable U.S. complicity, from supporting Israel at the United Nations to supplying the bombs and aircraft that deliver them.

As Washington's fragile stature is tarnished further, Hezbollah rises to new levels of heroic acceptance among educated Muslims who were not inclined to feel this way not so long ago.

The famed Arab street also is increasingly perturbed. Arab public opinion can hardly be gauged from the statements of President Mubarak of Egypt, King Abdullah of Jordon or the House of Saud. Their initial criticism of Hezbollah did not reflect the people they govern. Instead, their views were seen through the prism of the Shiite-Sunni equation and fears of a rising Iran.

Even those voices have been silenced by the scale of the violence and indiscriminate Israeli bombing. The street has moved into the palaces. A rapid consensus is developing against American policy in the region.

The US position on the issue has its own rationale - supporting its staunch ally Israel at a difficult time and ensuring that its enemy Hezbollah is annihilated. However, blocking UN ceasefire efforts when civilian deaths are soaring only inflames Muslims, as well as some non-Muslims.

It is difficult to see how all this serves even Israeli interests. If anything, Israel has unwittingly shored up the fortunes of the extremist forces in the Arab world.

Even as the image of the United States plunges among Muslims, there is opportunity. A comprehensive peace deal for the region, which must include recognition of an independent Palestine, offers a road map out of the quagmire. Peace with the Palestinians would rob Muslim hardliners of a potent slogan and ease the way toward neutralizing Hezbollah’s military arm. Sustainable peace will fall like a ripe fruit in the US lap. History teaches us that military superiority alone, potentially is a transitory thing - given its history and ideals of its founding fathers, the US deserves much more.

Omar Khawaja is a physician based in Chicago and loves to blog.

The Core Issue: Musharraf

The Core Issue: Musharraf
A cautiously aggressive India wins in its bid to veer global powers toward virtually marking Pakistan
V. Sudarshan
Outlook India, 31 July 2006

When Prime Minister Manmohan Singh first met Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf two years ago in New York, there was hope that the two "could do business". A year later, in April 2005, Musharraf came down to Delhi. Such was the warmth between him and Manmohan that the two leaders felt confident enough to declare the peace process "irreversible". In a joint declaration, they even enshrined the intention of not allowing terrorism to impede the historic process.

Since the heady April days of 2004, a string of horrifying bomb blasts has rocked India: Ayodhya happened, Delhi’s Diwali turned bloody, then followed Varanasi. And now Mumbai. Each incident has knocked a big hole in the avowed intention of ensuring that terrorism didn’t nix the peace process. So, hasn’t the prime minister’s assessment of Musharraf changed dramatically since then? Can he still do business with the Pakistani president?

This was precisely the question Outlook asked Manmohan en route to St Petersburg for the G-8 "Outreach" event (involving the G-8 countries plus India, China, Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa). He replied, "In all these matters, there is a learning process. Musharraf is the president of Pakistan and we have to deal with people who are in government. Therefore, I wouldn’t like to utter any harsh words." Constrained by his inability to be publicly forthright about his assessment of Musharraf, Manmohan went on to add, "We both have an obligation to work together, but in a democracy, there are limits to what leadership can do."

The PM’s response underlines the government’s principal dilemma: how does India solve a problem like Musharraf?

The Mumbai blasts have changed many things, including sparking fears about derailing the peace process. Thirteen of the 17 questions the prime minister fielded aboard Air India One related to the July 11 Mumbai blasts and their consequences on the peace process. Manmohan refrained from naming Pakistan; the most he was willing to say was, "The terrorist acts were on a scale that they could not be accomplished without some external involvement. That’s what I would like to say at this juncture." When prodded, he said the commitments Pakistan had made with respect to terrorism had to be backed by action on the ground.

On the way back to Delhi, after having had the opportunity to gauge the international mood, the prime minister provided a nuanced analysis: "We have to look at whatever options there are. For the time being, I think the dialogue process has suffered but I won’t say it is a setback. I think it’s inevitable that in the light of this ghastly tragedy, we need to reflect on our relations with Pakistan."

Before the Indian delegation reached St Petersburg, there was no expectation that the G-8 countries and the Outreach countries would issue a standalone statement condemning the "perpetrators, organisers, sponsors of these and other terrorist acts, and those who incited the perpetrators to commit them." It had been assumed that there would just be a paragraph in the G-8 declaration.

Contrary to what has been reported in a section of the media, a senior government source noted that the statement was "much stronger than what was initially expected". Diplomatic watchers will note that China too endorsed this statement. Also, by calling it a "threat to each of our countries as well as to international peace and security", the world leaders have emphatically acknowledged that the provenance of terrorism in India lies outside its boundaries. Diplomats say that, effectively, Pakistan has now been put on notice. It will have to take urgent and serious steps to address the concern expressed in the G-8 statement.

So, how did the statement come about? Soon after the Mumbai blasts, the government mounted a diplomatic offensive to bear international pressure on Islamabad.The mission was delicate, as there was no direct evidence linking Pakistan to the blasts. But there were enough straws in the wind to indicate that, over a period of time, Musharraf had been either unwilling or unable to control the levers of terrorism, consequently encouraging militant groups to perpetrate deplorable acts in India. The government felt that if it failed to ratchet up international pressure on Pakistan, Musharraf would not see the high-cost strategy he had embarked on.


Pervez Musharraf at a firing range in Wah near Islamabad on July 12

India consequently issued demarches to the G-8 countries as well as the Outreach countries both in New Delhi and the respective capitals that it would be appropriate if the St Petersburg summit issued a statement categorically condemning the Mumbai blasts as well as the attack in Srinagar. New Delhi specifically wanted the statement to take into consideration both the perpetrators and sponsors of the attacks. On July 17, a draft of the statement was given to the Indian delegation on its arrival in St Petersburg. It had incorporated all of New Delhi’s suggestions, and therefore no changes were suggested.

Later that day, in the Marble Hall of the Konstantinovsky Palace, at Strelna, a suburb of St Petersburg, Russian President Vladimir Putin introduced the theme of globalisation to the G-8 plus Outreach countries—India, China, Brazil, Mexico. Italy’s Romano Prodi initiated the discussion on global imbalances. Then Manmohan, seated between Mexican President Vincente Fox and Brazilian President Lula Da Silva, took the stage. He said while globalisation was taking place, it had also given rise to new negative phenomena which were also globalised: terrorism, drug trafficking, organised crime.

"I myself am coming here after ghastly attacks have occurred in my country," he said. He described his trip to Mumbai after the blasts and the scenes he saw in hospitals. As the delegates listened, the prime minister said, "Terrorism has now acquired a global dimension and it has to be confronted wherever it occurs." He added, "A strong message must come of this meeting for zero tolerance for terrorism." When he made the statement, other leaders spontaneously thumped the table in support.

It was then Putin’s turn to speak. He said, "We have condemned the acts of terrorism in India. You have seen the strong statement the G-8 had made. But we have also agreed that we would adopt the (separate) statement and express solidarity with India. This statement has been circulated. If there is no objection, we can adopt it." He looked around to see whether there were any objections. There was none. The statement was adopted. It’s the first time in a major international gathering that an India-specific statement had been adopted. That there was support round the table was indicated by the fact that the leaders of Brazil, China, Mexico and South Africa, the chairman of the council of the heads of State of the cis, the chairman of the African Union, and the heads of international organisations were part of the statement. That was why it was issued separately.

Observed a senior government source: "It certainly represents a higher degree of pressure on Pakistan. You could say that with so many backers to the statement, Pakistan has been put on notice." Echoing the frustration the prime minister had earlier expressed about Pakistan, the source wondered whether there was a serious effort being made to control infiltration. "Is there a serious effort being made to rein in Lashkar, Jaish and Hizbul? Pakistan could take action that shows a degree of sensitivity towards our concerns.(Hizbul leader Syed) Salahuddin appears on the same stage as (minister) Sheikh Rashid. Hizbul and Jaish leaders make fiery speeches against us. We have seen newspaper reports of Dawood in Pakistan. What does all this mean?" the source asked. Government sources note it’s difficult to say what Pakistan is up to. But their prognosis includes three scenarios.

• Musharraf is not in control and that the ISI and the jehadi groups have acquired a life of their own. (It would be difficult otherwise to explain why the Mumbai blasts happened just ahead of the G-8 summit)

• With the elections in Pakistan due in 2007, and Musharraf unwilling to strike an understanding with the political parties, he believes he requires the support of fundamentalists—and can’t, therefore, check them.

• Musharraf is in perfect control, and what is happening reflects the Pakistani mindset that cross-border terrorism is the only effective leverage they have against India. Foreign minister Khursheed Kasuri’s statement, though later denied, is cited to bolster this argument.

Adds another senior source: "We don’t know what Musharraf hopes to achieve. The Lashkar-e-Toiba does about 80 per cent of the damage. It is controlled by the ISI. Is it that Musharraf cannot control the ISI? He probably calculates that we won’t emulate Pakistan and commit acts of terrorism there."

On the plane back home, the PM said, "Each country has to find its own solution." But nobody in Delhi is prepared to spell out what that solution is. On Thursday evening, Musharraf said blaming each other is the "first sign of defeat", an indication that he is now prepared to join Manmohan in looking for "new pathways for establishing friendly relations". That would be after an appropriate cooling-off period.

Sunday, July 30, 2006

Where is the intelligentsia?

The News, July 30, 2006
Where is the intelligentsia?
Prof Khwaja Masud


The blood-dimmed tide is loosed and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all convictions, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity
— WB Yeats


One is keenly reminded about the above-mentioned verses of Yeats, when one confronts the tragic reality of the West Bank and Lebanon; and at the same time the debate that our TV channels are carrying on — debate full of “sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

The word ‘intelligentsia’ is Russian in origin. During the 19th century, members of the Russian intelligentsia thought of themselves as united by something more than a mere interest in ideas. They considered themselves as belonging to a dedicated order.

The Russian intelligentsia had accepted the doctrine that every man was called upon to perform a mission beyond mere selfish purpose of material existence. They had an education superior to their suppressed brothers. Therefore, they had a direct duty to help them towards enlightenment. They were convinced that this duty was uniquely binding on them. If they fulfilled it, as surely history intended them to, the future of their suppressed brethren would surely be glorious.

It was Herzen who said, “We are great doctrinaires. With fearless steps we march to the very limit and go beyond it; never out of step with the dialectic, only with the truth.”

Isaiah Berlin has rightly observed, “The phenomenon of intelligentsia, with its historical and literary consequences, is the largest single contribution to social change in the world”. Noam Chomsky, in his book, “American Power and the New Mandarins”, divides the intelligentsia into two categories: the Mandarins and the Resistants. The Mandarins are those members of intelligentsia who use knowledge to achieve personal power in collaboration with the establishment. They are elitist, manipulative, intriguing, contemptuous of principles, moral issues and human rights, opposed to every popular movement and people’s participation in decision-making.

The Resistants, on the other hand, are democratic, principled, dedicated to truth and social justice. They are engaged in creative search for new and better ways of doing things. They believe in the greatest good of the greatest number. Persecution does not hold them back, rather they draw strength from it. In the age of disorientation, normlessness, opportunism and hypocrisy, they uphold the banner of commitment and dedication. They are not afraid of standing up and be counted.

The Mandarins and the Resistants are to be found in every country. A dynamic, progressive society would be teeming with the Resistants. On the other hand, a decadent, moribund society abounds with the Mandarins. Unfortunately in our country, the Mandarins far outnumber the Resistants. That is why we are not moving ahead. That is why we are sinking ever deeper into the morass of corruption and hypocritical religiosity.

We look around and Yeat’s verses are writ large on every institution:

Things fall apart, the centre does not hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.

Against this background of disarray and wasteland of values, the intellectual is one who does not live off ideas. He lives for ideas and even dies for them.

The real intellectual dissects slogans and exposes the vested interests which lurk behind them. For instance, when someone says that sovereignty belongs to God, he is asserting only the obvious, but it is a subtle attempt to snatch sovereignty from the people. Medieval dogmas are constantly falling under the scrutiny of the intellectual who tears the mask of hypocrisy worn by medievalism.

During the 18th century, the Encyclopaedists prepared the ideological ground for the French Revolution (1789). They awakened the French people from the dogmatic slumber of the medieval ages. They broke the stranglehold of the priests on the hearts and minds of the people by popularising the ideas of freedom, equality and fraternity, rationalism, humanism and pluralism.

According to the great Italian revolutionary, Antonio Gramsci, before an oppressed class throws off the political hegemony of their oppressors, they must get rid of their ideological hegemony; which is possible only if they produce intellectuals who stand by them through thick and thin.

For Gramsci, the hegemony of a political class meant that the class has succeeded in persuading other classes of society to accept its own moral, political and cultural values. This hegemony is brought about by a slow but persistent modification of people’s consciousness. As Gramsci has so well put it, “Every relationship of hegemony is necessarily a pedagogic relationship. It is a long process of learning new values which correspond to the interests of the suppressed classes.”

The degree of success of such an educational process is shown by the extent to which a new consensus is formed. To create such a consensus among the oppressed classes will enable a new society to emerge. It is essential that the intellectuals do not lose touch with the masses. History and politics cannot be made without passion, without the deep emotional bond between the intellectuals and the working masses.

What, then, is the role of intelligentsia in Pakistan? Basically, it is the same as that of the French Encyclopaedists during the 18th century and that of the Russian intelligentsia during the 19th century. It is to prepare the intellectual ground for the democratic revival and the cultural renaissance. They must usher in the scientific, technological and cultural revolution.

They must uphold enlightenment against obscurantism, rationalism against superstition, tolerance against fanaticism, innovation against orthodoxy, democracy against dictatorship and social justice against exploitation.

Pakistan is having a rendezvous with destiny. The members of the intelligentsia – writers, artists, teachers, journalists, scientists, engineers, doctors, lawyers and priests – are called upon by history to play their role as harbingers of a new social order or as the perpetuators of the status quo. Each one of them has to answer the question: which side of the barricade are you on?

The writer is a former principal of Gordon College, Rawalpindi. Email: khmasud22@yahoo.com

Saturday, July 29, 2006

Understanding how rumors are "manufactured" in Pakistan by media managers

Daily Times, July 30, 2006
POSTCARD USA: Shortcut to fame and fortune? Not really —Khalid Hasan

After news having travelled from yet another “well informed” of my countrymen as to what transpired at a secret, off the record meeting held in the middle of the night under tight security in Islamabad, I have decided to do a tell-all, keeping nothing back. Truth like murder must out.

I have never ceased wondering what it is that makes us Pakistanis tittle-tattle so much when we could be doing something far more useful, such as reading a book or listening to the BBC World Service radio. Why is it that the simple explanation is never acceptable? Why do we find embellished accounts of even minor and utterly inconsequential events so fascinating? Why are we always willing to believe the sinister and the secret, rather than the simple and the verifiable? Why do we gossip so much? Why not instead go to the F-9 Park in Islamabad and fly a kite? That would at least have the advantage of violating one or more of CDA’s rules, which is always a good thing.

Let me state what has got my goat. I have it now from nearly half a dozen sources, which claim hundred percent authenticity for what they say they have learnt from their unimpeachable contacts, that I held a secret meeting with Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz in Islamabad one July night and since then I have been trying to work out how to keep the Inland Revenue Service off my tail. That is at least what one source has learnt. Others have learnt other things, all of which, if true, would make me someone to be envied for his unexpected good fortune.

But let me first state what I am supposed to have managed to acquire under my belt. If no two accounts agree, I may kindly not be held responsible for the divergence. 1. I have been given the responsibility to base myself in Chicago (why Chicago I wonder?) with large amounts of non-contraband dollars at my disposal to help Pakistan get a “soft image”. 2. I have been promised a top diplomatic (or is it administrative?) position as long as I promise not to write another word in Daily Times, The Friday Times or elsewhere. 3. I have accepted an offer to move to Islamabad and join the prime minister’s stable of image-makers. 4. I am going to be reinstated as the Associated Press of Pakistan correspondent (a post from which I was fired in 2002 for reasons that remain secret) with all dues reimbursed. 5. If I keep my nose clean and my copybook free of ink spots, I may be given a shot at one of those international outfits where a black limousine takes you to work and your secretary is a long-legged, doe-eyed, golden haired blonde called Jennifer.

Sadly, none of this is true. But who is going to believe me!

I am sorry for the crash-landing that the reader (if anyone has read so far) will experience, but here is what actually happened. I promise that this is the whole truth and nothing but the truth about my secret meeting with the prime minister. It is indeed correct that I was in Islamabad for a few days, the last thing on my mind being meeting anyone who causes traffic to stop and people to swear. So there I am meeting old friends and trying to avoid neighbourhoods where I may have unpaid bills, when my good friend Afzal Khan calls (I have borrowed my niece’s mobile because a mobile-less man in Pakistan is of no consequence at all) and says where I might be later that evening. So I tell him I would be breaking bread with some friends and drinking the cup that cheers. “Wait for my call”, he says mysteriously and rings off after adding, “we might have to see someone”. Around 10:30 pm my phone rings. It is Afzal who tells me to come out, where I find him waiting in his car. “What is going on?” I ask. He is not alone. My friend Ziauddin is with him. “We are meeting the prime minister, but first we go to Wasim Haqqi’s.” Mr Haqqi turns out to be a highly affable host, who is obviously the pointsman. I ask Afzal and Ziauddin if they are going along. They are. That sets my mind at rest as I will have witnesses.

At some signal that Mr Haqqi receives from somewhere, we all get into his car and are soon at “the House” where we are obviously expected because we cruise right in. Mr Haqqi is a familiar sight to the security detail. It is well past 11. Everything, including the trees, is dramatically lit. The atmosphere is Arabian Nights. It is a huge place, which I have only been to once during daytime over a decade ago. We get down from the car, with lines of attendants in colourful sashes and headdresses and jackets bowing ever so slightly to acknowledge our presence. We are shown into a huge reception room, which has a large, very nice portrait of the young Muhammad Ali Jinnah (in whose name everything un-Jinnah-like is being done, including the recent “Islamisation” of Hudood laws). The prime minister, Mr Haqqi says, is with the Qatari ambassador or some such. Ten minutes later we move to a small study with shelves full of clearly unread books. There are any number of liveried attendants bowing and scrapping in the corridors.

In a few minutes, a dapper looking Shaukat Aziz enters, wearing blue jeans, but not the garden-variety kind. We shake hands and sit down. Tea arrives. I am served first which suggests that I am the evening’s chosen guest. We chat of this and that, nothing consequential. He knows a lot about music directors and likes Khurshid Anwar. He misidentifies a composition which I assure him is Rashid Attre’s not Khurshid Anwar’s. I suggest that he should have the highest state honour conferred on Saadat Hasan Manto and a major road named after him. He does not say yes, but he does not say no. I ask him what his plans for 2007 are. He replies that it depends on what the party decides (by that I take it he means the Army League). Ziauddin tells him that while he appreciates the Nishan-e-Imtiaz he is being given, being a journalist he cannot accept it. We need more Ziauddins in the profession, I tell myself. It is midnight when an attendant, followed by an ADC, appears and hands me a nicely wrapped packet. It looks like a box. I ask the prime minister if in keeping with the rules of “Lifafa Journalism” it contains any money. He says, “You have to put in your own money”. Obviously, he is what the Americans call “an Indian giver”. After I have been handed over the gift (a silver box with the GoP crest), we get up, shake hands and part. Even a prime minister needs to sleep.

If I knew what colourful accounts of this meeting there were going to be circulated, I would have asked Shaukat Aziz for a plot of land on which to build a farm house. On second thought, maybe it is good for prime ministers and presidents to sometimes meet people who do not want anything.

Khalid Hasan is Daily Times’ US-based correspondent. His e-mail is khasan2@cox.net

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's grand-daughter Reports from Lebanon: A very popular story in Pakistan

The News, July 25, 2006
'We are all Hizbollah'
By Fatima Bhutto

TRIPOLI, Lebanon: Apparently I am a hardliner. I've been told on several occasions since I've started writing about being under siege in Lebanon that my obvious support of Hizbollah means I should start growing a beard and stop listening to Western music. "How can you reconcile yourself to Hizbollah's intolerant/fundamentalist/Islamic/anti-secular/authoritarian agenda?" I am often asked.

But the fact of the matter is Hizbollah is none of those things. They have come a long way since their formation in the 1980s. Hizbollah is no al-Qaeda — killing innocent men and women in terror attacks around the world. I was in New York for 9/11 and I was in London for 7/7 and I know what it feels like to be paralysed by such senseless violence. But I have also been in Lebanon for 7/13, 7/14, 7/15, 7/16 — you get the picture, sorry, but we are without a catchy slogan here. Hizbollah is not led by a Abu Musab al-Zarqawi — a man who killed Shias in the name of Islam and kidnapped and killed aid workers like Margaret Hasan in Iraq and foreign journalists like Daniel Pearl in Karachi just because they were non- Muslims. Syed Hasan Nasrallah, the secretary-general of Hizbollah, lived in one of the poorest suburbs of Beirut. I say 'lived' because the IDF has ensured that there is nothing left in the Dahiye but dust. He lost his eldest son fighting against the Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon. He is no Saudi billionaire.

Nabih Berri, the speaker of the Assembly, spoke today of Hizbollah's resistance in Lebanon. He spoke of being thankful to them for defending Lebanon and spoke of the United Nation's complicity with Israel's demands. But Berri is not just a Hizbollah supporter; he is also quite a football fan. In a moment of levity Berri pronounced, "What they are doing to us is just like what that referee did to Zidane in the World Cup finals — He was insulted, he had a right to defend himself and still they gave him a red card and sent him off the pitch!".

But I digress. I do not believe in the politics of religion or the exclusion and supremacy that is part of such ideologies, but for so long as there are Israeli tanks occupying the Southern Lebanese town of Maroun al Ras and Israeli warplanes are flying over Tyre and Sidon I will support Hizbollah's right to engage in resistance.

I'm happy to report that it's not just me. I am not alone. There are many more Pakistanis just like me — educated, liberal, non-violent and leftist leaning who are supporting the resistance movement in Lebanon as if it was their own. This morning I got the following e-mail from a friend in London: "I just got back from a protest march. There were some 10,000 to 20,000 people. Ghanaians, Colombians, Nigerians, Englishmen and women, old, young, Muslims with beards, Jews, Christians and of course Arabs...the main slogan on every one's lips was, 'we are all Hizbollah'... We want to say that we are all with you, we care". A kind journalist from Washington DC sent me a poem by Faiz Ahmed Faiz, one of my favorite poets. He sent "The Massacre of Beirut", written by Faiz in 1982 when he was in exile in Lebanon, banished by Ziaul Haq's military government. Above the poem was the note: "I cannot light a bulb for you or give you a bandage should you need it. But I can always send you some poems". I saw photographs of protesters in cities in Lahore, people who went out into the streets and marched in solidarity with Lebanon under the watchful eye of the police who had not sanctioned the gathering and looked more than slightly lathi-happy.

But if there are so many of us, why is the Pakistani government so quiet? (I didn't vote for them, so I will use 'the' instead of 'our'). Why do the statements issued by the government sound like they were written by lawyers? They didn't sound so unenthused last September when they suggested the possibility of recognising and making peace with Israel, excitedly listing all the numerous trade possibilities and American brownie points that could result from such diplomacy. The Syrian information minister was asked a question about Syria's position regarding a full scale ground invasion of Lebanon by the IDF. "What will we do?" He said, repeating the journalist's question, "Stand by with our arms folded? Absolutely not."

Mass grave are being dug in Tyre, bodies piled on top of each other. Citizens of the once liberated South are now under Israeli occupation again and cannot drive on the roads without waving white flags out of their cars. There are over one thousand wounded and over one third of the fatality numbers are children.

The Daily Star, a daily English paper, has put up a sample letter on their website that they are asking readers to download and then send to their governments so that they may pressure the international community and the United Nations to put an end to Israel's brutalities in Lebanon. The letter is far from perfect, we have a lot more to ask of the government, but it's a start. You can find it at http://www.dailystar.com.lb/help_lebanon.rtf and since we tellingly have no direct line to the Pakistani government you can paste the letter to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at http://www.pakistan.gov.pk/ministries/ComplaintQueries.jsp?MinID=12

Let us say 'We are all with you, we care'.

A Statement From Pakistani-Americans

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

July 29th, 2006: We condemn the mindless attack on the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle. This is obviously an action of an insane individual. All the undersigned organizations who are representatives of the Pakistani American Community and also American Muslim Organization condemn this individual’s brutal actions and also call for broader dialogue and conversations amongst the religious and cultural communities to pursue understanding, peace and harmony that we continue to enjoy in our homeland.

We must do whatever is in our power to prevent the current conflict in the Middle East from being transplanted to our Country. We foresee the good friendship that the Pakistani Americans and American Muslims enjoy with Jewish Americans to help build an important lasting relationship which would serve as a mechanism to spread peace in the Middle East, rather than the other way round.

Any attack on one place of worship or community is actually an attack on all places of worship and all communities. We urge the law enforcement agencies and the community based organizations to cooperate and exchange information that can be helpful in the future to prevent such hateful acts.

The Undersigned:

Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee

National Council of Pakistani Americans

Association of Pakistani Professionals

Pakistani American Association of North America

American Muslim Peace Initiative

Pakistani American Association of Connecticut

Pakistani American Association of Greater Boston

Pakistani American Congress and sixty (60) other affiliated Pakistani American Organizations

Condemnable



Comment: Its tragic. And its very painful to know that a Pakistani-American is the culprit. Attack on innocent civilians and that too in a religious place cannot be justified on any grounds whatsoever.


CNN - July 28, 2006

One dead in hate-crime shooting at Jewish center

Suspect in custody; three women in critical condition

(CNN) -- One person was killed and five others were wounded, three critically, in a shooting at the Jewish Federation in downtown Seattle, Washington, police said.

Police have detained a suspect who is a U.S. citizen of Pakistani descent.

"This is a crime of hate, and there's no place for that in the city of Seattle," Mayor Greg Nickels said. "This was a purposeful hateful act, as far as we know, by an individual acting alone."

The attack promoted Seattle police to increase security at Jewish temples and Islamic mosques around the city, Chief Gil Kerlikowske said.

"We are also protecting mosques, because there is always the concern of retaliatory crime or retaliatory incident," Kerlikowske said.

The suspect walked into the office building just after 4 p.m. Friday armed with a large caliber semi-automatic handgun and opened fire after asking for the manager, Kerlikowske said.

The shooter laid down his handgun and surrendered to SWAT officers about 12 minutes after the shooting began, Kerlikowske said.

The belief that it was a hate crime is based on what the suspect said to a 911 operator and supervisor when he took a phone from an office worker who called the emergency number. Kerlikowske would not say specifically what the man said.

All of the shooting victims -- including the one killed -- were women, he said. Most of the 18 people in the building were female, but there was no indication he was specifically targeting them, the chief said.

The wounded were taken to Seattle's Harborview Medical Center following the shooting, the hospital said. Three of them were in critical condition with injuries to their abdomens.

The other two victims were in satisfactory condition, the hospital said, including a 37-year-old woman who is 20 weeks pregnant. She was shot in the arm, while the other woman sustained a knee injury.

Assistant Police Chief Nick Metz said police had no specific information about any threats, but his department did issue an alert Thursday "reminding officers to be vigilant to monitor synagogues and mosques in the city."

Kerlikowske acknowledged that the suspect was a Muslim, but he did not reveal his name. He said there was no reason to believe more than one person was involved in the attack. Another law enforcement official told CNN the suspect was of Pakistani descent.

FBI Special Agent-in-Charge Laura Laughlin said the suspect was a U.S. citizen, not from Seattle.

Robert Jacobs, Pacific Northwest Regional director for the Anti-Defamation League, told CNN the group has been warning Jewish institutions to be wary and ensure they have adequate security because of the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. If they cannot, he said, it would be better for Jews "not to congregate in one location that might be an obvious site."

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/28/seattle.shooting/index.html

New Book on Eqbal Ahmed: Highly Recommended




The Selected Writings of Eqbal Ahmad


Eqbal Ahmad; edited by Carollee Bengelsdorf, Margaret Cerullo, and Yogesh Chandrani
Foreword by Noam Chomsky
Columbia University Press, August 2006

"It is a fascinating experience to view major events of the past half century through Eqbal Ahmad's discerning eye."
—Noam Chomsky

"Eqbal Ahmad was perhaps the shrewdest and most original anti-imperialist analyst of the postwar world. Ahmad's themes were always liberation and injustice, or how to achieve the first without reproducing more of the second. Humanity and genuine secularism in this blood-drenched old century of ours had no finer champion."
—Edward Said, author of Orientalism

"Eqbal Ahmad is a brilliant man with brilliant insights. My only complaint about him is that he is not here now, when we need him most."
—Arundhati Roy, author of The God of Small Things

"Ahmad's world outlook transcends nationalist pride, expressing a profound passion for the equal right to dignity of humans in every corner of the globe. His knowledge of world affairs was formidable, coming in part from his personal acquaintance with important political actors on several continents. His style, both in speaking and writing, was dramatic and witty. He was not an armchair analyst, but a participant in some of the most important struggles of our time in Algeria, in Vietnam, in Palestine. He was never bound by a single ideology, always committed to social justice and nonviolence. In short, an exemplary human being."
—Howard Zinn, author of A People's History of the United States

"This collection transports one back to Eqbal's living room, where he is sitting on the floor, talking politics until the early hours of the morning. It beautifully orchestrates the discussion in its excellent organization and in the manner in which the introductions to each section underscore the themes central to Eqbal's thought. Eqbal's commitment to a revolutionary politics that is moral rather than tactical, to fostering a transnational intellectual and political community, has never been more germane. Despite its sorrow at the betrayals of revolutionary struggles, this book is filled with hope in the power of people and ideas to remake history."
—Amrita Basu, professor of political science and women and gender studies, Amherst College

"I've spent much of my adult life, it seems, reading and learning from Eqbal Ahmad. He was a voice of faith and courage-faith in mankind, faith in decency, faith in knowledge and facts, and the courage to always tell truth to power, no matter what the personal risk. In these essays, his legacy, he told us how to deal with Osama bin Laden and his terrorism. We did not listen."
—Seymour M. Hersh, author of Chain of Command: The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib

"For those looking to muster intellectual resources with which to negotiate a way through the War on Terror, Ahmad is a must read."
—Mahmood Mamdani, author of Good Muslim, Bad Muslim


Activist, journalist, and theorist, Eqbal Ahmad (1934—1999) was admired and consulted by revolutionaries and activists as well as policymakers and academics. In articles and columns published in such journals as the Nation, New York Review of Books, Monthly Review, and newspapers in Pakistan and Cairo, Ahmad inspired new ways of thinking about global issues. Whether writing on the rise of militant Islam, the conflict in Kashmir, U.S. involvement in Vietnam, or the cynical logic of Cold War geopolitics, Ahmad offered incisive, passionate, and often prophetic analyses of the major political events and movements of the second half of the twentieth century.

This work is the first to collect Ahmad's writings in a single volume. It reflects his distinct understanding of world politics as well as his profound sense of empathy for those living in poverty and oppression. He was a fierce opponent of imperialism and corruption and advocated democratic transformations in postcolonial and third-world societies. A uniquely perceptive critic of colonialism and U.S. foreign policy, Ahmad was equally vigilant in his criticisms of third-world dictatorships.

Like few other writers, Ahmad's life experiences shaped his political views. He grew up amidst the turmoil of postcolonial India, worked alongside the Algerian FLN in their fight against the French occupation, and later became a prominent spokesperson for peace between Israel and Palestine.

About the Authors


Eqbal Ahmad (1934-1999) taught at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Cornell University and Hampshire College. He was a fellow at The Institute for Policy Studies and the first director of its overseas affiliate, The Transnational Institute.
Carollee Bengelsdorf is professor of politics at Hampshire College.
Margaret Cerullo is professor of sociology and feminist studies at Hampshire College.
Yogesh Chandrani is a doctoral candidate in anthropology at Columbia University.

Click the title at the top to read Noam Chomsky's Foreword to the book.

Friday, July 28, 2006

Text book Reforms

Daily Times, July 29, 2006
Include Jesus in our textbooks, says Aitzaz
Staff Report

LAHORE: Pakistan People Party Parliamentarians (PPPP) member of the national assembly Aitzaz Ahsan has asked the federal education minister to include a chapter on Jesus Christ and Christianity in the Punjab Textbook Board’s Ethics textbook for grade nine and the Sindh Textbook Board’s textbook for grades nine and ten.

In a letter to Federal Education Minister Lt Gen (r) Javed Ashraf Qazi, he said that while these books had chapters on the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), Moses, Buddha, Zoroaster, Shri Krishan Jee and Guru Nanak, there was no mention of Jesus Christ, which was tantamount to discrimination against the Christian community of Pakistan. Aitzaz said that he would take up the matter in the National Assembly and demanded that immediate steps be taken to resolve the situation.

Talking about the invaluable contributions of eminent Christians, he recalled the efforts of former chief justice AR Cornelius and Squadron Leader Cecil Chaudhry and said that Christians were just as much a part of Pakistan as Muslims.

He said that Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah had promised minorities a safe, secure and prosperous future in Pakistan and had pledged that the distinction between minorities and majorities would be wiped out in Pakistan.

Along with the letter, Mr Ahsan sent the copies of the table of contents of the textbooks. These show that there are chapters on the Prophet Moses, the saint Ghautam Sidharath Buddha, Zoroaster, the Hindu god Shri Krishan Jee, and Guru Nanak besides the Holy Prophet (PBUH). However, there is no chapter on the Prophet Jesus Christ (AS). “Was this omission deliberate? If so who is responsible for it?” asked Ahsan. He said that the first book carried a message by Punjab Chief Minister Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi. The second starts with a preface by Prof Mohammad Qasim Mazhar of the Sindh Education Ministry.

In the letter, Mr Ahsan highlighted, what he said, the sorry state of affairs of minorities in Pakistan. He said that whatever the government may say, the status of minorities in Pakistan since the so-called “Islamisation” by General Ziaul Haq had fast deteriorated. “We keep accusing India of mistreating its minorities. And rightly so. But India still has 180 million Muslims, just to take one minority community alone. This is a number larger than the total population of Pakistan. They comprise about 15 percent of the total population of India. Other minorities add up to much more,” he said.

Mr Ahsan referred to a recent speech by General Pervez Musharraf in which he had pointed out that Pakistan was 98 percent Muslim. “He may take pride in this fact but it does shame me that we have driven our minorities away! At Partition we had a vibrant 18-20 percent minority population. The number has literally been decimated during and since the Zia period.” Mr Ahsan writes.

Worrisome Developments in North Waziristan

Daily Times, July 29, 2006
Militants taking over check-posts
Staff Report

PESHAWAR: The Taliban have taken over military check posts in North Waziristan, BBC Radio reporter Dilawar Khan Wazir said in his ‘Miranshah Diary’ on Friday.

Wazir said that more than a dozen check posts monitoring the highway between Kajhori and Miranshah earlier had been abandoned and that he had seen the Taliban patrolling the highway between Mir Ali and Miranshah in twin cabin pick-ups. “They were carrying automatic rifles and in some cases, rocket launchers. Militants now stand guard at the check points previously controlled by army soldiers,” he said.

Wazir warned that “North Waziristan was being taken over by the Taliban”. “The movements of the tribal jirga members have also been restricted and it is difficult for them to meet friends or family,” he added. Wazir reported that authorities in North Waziristan had stopped officials, tribal elders and jirga members from speaking to the media. “Tribal elder Malik Qadir Khan said the administration had asked the jirga members not to speak to the media,” Wazir said.

The tribal journalist is the first to visit the area after local militants agreed to extend the month-long ceasefire till August 25.

“We have placed a complete ban on journalists,” Wazir quoted senior administration official Iqbal Khattak in Miranshah as saying. Wazir said he was not allowed into the government building where the administration was holding meetings with the jirga. “We have orders from senior officials to keep journalists away,” Wazir quoted Khattak as saying.

What should Musharraf Do?: Visit "ALL THINGS PAKISTAN"



Poll at ALL THINGS PAKISTAN on Musharraf's Options:
In Adil Najam's fascinating blog, a very interesting poll is being conducted on what Musharraf should do regarding the issue of continuing with both his positions - President as well as Chief of Army Staff. Visitors to this blog are highly encouraged to participate in that. To get to the poll either click the title of this item or visit: http://pakistaniat.wordpress.com
Picture above: From Adil's Blog, who in turn has acquired it from The Friday Times

Thursday, July 27, 2006

Who is pulling the strings?: Why to Ditch Musharraf now?



The News, July 28, 2006
MQM decides to send resignations to the President, Governor Sindh

LONDON: Muttehida Qaumi Movement (MQM) has decided to send the resignations of MNAs, senators, federal ministers to the president and the resignations of provincial ministers, MPAs and advisors to the Governor Sindh.

The decision was taken after the third session of the meeting of MQM Coordination Committee here on Thursday.

Convener MQM Coordination Committee Dr. Imran Farooq has asked the ministers and advisors to stop working and withdraw government perks and privileges forthwith.

When asked Dr. Imran said the meeting did not discuss about the resignation Governor Sindh Dr. Ishrat-ul-Ebad.

Earlier, reacting to delay in redressing its concerns and non-implementation of steps pledged by the Sindh and federal government, MQM collected resignations from all its provincial ministers and advisors.

The Chief Minister Sindh continues rejecting the summaries and files regarding development projects put up by the MQM ministers and advisors, Dr. Imran said in telephonic briefing at Nine Zero from London.

Instead of solution of the problems and improvement, the situation has worsened, he said.

Few government personalities have contacted after the MQM decision to collect resignations of provincial ministers and advisors, Dr. Farooq informed.

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Muslim reactions to Mumbai blasts

VIEW: Muslim reactions to Mumbai blasts —Yoginder Sikand

In the wake of the blasts, several Muslim organisations all over the country have organised meetings to condemn them, to argue that Islam does not allow such heinous deeds and to demand that the government constitute an impartial investigation into the blasts. They have appealed to Muslims to struggle for their constitutional rights as citizens of India through democratic means
Although the recent bomb blasts in Mumbai have been widely condemned by numerous Indian Muslim organisations and leaders, their voices have gone unheard in large sections of the Indian media or else have received only passing mention. While the identity of the perpetrators of the blasts is still uncertain, scores of Muslims have been arrested by the police in different parts of the country. Muslim and human rights organisations claim that many of these people are innocent and have nothing whatsoever to do with militancy. Always on the prowl for any excuse to hound Muslims, the Hindutva lobby has seized the opportunity created by the blasts to castigate the entire Muslim community.

Muslims from a wide cross-section of society I have interacted with in Delhi in recent days are visibly upset about the way in which the Mumbai blasts have been used to tarnish the image of the community. They argue that, in the absence of firm evidence, it is unfair to blame Muslims for the blasts. They insist that before coming to any conclusion regarding the identity of the perpetrators the government must institute an impartial inquiry. While they admit that the blasts could indeed have been the handiwork of some Muslims or a radical Islamist group, they argue that the culprits the could equally possibly have been a non-Muslim outfit, who might have engineered the blasts to trigger anti-Muslim sentiments to win public support for an anti-Muslim vendetta.

Heena, a college student, tells me, “Yes, a self-styled Islamist group may have orchestrated the blasts. Or, perhaps, relatives of some Muslims massacred recently in the state-sponsored pogroms in Gujarat, in order to seek revenge. Who knows? But the blasts could just as easily have been carried out by some Hindutva, Zionist or Western group or some such anti-Muslim agency in order to blame Muslims and give them a bad name. Till such time as the identity of the culprits is confirmed, we should desist from passing judgment.”

“Islam condemns the killing of innocent people”, says Wali, a shopkeeper in Matia Mahal. “Even if the blasts were engineered by some Muslims, why should the entire Muslim community be condemned for it?” Wali speaks of how the Mumbai blasts, coming close on the heels of similar blasts in Varanasi and Delhi, have only further entrenched deeply held anti-Muslim prejudices among many Hindus. “If the blasts were orchestrated by some anti-Muslim group to give Muslims a bad name, they’ve succeeded in their mission”, he says. “But”, he hastens to add, “if some radical self-proclaimed Islamist group or the Pakistani ISI were responsible, they’ve done the greatest possible disservice, not just to India as a whole, but also to the Indian Muslims themselves, who now feel even more threatened and insecure than before.”

“The blasts are totally unwarranted and no religion can sanction this, no matter who has done it, whether Muslims or Hindus or someone else”, says Hussain, a shopkeeper in Dariya Ganj. “But”, he also asks, “why is it that when three thousand or more Muslims were recently killed in a state-sponsored pogrom in Gujarat, the Hindutva lobby and the wider Hindu society did not express similar outrage? Why is it that Modi, who orchestrated the pogroms, is still sitting comfortably in his chair?” “Why”, he wants to know, “are Hindutva goons, who indulged in such an orgy of bloodshed in Gujarat and elsewhere, not condemned as terrorists? Why are they instead projected as patriots? Why have the Hindus responsible for the massacre of thousands of Sikhs in 1984 and the murder of I don’t know how many Dalits not been brought to justice?”

Hussain reminds me of the literally several thousand cases of communal riots, anti-Muslim pogroms and police killings of Muslims that have happened in India since 1947. “Not a single person involved in these heinous crimes has been hanged”, he claims. “Jamshedpur, Mordabad, Bhiwandi, Nellie, Aligarh, Hyderabad, Gujarat — the list is endless, and the number of innocents, mostly Muslims, killed runs into tens of thousands”, he says in despair. “Yet, they have not got justice and the state has done nothing at all to rope in Hindutva terrorists.” He tells me about the brutal slaying of some 50 innocent Muslim youths by the Provincial Armed Constabulary in 1987 in the notorious Hashimpura massacre. No action was taken against the accused. Instead, some of them were promoted.

Several Muslims I have met in recent days relate that, particularly after the Mumbai blasts, they feel a heightened sense of insecurity when they venture outside Muslim localities, mostly squalid ghettoes in which they have been condemned to live. Wasim, a madrassa student in Zakir Nagar, says that when in a bus he usually gets strange looks from passengers, who recognise him as a Muslim from his beard and skullcap. Arjimand, a sales executive, relates that he recently sought to rent a house in an ‘upper caste’ Hindu locality because his wife insisted that they should move from the Muslim ghetto of Batla House. “When the landlord found out that we were Muslims, he flatly refused to let out his flat to us, telling us bluntly that he did not want Muslim tenants.”

Many Muslims I have recently met relate some such anecdote. They point out that such cases of prejudice against Muslims are not new, but they also claim that they have mounted in recent years, thanks to incidents like the Mumbai blasts.

In the wake of the blasts, several Muslim organisations all over the country have organised meetings to condemn them, to argue that Islam does not allow such heinous deeds and to demand that the government constitute an impartial investigation into the blasts. They have appealed to Muslims to struggle for their constitutional rights as citizens of India through democratic means. They have denounced both Hindu and Muslim militancy and have suggested that Muslims join hands with people of other faiths to promote genuine secularism and democracy. The general response of the Muslims I have been meeting seems to be that both Hindu as well as Muslim militants pose a grave danger to the Indian Muslim community, in addition to the country as a whole. At the same time, they insist that the state address the very serious issue of widespread Muslim poverty, illiteracy and unemployment, a result, in part, of the neglect by and apathy of the state towards Muslim concerns and discrimination at the hands of the wider society dominated by ‘upper caste’ Hindus. Growing Islamophobia occasioned by incidents such as the Mumbai blasts, they fear, will make their case for social justice for Muslims even less acceptable to the state and many Hindus.

As Ayesha, a housewife in Old Delhi, tells me, “Indian Muslims have to live and die here. This is our country. Hindu and Muslim militant groups have their own nefarious agendas, seeking to hold ordinary Hindus and Muslims to ransom by setting them against each other. If the Indian state and society at large are serious about preventing attacks such as in Mumbai recently, all forms of terrorism in the guise of religion, Hindu as well as Muslim, need to be effectively countered with equal vigour.”

“At the same time”, she adds, “sustained peace can only be based on justice, and if we are genuinely concerned about peace, a simple law-and-order approach alone will not do. The state has to be also serious about addressing the continued denial of justice to marginalised communities, be it Dalits or Adivasis or Muslims, as well as their lack of access to resources, education and representation.”

The writer is post-doctoral fellow at the International Institute for the Study of Islam in the Modern World, Leiden. He also edits a web-magazine called Qalandar, which can be accessed at www.islaminterfaith.org

Kargil Irregularities: Opening up a pandora box

Comment: Last minute shopping is often more expensive - the Air Force had little clue about the Kargil planning and was informed at the end - hence they had to shop for necessary logistics hurriedly!

Daily Times, July 26, 2006
‘Irregularities in PAF purchase of wood during Kargil operation’
Staff Report

ISLAMABAD: The auditor general of Pakistan (AGP) has reported that the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) violated government rules by buying expensive wood to pack fuel tanks during the Kargil operation.

The AGP reported that PAF authorities at Chaklala Air Base bought expensive firewood, resulting in an “extra expenditure of Rs 0.502 million in violation of government rules”.

The PAF replied: “It (Kargil operation) was a national emergency and the purchases concerned dispatch of aircraft.”

The Defence Ministry said that private vehicles were hired to transport the wood. “Drop tanks, being huge, expensive and fragile equipment, required seasoned wood for packing before long-distance transportation,” the ministry said.

It said that drop tanks were planned to be stored at forward operation bases till their wartime use. It said that reliable wood was purchased to make boxes, adding that the PAF supervised the manufacture of boxes used for packing to ensure quality.

However, the AGP rejected the ministry’s stance and said that the wood quality was neither extraordinary nor had there been a shortage of wood in the market that could have increased the wood price. He urged an inquiry into the matter and measures to check such practices in future.

Handling Media

Daily Times, July 26, 2006
Government seeks to ‘soften-up’ 30 ‘negative’ journalists
‘Handlers’, ‘coordinators’ and ‘butterers’ appointed
Staff Report

ISLAMABAD: In a major PR exercise, the government of Shaukat Aziz has prepared a list of 33 columnists, writers and reporters in the English and Urdu print media of Pakistan and assigned its top “spin doctors” to neutralise the “negativism” of these writers by making them “soft and friendly”.

Understandably, no editor or owner-editor has been so targeted, suggesting that the government thinks it best to directly deal with the troublesome writers than indirectly through their prickly bosses.

The glib new information minister, Mohammad Ali Durrani, will lead his team of spin doctors along with the affable information secretary, Shahid Rafi, to work on the targeted columnists and reporters and “soften” them up so that their criticism of the Aziz government’s policies and decisions is muted.

The top Urdu columnist, Irshad Haqqani of Jang, is to be “softened” up by two top government stalwarts – Information Minister Durrani and the principal information officer (PIO) of the federal government, Ashfaq Gondal.

Mr Rafi is also tasked with buttering up Khalid Hasan, the Washington-based correspondent of Daily Times and The Friday Times.

The others from Daily Times on the government’s “soft” hit list are Kamran Shafi (columnist) and Irfan Ghauri (reporter). Khaled Ahmad, the contributing editor of TFT, figures prominently in the line-up.

The military’s chief media manager, Major General Shaukat Sultan, has been asked to chasten Kamla Hyat, a human rights activist and columnist of The News.

The ‘secret’ list also mentions Rauf Klasra and Ansar Abbasi of The News and Mehtab Haider of The Nation, but doesn’t say who will “handle” them.

Strangely enough, the names of Sherry Rehman and Farhatullah Babar of the PPPP also figure on the list of negative columnists. Who will pick up the phone in Islamabad and brave the wrath of these stalwarts is not clear.

Naturally, too, the names of Karachi’s most intransigent columnist, the veteran Ardeshir Cowasjee, and his associate Amina Jilani, are highlighted. Sources wondered who would have the guts to try and silence them, which is why no particular handler has been assigned to them. Roedad Khan, a former senior civil servant and presidential advisor, is also named for his unrelenting hostility to the Musharraf regime. Apparently, the government is again a loss to know how to deal with him.

Mr Durrani has also taken upon his robust shoulders the task of handling a number of senior Urdu columnists: Hasan Nisar, Abbas Athar (both from Daily Express), Attaur Rehman, Irfan Siddiqui and Haroon Rashid (all from Nawa-i Waqt).

Senator Tariq Azeem, the PMLQ’s media manager, has been entrusted the job of buttering up Attaul Haq Qasmi (Jang) and Abdul Qadir Hassan (Daily Express). Mr Rafi will apply his charm on Dr Ajmal Niazi.

The PM’s press secretary, Javed Akhtar, has also been roped in to “coordinate” with Hamid Mir (Geo TV), Farrukh Saleem (The News/TFT), Shafqat Mahmood (The News) and Khaled Ahmed. He claims to know these gentlemen well.

Respectable Karachi journalists shouldn’t be alarmed. They haven’t been left out of the loop. The former journalist turned PM advisor on media affairs, Jaffar Bilgrami, should be soon getting in touch with old hands like MB Naqvi and Ghazi Salahuddin of The News. The PIO, Mr Gondal, will have his hands full dealing with Ayaz Amir of Dawn and Farooq Qaiser and Raja Anwar of Khabrain.

Since the list and strategy is now out, thanks to Daily Times, it is likely that the government may temporarily abort this prime ministerial initiative. It is also possible that the proposed “handlers” and “butterers” may now be assigned different target groups to throw these journalists off guard.

“Should anyone on this list receive an offer of a plum government job or cosy assignment or free junket, he or she should know the motive behind it and the public’s reaction to any innocent acceptance by any of them,” remarked an ever-vigilant editor.

Tuesday, July 25, 2006

Leveraging Musharraf

Daily Times, July 25, 2006
Leveraging Musharraf
By Dr Mubashir Hasan

Nations devise their foreign policy in pursuit of their national interests. Governments come and go. Sometimes one party is in opposition, sometimes another. The national interests change little with time. In fully sovereign countries, the government and the opposition parties support the main thrust of national interest policies. However, the party in power conducts foreign relations.

A wide consensus seems to exist in Pakistan on at least those aspects of the foreign policy of President Pervez Musharraf which relate to the peace process with India and his stand on the current war in Lebanon. Dissent from hard line conservative elements is limited, for instance, to the tactics of tackling the Kashmir dispute while talking peace with India. On questions of Pakistan’s general alliance with the US and the direction of the country’s economic policies – privatisation, deregulation and globalisation – the PPPP and PML-N, the so called mainstream political parties, also have no differences with the policies of the government. In fact the policies of the present government differ little from those pursued by the governments of Ms Bhutto and Mr Sharif during the last decade. I have often wondered why these mainstream parties do not publicly support President Pervez Musharraf on these aspects of his policy. An indication of a possible answer to this vital question comes from an unexpected direction.

Things are not going well for the US and its allies in their war against the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The western media is full of complaints against President Musharraf that he is not doing enough. They want him to do more along Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan. They are pressurising him as much as they can but are not happy with the results. Therefore, while the US might not want a change in the government in Islamabad at the present juncture, it does want to be in a position to pressurise the government more as far as its own interests are concerned. So with that objective in mind it wants to harness the forces of the PPPP and PML-N. Robert D Kaplan, a national correspondent of the prestigious American journal, The Atlantic Monthly, is convinced that Pakistan is dangerously drifting against the interests of the US. Dubbing Pakistan as a silent partner of the Taliban, he writes in an article (Daily Times, July 21, 2006):

“We can’t reverse this drift without a stronger policy towards Pakistan. I say this with extreme trepidation. President Musharraf, for all his faults, may still be the worst person to rule his country except for any other who might replace him. And yet it is necessary to hold his feet to the fire to a greater extent than we have.”

The influential American journalist seems extremely unhappy with Pakistan’s war effort against the Taliban. He views President Musharraf as the worst possible ruler for Pakistan but still maintains that our general is better than “any other who might replace him”. So what does he propose? Let the general stay at the helm. But keep the fires burning under his feet, not letting him any respite to maintain his present stance. He must be made to shift his ground. And how does one do that? The answer comes from the horse’s mouth.

“Things have reached the point that it was entirely justified for the American Ambassador to Islamabad, Ryan Crocker, to say this month that the exiled former prime ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif should be allowed to return and run against Mr Musharraf. As corrupt as those two leaders were, we need leverage.” The acquisition of “leverage” means: the US gaining the support of political elements which can be used to pressurise the Musharraf government. Towards that end, the United States wants Ms Bhutto and Mr Sharif to return to Pakistan not for the sake of a fight for democracy, not for the sake of removing a military ruler but to needle General Pervez Musharraf to do what the US wants him to do on the front against Taliban. Is there already an understanding between the US and the two former prime ministers that the former will advocate their return to Pakistan in lieu of their support for the US agenda? We do not know but considering their past it cannot be ruled out. I recall that an arrangement along these lines was made by the US in 1985. A former US Assistant Secretary of State, when pressed hard to answer why his government was guilty of supporting the martial law regime of General Zia-ul-Haq, revealed to me in an exclusive meeting requested by him, that Ms Bhutto would be allowed to return to Pakistan, martial law would be lifted and the president would not be the chief of the army staff. Miss Bhutto did return within a year. Martial law was also lifted but Zia-ul-Haq did not quit the post of the army chief, and didn’t live for long afterwards.

The US is doing its job well. A section of the elite of Pakistan is taking its queue from quarters close to their vested interests and learning its arguments from the American media. Can President Musharraf see through the game of his present and erstwhile colleagues and of the major political parties? Does he remember the verse he recited on TV in 1999? — Mujhay khauf aatish-e-gul say hai keh kahin chaman ko jala na dey.

Monday, July 24, 2006

Pakistan's New Nuclear Reactor


For original ISIS report on the topic, click the title above or go to:
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/southasia/newkhushab.pdf

VOA News
Pakistan Reportedly Working to Expand Nuclear Weapons Base By Benjamin Sand
Islamabad, 24 July 2006

Pakistan has refused to comment on news that it is building a powerful new plutonium nuclear reactor, which could signal a major overhaul of the country's nuclear weapons program. A Washington-based research group released this week what it says are satellite photographs of what appears to be a new reactor under construction at a Pakistan nuclear site.

The photographs, released on-line (on an Internet web site) Sunday evening, appear to show a large, partially completed nuclear reactor inside the Khushab complex in central Pakistan.

According to the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), the heavy water reactor could potentially produce more than 200 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium per year, enough for 40 to 50 nuclear weapons.

Speaking to reporters Monday, Pakistan's foreign ministry spokeswoman, Tasneem Aslam, would neither confirm nor deny the institute's findings, but downplayed the report's significance.

"I will not comment on the specifics, but Pakistan is a nuclear weapons state, it's a known fact. It is also a known fact that Khushab is hosting nuclear facilities," she said.

The report says construction of the new reactor likely began in early 2000, and could be completed in a few years.

The institute's assessment also suggests construction has been delayed by possible shortages in key materials, and says Pakistan is apparently not rushing to finish the project.

The news has raised concern about Pakistan's nuclear program and the possibility a new reactor could trigger an arms race with regional rival, India. Both nations maintain limited nuclear arsenals, and neither has signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Pakistan Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasneem Aslam dismissed concerns of an arms race, however, stressing Islamabad's commitment to easing cross-border tensions.

"We have repeatedly said we do not want a nuclear or conventional arms race in the region and that remains our position: we do not want a nuclear arms race," added Aslam.

Aslam said the location of the Kushab nuclear site has already been given to India, under a long-standing agreement with New Delhi meant to reduce the risk of nuclear conflict.

The ISIS report also suggested India is likely aware of the new reactor's construction.

The U.S. Congress is about to debate a Bush administration proposal to share sensitive nuclear technology with India.

India has promised to use that technology only for peaceful purposes, and has agreed to strengthen internal safeguards on its civilian nuclear reactors.

Pakistan, which was not offered a similar deal by the Bush aministration, has sharply criticized the proposal, saying it could destabilize the region's delicate nuclear balance.

Pakistan's nuclear program has been mostly isolated internationally since 2004, when the country's top nuclear scientist admitted he illegally sold advanced weapons technology to a number of countries, including Iran and North Korea.


The News, July 24, 2006
US urges Pakistan not to use new reactor for weapons

WASHINGTON: The United States on Monday confirmed but played down news reports that Pakistan is building a powerful new nuclear reactor and urged Islamabad not to use the facility for military purposes.

"We have been aware of these plans and we discourage any use of that facility for military purposes such as weapons development," White House spokesman Tony Snow told reporters.

The Washington Post, citing US-based nuclear experts reported that the reactor could produce enough plutonium for 40 to 50 nuclear weapons a year, a 20-fold increase from Pakistan's current capabilities.

"Pakistan of course is outside the non proliferation treaty and therefore they do develop their capabilities independently," Snow said.

The move could signal a potential new escalation in the region's arms race between pits nuclear-armed rivals India and Pakistan.

The construction site is adjacent to Pakistan's only plutonium production reactor, a 50-megawatt unit that began operating in 1998, it said.

By contrast, the dimensions of the new reactor suggest a capacity of 1,000 megawatts or more, according to the analysis by the Institute for Science and International Security, it said.

Another related story, see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,,1827772,00.html?gusrc=rss

Sunday, July 23, 2006

"Who Owns Pakistan": Good question!



Picture: The Attock fort with the Indus below it
Source: http://www.taimurkhan.info/images/gallery/

Daily Times, July 24, 2006
CAM DIARY: Who owns Pakistan? —Sir Cam

Where do you think you’re going?” challenged the commando at the checkpoint on the road to Mangla Dam in Mirpur. To the Mangla Fort, I replied, resisting the temptation to ask him what the hell he was doing blocking my way. He was heavily armed, and it seemed pointless arguing. “The Mangla Qila has been closed for two years and it’s going to be closed for at least another two years,” he scoffed. That was a shocker for my guidebooks indicated the ancient fort was open to the public.

Never take no for an answer in Pakistan. There is always a way out (well, almost). And I don’t mean bribing people with laddoos or Cadbury’s chocolate. “Actually”, I offered in a sweet-as-mango voice, “I’m visiting the Boating Club”. That did it! After checking my ID and confiscating my car steering wheel lock (I did get it back on the way out) because — would you believe — it was considered a dangerous weapon with which I might clobber someone, I was allowed to proceed towards the dam. The army sports and boating club chaps were huffing and puffing by the dam, going through their early morning exercises, but this wasn’t why I had come all this way.

One can just about see Mangla Fort from near the boating club but the turn towards it is closed. More security people. No sweet talk here: “Turn back” was the command. You’d think they had the blasted crown jewels at the fort or even some nuclear installation inside it. My hour and a half trip up here from Rawalpindi had been foiled this time. One has to go through the WAPDA office in Mangla for special permission to visit the fort, which, until fairly recently, was a public access site. ‘Security reasons’ now bar the public from one of Pakistan’s heritage sites. However, I have to add that the people at WAPDA were brilliant in their assistance and I was eventually given a complete tour of the old Ghakkar fort. It was the Sikhs in the middle of the 19th century who gave the structure — originally a mud fort — its current form.

“Where do you think you’re going?” came the interrogating voice. Until that stage I was leisurely going about Shershah Suri’s famous Rohtas Fort near Jhelum. What is it with these Pakistani commando types (he was in army uniform)? It was near the Maan Singh Haveli inside the fort that I got harassed. This is a tourist site, I fired, and I’m going about my business as a tourist. So buzz off! The soldier then ordered, “No photographs!” A tourist site where one can’t take pictures! I thought Pakistan was trying to promote tourism and especially world-class historic places such as the 16th century Rohtas Fort.

General Maan Singh, a governor of Lahore during Emperor Akbar’s time, would have been offended to have idiots harassing travellers and guests near his mansion. One would have been offered a certain degree of hospitality. Not now. What, I argued with the soldier, is the point of people coming all the way to especially visit this place if they can’t take photographs? He mellowed and offered a way out: “Well, no professional photographs”. Whatever “professional” is supposed to mean! I was a mere tourist and I was off on my way again. The Department of Archaeology and Museums has carried out some excellent improvements at Rohtas. These include new signs and paths leading to the various parts of the massive fort.

“Where do you think you’re going?” shouted the soldier as I approached the entrance of what was signposted as “Begum ki serai” on the eastern bank of River Indus, near Attock Fort. Oh hell, here we go again, I thought. I was actually looking for Shershah Suri’s caravanserai, I explained. “You can’t come in here, this is an army training site now,” I was informed. But I thought this place was open to the public. It’s an historic site, for goodness sake. And it had taken me two hours to get here. Yes, I had seen the big army notice saying “YALDRAM” but didn’t know what it meant. And before one even gets here one has to get past the checkpoint on the side road leading up here from the GT Road. Oh, they make it so difficult to visit these historic places.

After talking to the superior at the site, I was allowed to look around the caravanserai on the condition that I wouldn’t add any “mirch masala” when I wrote up the piece. Now, who would want to do anything like that, spice up a column with naughty bits about soldiers training in the ruins of an ancient place? No, sir, not me! Believe me, I wasn’t doing a Carry On comedy entitled Up the Begum’s Serai or anything like that!

According to my guide books, this large courtyard, surrounded by numerous rooms on its sides and a building in the middle, fitted the description of Shershah Suri’s 16th century caravanserai, but the notice at the site attributed it to Emperor Jahangir’s period. Funnily, the sign reads “1605-1627 AM” as if giving a time rather than a date, 1605-1627 AD. The “Begum” is said to be either Emperor Akbar’s or Jehangir’s wife.

“Where do you think you’re going?” questioned the plainclothes shalwar kameez-clad man when I got near Sujan Singh’s Haveli in the old quarter of Rawalpindi. Is there no hassle-free way to visit historic sites in Pakistan? Rai Bahadur Sardar Sujan Singh would have been appalled by the behaviour of the so-called custodians of his 19th century mansion, described as “one of the richest and tallest houses in the city” in the pre-Partition era. The building, in terrible, shameful disrepair since Partition, is now in the hands of some intelligence section of the police. And they don’t like tourists or budding historians near the place.

There are two historic sites I didn’t even attempt to visit for fear of being locked up. Emperor Akbar’s Attock Fort, up by the River Indus, on the way to Peshawar from Islamabad, is out of bounds as it is under the control of the army. The Sikh Bala Hissar Fort in Peshawar is also under the military control. One can, however, view both from a distance. There are excellent views of Attock Fort as one crosses River Indus on the way to Peshawar and turns left on to the road along the river leading to Nizampur.

It is not just while visiting historic sites, and confronting the security/military personnel there, that makes one wonder “Who owns Pakistan?” but everywhere one goes one sees constant reminders.

Sir Cam can be reached at camdiary@yahoo.co.uk

A Commendable Initiative



Dawn, July 22, 2006
Ex-generals, MPs want military out of politics
By Our Staff Reporter

ISLAMABAD, July 22: A group of retired generals, sitting and former parliamentarians and academics have called for disengagement of military from political power by separating the offices of the president and army chief.

“Besides being a constitutional office, the office of president of Pakistan is also a political office (and) combining presidency with the office of Chief of Army Staff politicises the latter post as well as the army,” said the group in a letter addressed to President Gen Pervez Musharraf, Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz and heads of political parties.

Expressing concern over political polarisation and extremism in society, the group stressed the need for conducting dialogue for peace and conciliation.

“Democracy can only be authentic when there is real separation of powers and when all institutions of the state abide by the roles assigned to them by the constitution.

“True federalism will only be possible through political, financial and administrative decentralisation of the state,” it said.

The group includes serving and former members of parliament, former ministers, former governors, two former directors-general of ISI, two academics, a former president of the Islamabad Policy Research Institute and an editor.

“After conducting a series of extensive discussion for over one-and-a-half years, the group has unanimously agreed to seek urgent attention of the heads of the highest public offices and heads of political parties to help reduce growing political polarisation and to desist from taking extremist, inflexible positions,” according to the letter.

The group urged restraint and moderation on all leaders in order to initiate and conduct a sustained dialogue that alone could ensure a peaceful, orderly transition to complete and authentic democracy. The group held consultations in Islamabad during 2005 and 2006 under the auspices of a civil society forum ‘Pildat’.

“Due to a variety of factors, the state and society of Pakistan today face serious challenges to internal cohesion and stability. Despite the existence of elected legislatures and the prospects of the next elections, there is a deficit of trust and credibility that marks virtually all political relationships. Increasing polarisation reflects the dangerous forces of exclusion and dominance.

“Preoccupied though the people may be by critical issues as also by their day-to-day struggle with the quality of life, the whole nation deeply desires that conciliation, which is a collective and shared responsibility, rather than confrontation, (should) be the way forward. The onus is on the leadership of all institutions and organisations, specially the elected representatives of the people and those who hold public office.”

The group said the 2007 elections would not be credible without neutral and impartial caretaker governments, both at the centre and in the provinces.

Genuine empowerment of the Chief Election Commissioner and the Election Commission of Pakistan is essential for transparent elections. For this purpose, it is necessary for the district administrations to be placed under the control of the CEC during the 2007 polls, it suggested.

“All the political parties of the country also have a major responsibility to learn from their past mistakes and commit themselves to strengthening democratic institutions and traditions so as to ensure the rule of law and good governance at all levels.

“To achieve these paramount objectives, the political parties must exercise restraint and respond positively to any offer of dialogue to make free and fair elections possible.

A sustained dialogue between the leadership of principal institutions and organisations is the vital pre-requisite to ensure a peaceful, orderly transition to complete and authentic democracy.”

The group has appealed to all to refrain from taking extremist positions and hurling threats and charges against each other.

Those who have signed the letter are: Lt-Gen (retd) Abdul Qadir, Lt-Gen (retd) Asad Durrani, Javed Jabbar, Dr Hasan Askari Rizvi, Dr Khalida Ghous, Lt-Gen (retd) Moinuddin Haider, Mujibur Rehman Shami, ruling PML Senator S.M. Zafar, PML-N leader Sartaj Aziz, Brig (retd) Shaukat Qadir, PPP MNA Shah Mahmood Qureshi, Lt-Gen (retd) Talat Masood, Lt-Gen (retd) S. Tanwir H. Naqvi, Shafqat Mahmood, Dr Parvez Hassan, Shahid Hamid, Lt-Gen (retd) Hameed Gul and Ahmed Bilal Mehboob.

"Peace Process in Jeopardy": Why?

The Nation (Pakistan), Gulf News July 19, 2006
Peace Process in Jeopardy
Husain Haqqani

Pakistan ’s official response to India ’s allegations about the complicity of Pakistan-based groups in the Mumbai attacks has been technical, not politically substantive. The Foreign Office spokeswoman argued that India had not conveyed “anything in writing or talked of any evidence.” But that is hardly the point of contention at this moment. Pakistan ’s argument would have been much stronger if Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), the group named by India as being responsible for the attacks, did not operate freely at all within Pakistan despite having been officially banned five years ago.

It may well be true that India has not yet found conclusive evidence of LeT’s involvement in the Mumbai attacks and that the attacks might have been the handiwork of a homegrown Indian terrorist group. But the fact that LeT operates in Pakistan as Jamat-ud-Dawa, and even received acknowledgement from General Pervez Musharraf for aid work in the aftermath of last year’s earthquake in northern Pakistan and Kashmir , is hardly conducive to an India-Pakistan peace process.

No amount of denials from Pakistani officials, or even LeT itself, of non-involvement in the latest attacks inside India washes away the group’s history. Its leader, Hafiz Muhammad Saeed declared in 1999 that, “Our Mujahideen will create three Pakistans in India .” Then, in 2003, he told a Pakistani reporter that he considered Suicide bombing the “best form of Jihad.” Hafiz Saeed also rejected the very notion of a peace process between India and Pakistan when he said, “The solution is not to kneel down before India and beg for dialogue... India has never been sincere in resolving issues through talks. Our policy of ' Kashmir through jihad (holy war)' is absolutely right... India has shown us this path for jihad. We would like to give India a tit-for-tat response and reciprocate in the same way by killing the Hindus, just like it is killing the Muslims in Kashmir .”

Such rhetoric cannot be disavowed by rhetoric about need for proof of a specific group’s responsibility for specific attacks against India . By allowing Hafiz Saeed, his group and others like them the freedom to organize and operate in Pakistan , General Pervez Musharraf’s government has undermined its own credibility in the peace process. Just as Lebanon is paying the price of tolerating and co-opting Hezbollah without securing a commitment of renunciation of terrorism from the group, Pakistan risks responsibility for the actions of non-state actors it gives free rein.

General Pervez Musharraf secured international legitimacy in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States by becoming an American ally in the global war against terrorism. The Musharraf regime has, over the years, taken some steps against Al-Qaeda operatives seeking refuge in Pakistan . The Pakistan army has paid a heavy price in fatalities at the hands of terrorist sympathizers in the tribal areas along the Afghan border. But Pakistan is far from rooting out terrorism from its soil. There is a clear reluctance about moving against anti-India groups. That these groups share an ideology and worldview with Al-Qaeda does not seem to alter the Musharraf regime’s perception of these groups. With such policies, why should anyone be surprised if Pakistan gets blamed for tolerating or supporting terrorists?

In his speech, released through Al-Jazeera in April, Osama bin Laden spoke of “A Crusader-Zionist-Hindu war against Muslims.” Bin Laden’s decision to add Hindus to his traditional harangues against Zionists and Crusaders indicates that the al-Qaeda chief understands the value of aligning his views with those of Pakistani Jihadi groups. The recently released video of Shahzad Tanveer, one of the suicide bombers involved in last year’s attacks in London , spoke of his training at an Al-Qaeda training facility in Pakistan . Such connections between Pakistani groups and global terrorists should worry General Musharraf, who was himself a target of terrorists not long ago.

The Jihadis have only brought violence, instability and defamation for Pakistan . Now their presence has caused the breakdown in South Asia ’s peace process, which is crucial for the region’s stability and prosperity. Why then is Musharraf and the Pakistani establishment reluctant to root out the Jihadis with the vigor that Pakistan ’s military governments have often shown in vanquishing their political enemies? The answer lies in one of the major fallacies defining the Pakistani establishment’s worldview: the need to “internationalize” the Kashmir dispute.

During the recent controversy over whether Musharraf, as army chief, had cleared the 1999 military operation in Kargil with the then prime minister, Musharraf claimed that Kargil had helped “internationalize” the Kashmir issue. Most thinking people the world over consider Kargil a misadventure and a strategic blunder that brought India and Pakistan to the brink of all-out war and cost Pakistan heavily in lives and international prestige. But for Musharraf the cost was worth it because the conflict “internationalized” the Kashmir dispute and that “internationalization” is somehow the key to resolving the Kashmir problem in Pakistan ’s favor.

Just as Kargil was useful in “internationalizing” the Kashmir dispute, the presence of Jihadis is seen by some Pakistani strategic planners as an instrument of focusing international attention on an issue that would otherwise be forgotten. But just as Kargil resulted in little substantive gain for Pakistan , internationalization of the Kashmir dispute through the statements or action of violent groups is also unlikely to be of any long-term utility in an era of global consensus against terrorism.

(Husain Haqqani is Director of Boston University’s Center for International Relations and Co-Chair of the Hudson Institute’s Project on Islam and Democracy. He is the author of the book ‘ Pakistan Between Mosque and Military’)

US training for Pakistani security services



Comment: The news item below is a positive thing for Pakistani law enforcement organizations. Historically, Pakistan Army had been the only beneficiary of the US training courses, whereas police rarely received any attention. It is hoped that rather than Army's Special Services Group (SSG), it will be police personnel who will get this training and advanced equiment.


Daily Times, July 23, 2006
Musharraf, Aziz’s security: US to train Pakistani security men
Staff Report

ISLAMABAD: The US government will train Pakistani security personnel in the protection of VVIPs, Daily Times has learnt

Sources said that as a first step towards this new training programme, Washington is posting a federal prosecution officer to the US Embassy in Islamabad whose primary duty would be to act as a liaison officer for the training programme.

The US State Department wants better security for Pakistani officials it considers important in the war on terror, the sources said, adding that these ‘VVIPs’ were President Gen Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, both of whom have been targeted by suicide attacks in the past.

Interior Ministry sources confirmed that the US made the offer to Interior Minister Aftab Sherpao when he recently visited Washington for a security cooperation meeting.

Sources said that during the meeting, Henry Crompton, coordinator for counter-terrorism at the State Department, said that America was ready to help upgrade Pakistani security agencies. Bruce Swartz, US deputy attorney general, said that the focus would be on providing more specialised training, as well as assessing the impact of training already provided, the sources said. Qamarul Zaman, additional interior secretary, told the US delegation that training programmes conducted at the National Police Academy and Federal Investigation Agency academy had been very useful. The Americans were of the view that Pakistani security personnel still needed training on how to protect VVIPs, the sources said.

Saturday, July 22, 2006

"The Taliban’s Silent Partner": Views of a leading American Journalist



New York Times, July 20, 2006
The Taliban’s Silent Partner
By ROBERT D. KAPLAN

WHEN the American-led coalition invaded Afghanistan five years ago, pessimists warned that we would soon find ourselves in a similar situation to what Soviet forces faced in the 1980’s. They were wrong — but only about the timing. The military operation was lean and lethal, and routed the Taliban government in a few weeks. But now, just two years after Hamid Karzai was elected as the country’s first democratic leader, the coalition finds itself, like its Soviet predecessors, in control of major cities and towns, very weak in the villages, and besieged by a shadowy insurgency that uses Pakistan as its rear base.

Our backing of an enlightened government in Kabul should put us in a far stronger position than the Soviets in the fight to win back the hinterland. But it may not, and for a good reason: the involvement of our other ally in the region, Pakistan, in aiding the Taliban war machine is deeper than is commonly thought.

The United States and NATO will not prevail unless they can persuade Pakistan’s president, Pervez Musharraf, to help us more than he has. Unfortunately, based on what senior Afghans have explained in detail to American officials, Pakistan is now supporting the Taliban in a manner similar to the way it supported the Afghan mujahedeen against the Soviets two decades ago.

The Taliban has two leadership cells operating inside Pakistan, presumably with the guidance and logistical support of local authorities. Senior lieutenants to Mullah Muhammad Omar, the Taliban’s supreme leader, are ensconced in Quetta, the capital of the Pakistani province of Baluchistan. From there they direct military operations in the south-central Afghan provinces of Helmand, Kandahar, Uruzgan and Zabul.

Meanwhile, one of the Taliban’s savviest military commanders, Jalaluddin Haqqani, and his sons operate out of Miramshah, the capital of the North Waziristan Province. From there, they run operations in Kabul and the eastern Afghan regions of Khost, Logar, Paktia and Paktika.

Mr. Haqqani, who was years ago an American ally in the anti-Soviet campaign, has also been long suspected of sheltering Osama bin Laden. He is a crusty warrior with a great deal of credibility in Afghanistan because 20 years ago, rather than sip tea with journalists like some other rebel leaders, he was laying siege to Soviet positions.

Meanwhile, in the Pakistani city of Peshawar and the Bajur region, one finds various headquarters of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, whose Hezb-i-Islami Party is aligned with the Taliban. Mr. Hekmatyar, another former American ally, runs operations in the Afghan regions of Kapisa, Kunar, Laghman, Nangahar and Nuristan.

These various bases inside Pakistan have assured the Taliban’s survival in the years since a democratic government was established in Kabul. Having hung on, the Taliban has recently regained much of its strength — and may now be winning the war of the villages against President Karzai.

In Afghan politics, it is the rural heartland that has always been the pivotal terrain, the place from where the mujahedeen rebellion against a secularized, Marxist-influenced urban regime was ignited in 1978, almost two years before the Soviets actually invaded. Whereas Iraq is two-thirds urban, less than a quarter of Afghans live in cities.

In Afghan villages, God and tribe are more tangible than any elected parliament. And where democracy remains an abstraction, anyone who can provide security and other basic needs — by whatever means — commands respect. Since toppling the Taliban in late 2001, the coalition and Afghan leaders have concentrated too much effort on Afghan cities, many of whose inhabitants, connected as they are to the outside world, are apt to support democracy anyway. The war we are now fighting will be won or lost in the villages.

While government officials from Kabul show up in rural areas for regular visits, the Taliban are setting up permanent presences in them. They are also importing radical, Pakistan-trained clerics to preach against the Kabul authorities. While officials from the capital too often speak in platitudes, the Taliban make concrete offers to protect poppy fields from eradication.

The drug trade is a particular problem because the United States, given its domestic policies, must take a stand against it and the government in Kabul, needing to maintain an upright image with international donors, must follow suit. Thus, the Taliban is free to use our morality against both.

The Taliban even have shadow officials for small areas of Afghanistan, whose top officials live just over the border in Pakistan. Afghan villagers journey to Pakistan to seek justice for one grievance or another from these alternative figures.

The situation is tragically simple: the very people we need to kill or apprehend we can’t get at, because they are in effect protected by our so-called ally, Pakistan. All we can do is win tactical battles against foot soldiers inside Afghanistan, who are easily replaced.

It isn’t that President Musharraf is doing nothing. He has deployed troops along the border that have somewhat cut down on the activities of Mr. Haqqani. Moreover, many of his troops are busy quelling a separatist rebellion in the border province of Baluchistan.

But he feels himself atop a volcano of fundamentalism. He is among the last of the Westernized, British-style officers in the national army; after him come the men with the beards. The military and Pakistani society are filled with those who do not see the Taliban as a threat: it is an American problem, and one for an Afghan government toward which they feel ambivalence. So President Musharraf must walk a fine line. And he must be as devious with us as he is with any other faction.

Thus Pakistani strategy is to get the Taliban to the point where it can set up secure leadership bases in remote parts of Afghanistan and move across the border. Then Pakistan will claim that it is no longer its problem.

There are two opposing tipping points to watch out for. The first is the moment the Taliban leadership feels safe in bases inside Afghanistan and decides it can mobilize to infiltrate and eventually topple the cities. That is when Presidents Bush and Karzai lose. Mr. Karzai would need to form his own private militia, and perhaps cut a deal with Mullah Omar in order to survive.

The other tipping point is when the Taliban leaders inside Pakistan feel themselves under so much pressure from the local authorities that their energy is spent on survival rather than on running operations. That is when Messrs. Bush and Karzai win. Unfortunately, this seems less likely than the first tipping point.

We can’t reverse this drift without a stronger policy toward Pakistan. I say this with extreme trepidation. President Musharraf, for all his faults, may still be the worst person to rule his country except for any other who might replace him. And yet it is necessary to hold his feet to the fire to a greater extent than we have.

Things have reached the point that it was entirely justified for the American ambassador to Islamabad, Ryan Crocker, to say this month that the exiled former Prime Ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif should be allowed to return and run against Mr. Musharraf. As corrupt as those two leaders were, we need leverage.

IN the end, the battle for Afghanistan will be won in the villages, and the time-tested rules of counterinsurgency will apply. The two most vital goals in this case will be giving the local residents a stake in the outcome through subsidies and development projects; and providing security through the presence of coalition troops embedded with Afghan Army units. Periodic patrols don’t cut it. If you live and sleep beside people, they tend to trust you. You don’t win these kinds of wars operating out of big bases near the capital.

Finally, while democracy may be an abstraction in the Afghan countryside, it can be a powerful psychological tool if explained in the language of nuts-and-bolts enticements. With our help, President Karzai’s rural representatives must articulate a strategy of hope and development, and contrast it with the one of interminable conflict that is all that the Taliban can ultimately offer.

Robert D. Kaplan is a national correspondent for The Atlantic Monthly, and the author of “Soldiers of God: With Islamic Warriors in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”