Rethinking U.S. Foreign Policy on Iran

"Rethinking U.S. Foreign Policy"
Op-Ed, Globe and Mail: December 7, 2007

On Monday, the U.S. intelligence community released a stunning unanimous National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. It concluded with "high confidence that in the fall of 2003 Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program." The new estimate turns on its head the intelligence community's 2005 estimate that found the Iranians were "determined to develop nuclear weapons." The new assessment offers George W. Bush's administration an opportunity to repair its broken policy toward Iran.

Clearly, the 16 agencies of the intelligence community did not reach this conclusion lightly. To state such an unambiguous judgment with such powerful policy ramifications, U.S. intelligence must have acquired new, high-quality sources of information. The agencies are not unaware that their new judgment essentially confirms what the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Russian intelligence service have been saying for the past several years. This is great news for anyone who has been worried about Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. Those fearful that the Bush administration would attack Iran before leaving office are also breathing a sigh of relief.

For the Bush administration itself, however, this intelligence community judgment is an extremely inconvenient truth. It yanks the rug out from under the administration's argument that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons with which his country would threaten the world. Recall that a month ago, Mr. Bush was attempting to rally support for his policy by claiming that Iran had to be stopped now to "avoid World War III."

Until yesterday, the Bush administration's dire predictions and bellicose rhetoric supported its intense focus on persuading other permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, Britain, France and Russia) to tighten sanctions against Iran. A unanimous Security Council resolution requires Iran to halt uranium enrichment before full-scale negotiations can begin. The administration had made it clear that it would not sit down with Iran until it completely shut down the enrichment centrifuges currently spinning in Natanz, 160 kilometres south of Tehran. The ultimate goal of this strategy, of course, was to convince Iran to give up its nuclear weapons program.

So what will the President do now that his intelligence agencies have officially told him that Iran has already met his essential goal? The administration's initial reaction to the assessment resembles a deer in the headlights. Based on his comments to the press yesterday, Mr. Bush does not seem to recognize that the new assessment creates an entirely new context in which the chances of making any additional progress to strengthen sanctions are slim. Make no mistake: The Iranians now have much more leverage in negotiations.

At the next round of discussions, Iran's new hard-line nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, will surely wave the new American intelligence at the five permanent members and reassert that Iran has always been up front with the international community about its nuclear intentions. Before the week is out, other members of the P-5, particularly China and Russia, will likely point out that since Iran has done what the parties originally demanded, sanctions should now be relaxed.

Getting the Iran issue right remains vitally important. Although an Iranian bomb no longer appears imminent, Tehran's decision to forgo weapons is not irreversible. By advancing their knowledge of the enrichment process through the current program, the Iranians could - as the intelligence estimate points out - have sufficient material for a bomb by 2015. At that point, Iran could simply opt to construct a weapon on short order.

Facing this new reality, the Bush administration should jettison its current approach and formulate a new strategy for dealing with Iran.

Despite Mr. Ahmadinejad's occasional ravings, Iran's actions are, as the estimate says, "guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapons irrespective of the political, economic, and military costs." Moreover, the marked reduction in the flow of weapons across the Iranian border into Iraq suggests that the negotiations in Baghdad between Iranians and Americans can bear important fruit.

The time has come for full bilateral negotiations between the United States and Iran. The talks should be unconditional: Mr. Bush simply must drop the demand for Iran to halt enrichment before talks begin. Both sides should use the momentum generated by negotiations in Baghdad to broaden the dialogue and address diverse security concerns.

Negotiations are never certain to yield results. Nonetheless, launch of a focused diplomatic surge offers the best prospects of ensuring that the Iranians do not reverse their reported 2003 decision to forgo a nuclear bomb.

Graham Allison, who served as assistant secretary of defence for policy and plans during the first Clinton administration, is author of Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe.

Eric Rosenbach recently served as a professional staff member on the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

Also See:
The view from Iran By Kaveh L. Afrasiabi and Kayhan Barzegar: Boston Globe, December 5, 2007

Excerpt: With the United States and Iran poised for a fourth round of dialogue on Iraq's security, and the latest IAEA report confirming Iran's steady cooperation and increasing nuclear transparency, the stage is now set for a thaw in the hitherto hostile US-Iran relations... Both sides should heed the call by the head of IAEA, Mohammad ElBaradei, to use the intelligence report as the basis for a comprehensive dialogue geared toward normalization.

US aid to Pakistan called lopsided, favouring military not civilians

US aid to Pakistan called lopsided, favouring military not civilians
By Khalid Hasan: Daily Times, December 7, 2007

WASHINGTON: US assistance to Pakistan since 2002 has been far too heavily weighted in favour of military assistance, without requiring or even expecting commensurate results in the struggle against extremism, a Senate subcommittee was told on Thursday.

Robert Hathaway, head of the South Asia programme at the Woodrow Wilson Centre told the subcommittee, which held a hearing on US assistance to Pakistan, “We have made no effort to distinguish between military assistance useful for our common counter-terrorism efforts, and aid with little or no connection to the war against Al Qaeda, nor made provision of the latter contingent upon cooperation in combating the extremists hiding in FATA and elsewhere in Pakistan. We have allowed a blanket justification of counter-insurgency to be used to rationalise assistance programmes and arms sales with minimum or non-existent connection to that objective. America’s seemingly open-ended largesse to the Pakistani military has encouraged the widespread belief in Pakistan that the US sides with that country’s dictators rather than its democrats. In this fashion, we have alienated potential friends and embittered those Pakistanis who share our values and our vision for their country. We have established economic and development programs that have frequently been unfocused, poorly conceived, or lacking in responsible oversight. We have required neither stringent accountability mechanisms for our aid, nor the sorts of performance benchmarks we routinely impose on other aid recipients.”

Hathaway said American assistance to Pakistan as to all recipients, is not simply an act of altruism. The US has every right to expect something in return for aid. Bush administration officials have never adequately explained why Washington should not require that vigorous US support require vigorous Pakistani support in return. The administration, the South Asia expert said, has allowed its understandable preoccupation with punishing those responsible for 9/11 to obscure other equally important priorities – combating domestic extremism within Pakistan, building strong political institutions, supporting constitutionalism and the rule of law, stopping the leakage of dangerous nuclear technology. The administration has justified virtually all US assistance to Pakistan in terms of counter-terrorism. To the extent that the Pakistani security apparatus has been employed since November 3 in rounding up lawyers, opposition politicians, journalists, and human rights activists, it is difficult to argue that unconditional backing for Pakistan’s military supports the war against terrorism. Inaction, he warned, conveys messages just as forcefully as action. Pakistanis will draw conclusions about Washington’s position and preferences regardless of whether the White House or Congress endorses or condemns, issues tepid equivocations, or remains absolutely silent. Under these circumstances, it behooves the US to stand with those who should be its natural friends in Pakistan. The US, he stressed, must not give the impression that it is dictating to Pakistan. It should also remain modest in its expectations. “By supporting those Pakistanis whose values parallel our own, US aid can help prepare the way for a more sustainable relationship in the long run. Congress should insist upon a thorough review of US assistance to Pakistan since 2001, including assistance funneled through the Department of Defence. This review ought to be conducted by a fully independent body, and not simply by the Department of State,” Hathaway proposed.

Text of Aitzaz Ahsan’s letter to Pakistan's Legal Fraternity

Text of Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan’s letter to the legal fraternity

My dear colleagues,

Assalam o’ alaikum: As I write this from a sub-jail, let me tell you how proud I am of each one of you and of myself to be part of the community that is writing the present chapter in the history of our unfortunate country. As you are all aware we, the lawyers, are the vanguard in this long-overdue, mammoth battle for civil rights and democracy in our country.

Jail is not new to me. I was first arrested as a one-year-old in the arms of my mother when she courted arrest in 1946 after my father and grandfather had already done so in the Pakistan movement. During the martial law imposed by General Ziaul Haq I was arrested and detained without trial several times for long terms and only because I pursued, even then, the ideals of democracy and an independent judiciary.

Let me assure you that the sacrifices you have given and the selfless courage you have shown for the selfless cause of an independent judiciary and civilian rule have no parallel anywhere in the world, even in countries from which we have borrowed the concepts of the rule of law and judicial independence. By seeking the restoration of the chief justices and judges of all provinces, we are in fact seeking to save and strengthen the Federation. Ours is a noble cause.

You know that Muneer Malik, Tariq Mahmmod, Ali Ahmed Kurd and I have never wielded any weapons. We have never broken any law. We are no terrorists. We are men of peace. Yet we were treated worse than terrorists while in jails.

In fact, when arrested, I was only seeking to persuade, through cogent and respectful arguments, 11 senior-most judges of the country that a General’s attempt to contest elections for the office of President was completely in breach of his own oath under the Constitution. And what happened? Just because that Bench seemed likely to give a verdict according to the express language of the Constitution, the General sacked the Chief Justice of Pakistan and other judges of the Supreme Court and of the four High Courts. Only judges who were willing to legitimise him were retained.

What happened thus was unthinkable in today’s world. It brought disgrace to the country. No such step was ever taken even in any “banana republic”. Yet because of us lawyers and the support we are getting from our kindred spirits in the media, the public and the students, no one can write off this country as a failed nation. However, for the first time since 1947, we are in the middle of a fresh struggle for independence: independence of civil society and civilian institutions.

It is in the context of ultimately achieving our one-point goal of restoring the pre-November 3 status quo and the fact of a form of elections being upon us, that I propose the following: One, Our stand for boycott would be vindicated if ALL major parties also boycott. Two, Our stand would also be vindicated if even one of the two major political alliances (ARD or APDM), decides to boycott.

Three, If, however, ALL major parties decide TO CONTEST elections, we must devise a strategy to use the momentum to our own advantage. How? My proposal is that: In situation Three, the hustle and bustle of the nation-wide election campaign may suck in all politically active persons within a few days. Local issues, of roads, water, sewage, schools and other services, may begin to engage people seeking promises of redress of their immediate miseries. Our one demand may go on the backburner of the public mind. People will become pre-occupied with other issues. That is what the regime is counting upon.

What then must be done in situation Three (and Only in situation Three)?

We have to keep the issue of the “deposed” judges alive. We have to keep the spotlight on our demand. To that purpose, I propose the following:

1. The Supreme Court Bar Association, while continuing to deny validity to this election prescribe its own OATH to be taken and signed by all CANDIDATES. The oath will require each deponent to swear that, if elected, he/she will move the necessary motion/resolution/law/amendment required to ensure the restoration of the “ousted” judges, to pursue such motion etc, to speak in its favour, and finally to vote for it. (I suggest below the contents of THE OATH).

2. The contents of the oath will be widely publicised by representatives of the Bar at all levels through press conferences and media reports.

3. It will be made clear that no candidate who does not take this oath is approved by the Bar as deserving the vote of the people irrespective of the Party he belongs to. If more than one candidate in any one constituency takes the oath, then these alone will be declared as the “pre-qualified” candidates disqualifying others from the support and vote of the people.

4. The oath alone is not enough. It is the MANNER IN WHICH IT IS TAKEN that is also vital. To involve the people and the Bar Associations nation-wide, the SCBA and the PBC must give a call that all OATH-TAKING CEREMONIES:

i. Will be held in District Bar Association premises before the General House;

ii. The oath will be taken by a senior office-bearer of the DBA and recorded by the electronic media and the press.

iii. Records of the oath will be maintained at the District, Provincial and Central level by the Bar Associations.

iv. Daily press conferences and press releases at the respective District and Central levels will announce the names of pre-qualified candidates issuing the names to the press.

5. Keeping members involved in this most engaging activity will also make the boycott of the courts (wherever prescribed) more viable and effective for a longer period.

6. Since all this activity will be WITHIN THE PREMISES of the Bars there will be no premature confrontation and this activity will be entirely lawful and sustainable. Yet it will become the most prominent activity in the public eye, nationally and internationally. In fact I expect the electronic media to run strips of the names of candidates who have or have not taken oath.

7. Each ceremony will involve a maximum number of lawyers and political workers across the country. We will also thus cause a synchronised nation-wide activity with the Bars themselves playing the lead role while highlighting our own primary demand. At the end of the day we may have created a large lobby (perhaps even a majority) committed to our demand as we begin to ride the “judicial bus” that may yet be necessary by late January, 2008. You may even today propose a tentative date for that event. The proposal above is in respect ONLY of situation THREE. In that event, where ALL major political parties are participating in the elections, a mere placid boycott called by lawyers may not work. We have to be realistic. The electorate in that situation will get involved, distracted, indeed consumed by electoral activity. We, and our one demand may be sidelined. And if it is sidestepped during the elections it is unlikely to be of very high priority after the elections. We have to make it the PRIMARY ISSUE IN THE ELECTIONS.

We have a nation-wide network of District Bars. We can make it worth their while for candidates to adhere to our aspiration of restoration of judges. In the process we can, across the country, create a significant and vibrant political activity. And we will also keep the initiative with us. I am sure that within days candidates of parties already committed to the restoration of judges and independent candidates will be jostling for time to take the oath before the full blaze of the media. I can see them printing photos of the oath-taking ceremony on their posters and publicity material to assure the voters that they are committed to us. It will keep the issue of the “deposed” judges right up-front, and maybe make it the most inescapable electoral issue.

We are today contesting the most unique case in the history of the world. In this case, our professional fee as lawyers is whatever this country has given each of us to date and our clients are the 160 million Pakistanis. But our clients’ interest, our nation’s interest, we must, safeguard at all costs. If one unarmed lawyer could win the independence of this country, I do not see any reason why we, thousands of lawyers, should not be able to achieve victory.

If we put out hearts and souls into this perfectly legitimate and peaceful enterprise we will prevail. We shall overcome.

Yours truly,

Aitzaz Ahsan

Let sacked judges be restored

Let sacked judges be restored
By Sajjad Ali Shah: Dawn, December 5 2007

PAKISTAN was born 60 years ago and we are still at the elementary stage of learning the art of Constitution-making. To preempt the subversion of the Basic Law by military rulers, the architects of the Constitution of 1973 incorporated Article 6 which deems a person abrogating the Constitution by force to be guilty of high treason.

When General Ziaul Haq suspended the constitution and imposed martial law in July 1977, the Supreme Court validated the move on the ground that the Constitution was not abrogated but suspended for a short time. This was treated as an extra constitutional step that was protected and validated by the parliament by the eighth amendment.

Thus the Supreme Court validated the violation of the Constitution as an extra constitutional step on the ground of state necessity, ignoring Article 6 completely. Then, the parliament elected with the backing of the military government in power gave this act constitutional cover and made it a part of the constitution under the eighth amendment. So this is how the practice of introducing patch-work in the constitution was initiated. It was judicial surgery followed by parliamentary surgery that attempted to validate the military’s move.

Blame can be equally apportioned to the three pillars of the state, namely, the executive, the judiciary and the parliament in their pursuit of power sharing. I have always wondered whether the “suspension of the Constitution”, though temporary in nature, is not the subversion of the Constitution. If not, then why have the words “the subversion of the constitution” in the Basic Law?

There should be a proper debate in the parliament on the language used in Article 6. Suspension of the constitution amounts to mutilation rendering it non-workable and inoperative for a considerable time, which is easily covered by the article on the subversion of the Constitution, open to punishment.

The moot point is whether an act done outside the constitution is a violation. If yes, then it cannot be condoned on the ground that it is for a short time only and justified as an extra constitutional measure on the basis of the law of necessity.

In Oct 1999 General Pervez Musharraf, the army chief, suspended the constitution and imposed martial law. The Supreme Court validated his action in the Zafar Ali Shah case following the precedent of the Begum Nusrat Bhutto case. Elections were held and with the active assistance of the MMA, one of the opposition groupings, the parliament passed the 17th amendment giving constitutional cover to all extra constitutional steps taken by Musharraf.

Musharraf thus continued as chief of army staff. He wanted to be elected again as president for the next term by the same assemblies. It was a matter of necessity for him to wear both his caps and continue in uniform as he drew his power and protection from the army.

He was, however, not eligible for election as president because his uniform came in the way since a serving general could not engage in politics until two years after his retirement. He was not elected by the electoral college — that is the federal legislature and the provincial assemblies — as required by the constitution. Other options, such as the referendum and a vote of confidence by assemblies, were adopted.

The term of office of the president under the 17th amendment was to end before the term of the assemblies expired. Hence the president wanted to be elected by the same assemblies for the second time. Meanwhile the Supreme Court launched its programme of judicial activism and gave bold decisions on the sale of the Pakistan Steel Mill and initiated proceedings on tracing missing persons allegedly in the custody of the intelligence agencies. This was a blow to the government’s ego.

It was then that the decision was taken to teach a lesson to the judiciary and get rid of Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry. He was suspended, maltreated and taken into custody and a reference for his removal was filed before the supreme judicial council. The lawyers, journalists, civil society, and political parties came out to defend the Chief Justice.

The media played an important role in highlighting the minute-to-minute proceedings against him. Lawyers were beaten up and TV channels were attacked. Ultimately the Chief Justice was reinstated by his brother judges on July 20. This was a great victory for the judiciary and the government was crestfallen.

When the election of the President by the same assemblies for a second time was challenged in the Supreme Court, the court did not grant a stay order but restrained the chief election commissioner from issuing the final notification.

The emergency was declared by the chief of army staff — not the President as empowered by the Constitution — and the Constitution was suspended. The Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) was issued with the idea of sending Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry home along with several other judges. The act of dismissing 50 judges in one go was the biggest blow the judiciary has ever known in Pakistan. A seven-member bench dismissed all the petitions against the President, confirming that his election was valid.

Now the president has nothing to fear from the judiciary. It is going to be smooth sailing for him. On Nov 3, Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry heading a bench had issued an order restraining the government from proclaiming an emergency and issuing the PCO but this order could not be implemented. So the main purpose of the PCO is to punish the judges for dispensing justice according to the law.

The latest order of the newly inducted Supreme Court which gives a clean chit to the President has once again followed the rule laid down in the cases of Begum Nusrat Bhutto and Zafar Ali Shah that considered the action of the president as merely extra constitutional on the basis of the law of necessity.

The Supreme Court has validated the move that now has to be validated by the next elected parliament. The western powers, including America and Europe, want President Musharraf to continue as president with an elected secular government so that the war against terror continues uninterrupted.

Many political parties have entered the polling campaign for the Jan 8 election. The president has announced that the emergency and the PCO will be withdrawn and the Constitution restored on Dec 16. But there is no talk of restoring the judges, who became victims of the PCO.

Are we going to forget them? I feel the political parties should not participate in the elections if the sacked judges are not restored. If the judiciary is honest and independent, the system will work successfully. Power-sharing is not a substitute for democracy. It is time to save the country and its system, which can be done through democracy, transparent elections and the elimination of martial law.

The writer is a former Chief Justice of Pakistan.

First things first by Muneer A Malik

First things first
By Muneer A. Malik: Dawn, December 6, 2007

IT was heartening to see Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif finally sitting together. The formation of a joint ARD-APDM committee is a positive step. The committee is to agree on a minimum charter of demands that must be fulfilled before the opposition parties participate in the elections.

Naturally, the primary agenda of the opposition parties is to ensure an atmosphere where free and fair elections are possible. But such elections are impossible without the restoration of the superior judiciary to the status quo prevailing on Nov 2. There can be no transition to democracy without an independent judiciary.

Consider this. The Election Commission of Pakistan (EC) is responsible for the overall organisation and conduct of elections. It comprises a retired Supreme Court and one serving High Court judge from each province. The actual nomination and polling process is supervised by District Returning Officers (DROs), Returning Officers (ROs) and Assistant Returning Officers (AROs). Serving district judges, additional district judges and civil judges perform the duties of the DROs, ROs and AROs respectively. The Chief Justices of the provincial High Courts have administrative control over the subordinate judiciary. They control their appointments, transfers and promotions.

Any challenges to an RO’s acceptance or rejection of nomination papers are to be decided by election tribunals constituted for that purpose. These tribunals consist of High Court judges. Any post-election disputes relating to the qualifications of candidates or allegations of unfairness or rigging are decided by election tribunals constituted for this purpose by the EC. Challenges against decisions of these tribunals end up before the provincial High Courts and finally the Supreme Court.

Every stage of the election process is conducted and supervised by the judiciary. Given our electoral system, it is naïve to say that the issue of restoration of judges can be taken up after the elections. There can be no free and fair election unless and until all the superior court judges are restored. You cannot put the cart before the horse. Independent judges supervising the electoral process are the only guarantee of a free and fair election.

On Nov 3, the Chief Justice of Pakistan, the Chief Justices of two provincial High Courts and the majority of Supreme Court and High Court judges were sacked. The Chief Justice and his brethren Supreme Court judges are under house arrest! It is impossible to over-emphasise the enormity of this action. It has no parallels in Pakistani or any other country’s history.

What was their crime? They were hearing a petition against Musharraf’s re-election as president. They had not even decided the case! When judges of the Supreme Court can be summarily dismissed and placed under detention for daring to simply hear a petition against Musharraf; how can any judge in the future ever act independently? How can a man who worries for the safety and future of himself and his family ever go against the wishes of the establishment?

My concern for the management and editorial staff of this newspaper prevents me from expressing my views on the few judges who decided to take oath under Musharraf’s Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) superseding their original oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. They enjoy their offices while their erstwhile brother judges are forcibly confined to their houses.However, I am told that I can express my ‘respectful, temperate criticism’ of their judgments. I see no point in doing so. The legal fraternity does not and will not recognise PCO judges and their judgments. There is no point in petitioning courts whose independence is not guaranteed. The handful of lawyers who ignored the Pakistan Bar Council’s boycott call, have already witnessed the utterly predictable results of their impetuosity. Likewise, political parties who rush to elections without first securing the restoration of an independent judiciary to supervise the electoral process will regret their haste.

Hundreds of district judges, additional district judges and civil judges throughout Pakistan were transferred with immediate effect by the incumbent de facto Chief Justices of the provincial High Courts just prior to the announcement of the election schedule. Again I am restrained from commenting upon the reasons behind this unprecedented step. But whatever the reasons may be, it is these lower court judges who will perform the functions of returning officers during the entire electoral process. And the EC has refused to reverse such transfers.

I am an optimist but I’m not a fool. The elections will be rigged. The ruling parties shall be returned with a thumping majority in parliament. Should PPP, PML-N, ANP and other opposition parties decide to participate; they shall be left marginalised. The most optimistic outcome could be a hung parliament where legislators will be left with a personal choice between packing their bags and going home or ratifying legislation that will preserve and grant indemnity to the usurper and his actions. And given the absence of an independent judiciary, there will be no legal recourse open to them.

The picture should be clear with the rejection of the nomination papers of the Sharif brothers. Understandably, they consider it futile to challenge the rejection before the current election tribunals and superior courts.

If the opposition parties are serious about securing free and fair elections with a level playing field; they must place the demand for the full restoration of the judiciary to the pre Nov 3 position on the top of their list. This demand has to be non-negotiable. In the absence of a full restoration of the judiciary; any concession granted by Musharraf’s regime shall be meaningless.

The continuing protests, in the legal community and beyond, are taking their toll on the regime. The judicial machinery has come to almost a complete standstill. The growing consensus between the opposition parties is an endless source of concern for the establishment. The desperation of Musharraf’s regime is evidenced by the number of leaks and feelers being sent out in every direction. Despite the Supreme Court’s declaration that the issue of sacked judges is a past and closed transaction; it is being conveyed unofficially that the regime is amenable for a partial restoration of judges.

The legal fraternity shall not brook compromises on this issue. We shall not become party to the regime’s attempt to pick and choose between judges and pack the courts with the more pliable ones. Each and every judge must be restored unconditionally. Our stand is based on principles and is not about individuals.

Now the judges who refused to take -- or were not given -- oath under the PCO are men who believe in the rule of law. They took a principled stand for the independence of the judicial institution at great personal cost. If they are restored, some may decide that the larger interest of an independent judicial institution requires them to make further personal sacrifice. But that choice must be theirs and theirs alone.

I have closely known the Chief Justice of Pakistan, Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, Chief Justice of the Sindh High Court, Sabihuddin Ahmed and the Chief Justice of the Peshawar High Court, Tariq Pervez. I can testify to their honour and lack of vindictiveness.

But it is for the establishment to decide whether it prefers a course of confrontation that will plunge the nation into turmoil or whether it wishes to restore Pakistan’s stability by submitting to the rule of law.

The writer is a former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, who is currently hospitalised following renal failure during his detention in Attock jail.

Bhutto, Sharif put rivalry aside to demand free vote: Globe and Mail

Bhutto, Sharif put rivalry aside to demand free vote
SAEED SHAH: Globe and Mail; December 4, 2007

ISLAMABAD — Pakistan's political opposition came together yesterday to demand a free election, threatening Pervez Musharraf's new presidency with a boycott or street protests.

The country's two major opposition figures, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, bitter rivals by nature, formed a joint platform, with other opposition leaders, to put forward a "charter of demands," steps that they believe must be taken to have fair vote.

The move will intensify the pressure on Mr. Musharraf's administration, as he badly needs at least one of the two big opposition politicians to take part in the poll to give it legitimacy. An opposition-wide boycott would be likely to plunge Pakistan into a fresh bout of instability.

"These elections will be massively rigged because Mr. Musharraf's survival lies in rigging it," said Mr. Sharif, leader of the Pakistan Muslim League-N. "We don't want to boycott the election but we are being forced to."

Earlier yesterday, the election commission declared that Mr. Sharif was ineligible to run because of his past legal convictions, a development that would be likely to further harden his stand against his party's participation. He is considering appealing the decision. However, Ms. Bhutto is inclined to run, making it difficult for Mr. Sharif's party to stay out, with or without him.

U.S. Ambassador Anne Patterson met Mr. Sharif separately yesterday, in an apparent attempt to convince him that his party should take part in the election, scheduled for Jan. 8. Washington is concerned that its key ally Pakistan restore democracy, which it believes will bolster the country's role in the war on terrorism.

In a joint press conference, Mr. Sharif and Ms. Bhutto, sitting side by side, called for an independent election commission, suspension of local pro-Musharraf officials and the end of an alleged government plan to give itself votes through the use of "ghost" polling stations, a tactic that Ms. Bhutto called "robbery of the election."

"If the charter of demands are not met, all options are open," said Ms. Bhutto, head of the Pakistan People's Party. "We reserve the right to boycott."

She said that there is "no chance" of a fair election under current conditions. The opposition would launch a protest movement once election rigging has taken place, she said.

"This is a good day for democracy in Pakistan," said Hassan Abbas, research fellow at Harvard University's Belfer Center. "Only by coming together do they [Ms. Bhutto and Mr. Sharif] have a chance of having a majority to form the next government."

"I hope that they have learned their lessons. What they did in the 1990s was counterproductive. Musharraf is a product of their failure to deliver."

Mr. Sharif and Ms. Bhutto were each prime minister twice between 1988 and 1999, when Mr. Sharif was deposed in a coup by Mr. Musharraf, who was army chief until last week. The two competitors came together in opposition in May of 2006, signing a "charter for democracy," but that disintegrated after it was revealed that Ms. Bhutto had been in secret negotiations with Mr. Musharraf over a power-sharing deal. So yesterday's rapprochement is significant but precarious.

Has the Left left Pakistan?

Has the Left left Pakistan?
By Haider K. Nizamani: Dawn, December 4, 2007

INDIA'S West Bengal and Pakistan's Punjab are comparable provinces in terms of population. About 80 million people live in each.

Since 1977, the people of West Bengal have voted Communist Party Marxist (CPM)-led coalitions into office. It would be preposterous to imagine communists forming the provincial government in our Punjab after the January elections. The Left simply does not matter when it comes to Pakistan's political chessboard.

Is there any Left left in Pakistan? What happened to it as an organised entity? What about the ideas it championed? Are the issues that provided the Left rationale for action resolved in today's Pakistani society? Should we mourn or celebrate the death of the Left?

The fate of the Left in Pakistan from the very beginning was bound-up with the machinations of Cold War politics and the way Pakistan's ruling elite firmly aligned itself with the West in that conflict. The role of the Left in the country varied in each decade of Pakistan's history up-to the 1990s. This brief run-down on the changing fortunes and misfortunes of the Pakistani Left since independence is offered here in the spirit of initiating discussion on this issue. The overview is confined to the present day Pakistan which until 1971 had less than half of the country's population.

What do we mean by the Left in Pakistani context? For this article it refers to self-identified Leftist parties and individuals who question the existing social property relations and the international order associated with them. Marxism in some form remained its intellectual inspiration.

The Left identified itself with the cause of economically exploited urban and rural classes of the country. The state was seen as a custodian of the interests of absentee landlords and the big capital at home and world capitalism led by the United States at the global level. At the time of independence, the Communist Party of Pakistan (CPP), an offshoot of the Communist Party of India (CPI), became the organisational base to coordinate efforts to dismantle what it viewed as prevailing unequal and unjust socio-political order.

The CPI had lent its support to the Muslim League's demand of Pakistan invoking the principle of national self-determination. That support, however, did not translate into a congenial working atmosphere for the CPP in the newly created state. Faiz Ahmed Faiz's poem Subh-e-Azadi (Freedom's dawn) succinctly summarised the 1950s for the Left in Pakistan. He called it 'the night-bitten dawn.' In March of 1951 several high ranking military officers, including Major General Akbar Khan, and their civilian cohorts were arrested for allegedly planning the overthrow of the government to install a pro-Moscow regime.

The Rawalpindi Conspiracy, as it is commonly known, was used as a ruse to suppress dissent and punish those individuals who were identified with the Left. It was also used to strengthen pro-West officers within the higher echelons of the armed forces. The subsequent witch-hunt led to the arrest of Faiz Ahmed Faiz and Syed Sajjad Zaheer, who had relocated to Pakistan in order to lead the CPP, and other intellectuals and trade unionists associated with the Left. And this, in Ayesha Jalal's words turned Pakistan 'into a veritable intellectual wasteland'.

The Pakistani Left, in term of organisational capacity, was in disarray during the 1960s. Consolation for this weakness came in the shape of issues which dominated the political discourse in the late 1960s. Spin-doctors of the Ayub regime organised celebrations under the banner of 'the decade of development.' All that ordinary West Pakistanis saw was growing disparity and pauperisation. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who had jumped the Ayubian boat, and the Pakistani left joined hands to express popular sentiments in the slogan of 'roti, kapra, aur makan' (bread, clothing, and housing). These were quintessential Left issues added by call for an independent, which meant less pro-American, foreign policy.

The 1970s started with the revolution of rising expectations which swiftly slid into the revolution of rising resentments and disillusionment. The political honeymoon between Bhutto and the Left didn't last long. Imperatives of strengthening his hold on power compelled Bhutto to cozy up to Pakistan's traditional power bases. The Left did not have the organisational capacity to match Bhutto's populist polemics. In marked contrast with the 1970 elections where agenda revolved around roti, kapra, aur makan; the agenda of the 1977 elections was largely shaped by the clergy questioning Bhutto's Islamic credentials. The Left had waned from the political horizon.

Then came General Ziaul Haq and his penchant to turn Pakistan into Islam's fortress. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan resulted in what Fred Halliday calls 'the second cold war' with Zia teaming up with Ronald Reagan to bleed the Soviets. Support for the Mujahideen was matched by repression at home. Intelligence and police forces actively hunted down Leftists, often on trumped up or trivial charges. As a result, university teachers, students, journalists, and assorted other activists with actual or imagined connections with communism were more likely to be found behind bars during much of the 1980s.

The tenacity with which some of these individuals faced the Zia regime made up for their lack of organisational capacity and intellectual depth. When most of these towering individuals were released by 1987 their mystique evaporated as they struggled for political anchorage in changed Pakistan.

The collapse of the Soviet Union dealt the ideological and psychological blow to the Left for which it was least prepared. The folksy Marxism it subscribed to viewed Soviet Union as infallible. The West celebrated the end of the Cold War as the 'end of history' where capitalism and liberal democracy had triumphed as the organising principle for political communities.

Formal political space in Pakistan was now occupied by centrist and right of the centre parties. Where did the Left go in the 1990s? Individuals belonging to the Left ran helter-skelter and most of them eventually ended up in two fields; media, both print and electronic; and mainly externally funded non-government organisations (NGOs) working in areas of education, health, micro-credit, and women's empowerment.

The remunerative edge of the NGO sector means it is more appealing. But the changed ideological milieu has made erstwhile opponents of capital into means of spreading its reach in far flung corners of society in the name of micro-credit. Whereas in the past the Left spoke of classes and contradictions the new jargon is centred on community and cooperation.

Anti-imperialism and the struggle for equitable and just order at home went hand-in-hand in the traditional leftist agenda. In today's Pakistan the plank of anti-imperialism is occupied by overly-simplistic anti-Americanism as championed by assorted religious parties and individuals like Imran Khan. Concern for an equitable and just socio-political order is conspicuously absent from the current political discourse.

With the Left nowhere to be seen in the formal political arena, Pakistan's political discourse revolves around phrases like 'extremism versus moderation' both of which leave the fundamental structures of the society untouched. 'The night-bitten dawn' Faiz lamented half-a-century back has indeed lasted for a long time and shows no signs of ending.
hnizamani@hotmail.com

U.S. report: Iran stopped nuclear weapons work in 2003: CNN

U.S. report: Iran stopped nuclear weapons work in 2003
CNN - December 3, 2007

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iran halted work toward a nuclear weapon under international scrutiny in 2003 and is unlikely to be able to produce enough enriched uranium for a bomb until 2010 to 2015, a U.S. intelligence report says.

A declassified summary of the latest National Intelligence Estimate found with "high confidence" that the Islamic republic stopped an effort to develop nuclear weapons in the fall of 2003.

The estimate is less severe than a 2005 report that judged the Iranian leadership was "determined to develop nuclear weapons despite its international obligations and international pressure."

But the latest report says Iran -- which declared its ability to produce enriched uranium for a civilian energy program in 2006 -- could reverse that decision and eventually produce a nuclear weapon if it wanted to do so.

Enriched uranium at low concentrations can be used to fuel nuclear power plants, but much higher concentrations are needed to yield a nuclear explosion.

"We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon is late 2009, but that this is very unlikely," the report says. A more likely time frame for that production is between 2010 and 2015, it concludes. Watch what new report says about Iran's nuclear ambitions »

Iran has insisted its nuclear program is strictly aimed at producing electricity, and the country has refused the U.N. Security Council's demand to halt its enrichment program.

Monday's report represents the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies. It suggests that a combination of "threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige and goals for regional influence in other ways," could persuade the Iranian leadership to continue its suspension of nuclear weapons research.

Available intelligence suggests the Iranian leadership is guided "by a cost-benefit approach," not a headlong rush to develop a bomb, the report concludes.

U.S. National Security adviser Stephen Hadley expressed hope after Monday's announcement, but he said Iran remains a serious threat.

"We have good reason to continue to be concerned about Iran developing a nuclear weapon even after this most recent National Intelligence Estimate," he told reporters at the White House. "In the words of the NIE, quote, Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons if a decision is made to do so."

He said technology being developed for Iran's civilian nuclear power program could be used to enrich uranium for use in weapons, and that Iran is continuing to develop ballistic missiles.

Hadley said the intelligence community came to the new conclusions on Tuesday, based on information gathered over the past few months, and President Bush was briefed about them on Wednesday.

He said U.S. policy toward Iran has not changed because of the new report.

"If we want to avoid a situation where we either have to accept Iran ... with a path to a nuclear weapon, or the possibility of having to use force to stop it, with all the connotations of World War III -- then we need to step up the diplomacy, step up the pressure, to get Iran to stop their so-called civilian uranium enrichment program," he said. "That's our policy going forward -- no change."

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, welcomed the news.

"The key judgments show that the intelligence community has learned its lessons from the Iraq debacle," the West Virginia Democrat said in a statement. "It has issued judgments that break sharply with its own previous assessments, and they reflect a real difference from the views espoused by top administration officials.

"This demonstrates a new willingness to question assumptions internally, and a level of independence from political leadership that was lacking in the recent past."

Sen. Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the fact that Iran was several years away from nuclear weapons capability meant "the international community has a significant window of opportunity in which to act to avoid the stark choice between going to war or accepting a nuclear Iran."

"But the Bush administration has long lacked a comprehensive strategy to take advantage of this window," the Delaware Democrat and Democratic presidential hopeful said in a statement. "Instead of continuing its obsession with regime change and irresponsible talk of 'World War III,' we need a policy that focuses on conduct change."

The International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, has reported that Iran is cooperating with inspectors by providing access to declared nuclear material, documents and facilities. However, the agency also said Iran is withholding information in other areas, and as a result, the IAEA's knowledge about the status of the program is "diminishing."

Iran says its uranium enrichment work is allowed under the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty. The U.N. Security Council has passed two rounds of sanctions against Tehran, but Washington missed its goal of reaching consensus on tighter restrictions by the end of November, the State Department said last week.

The report comes amid widespread accusations that the Bush administration is attempting to maneuver the United States into a conflict with Iran, which it accuses of meddling in the war in Iraq. In October, the United States designated elements of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as supporters of terrorism.

NIEs examine current capabilities and vulnerabilities and, perhaps more importantly, consider future developments. Policymakers usually request the estimates, but the intelligence community also can initiate them.

Also SeeAn assessment jars a foreign policy debate - International Herald Tribune - Dec 4
US Finds Iran Halted its Nuclear Program in 2003 - NYT

Response to Ghazala Minallah's letter to Benazir Bhutto By Wasiq Ali

Dear Civil Society colleagues,

I have been reading the emotional e-mails and blog
postings by some of you (most notably Ghazala
MinAllah's open Letter to Benazir Bhutto) demanding
that Pakistan's political parties, especially PPP,
follow non-political civil society organizations in
demanding restoration of Chief Justice Iftikhar
Chaudhry and other members of the unlawfully removed
judiciary over nd above all else.

There is also clamour that elections should be
boycotted until judges are restored to their offices.

Civil society is fresh from its success of getting
Justice Chaudhry restored a few months ago. But then
the mechanism of restoration was street protests
(backed by opposition parties) and a successful appeal
to the Supreme Court itself. What mechanism do people
have in mind this time? To think that General
Musharraf will roll up his bed and go home after our
demonstrations and the flurry of emails is a mistake.
He could hand over power to another General, which
won't solve Pakistan's rule of law problem.

It is time we take a long, hard look at our
relationship with political parties and put our weight
behind them rather than making the unrealistic demand
that they follow us. The goal remains the same
--restoration of the judiciary and supremacy of the
constitution--but the "trashing the mainstream
parties" approach should give way to respecting their
weight and sacrifices, too.

Aitzaz Ahsan, a PPP candidate for the National
Assembly again, would most likely agree with me.

There is a long history of suspicion and criticism of
the PPP by civil society organizations and admittedly
Pakistan's politicians and parties are far from
perfect. But let us face it, in the real world civil
society assists political parties. It is not a
substitute for them.

Wherever civil society has erroneously convinced
itself that it can operate against or independent of
politics, the establishment has thrived. Take the
example of Egypt, which has more NGOs per capita than
any other country. These NGOs denigrated Egypt's
mainstream political parties in the 1980s and 1990s
just as we are running down the PPP nowadays. The
result is the entrenchment of Hosni Mubarak's
Mukhabarat (Intelligence agencies) dictatorship.

Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto has been unequivocal in her
support for the judiciary and there is no need to
launch into long letters based on a single sentence
here or there. She is a politician and must deal with
multiple constituencies and demands, unlike most of us
who have no compulsions. Our personal worst case
scenario is that our next blog posting would be
hacked. Ms Bhutto, her family and her party have paid
a heavy price for confronting Pakistan's military and
intelligence machinery. Their flaws and faults aside,
there is no denying they have fought and borne the
brunt of the repression of the Zia and Musharraf
dictatorships.

Benazir Bhutto is on record as saying "Justice
Iftikhar Chaudhary is our Chief Justice." Why do we
not proceed on that statement and seek its reiteration
instead of attacking Mohtarma?

The problem is that civil society has a strong
non-political component whereas Ms Bhutto is a
political leader. A politician must weigh all options.
What if a polls boycott fails and, like 1985, the new
assembly becomes operational without any real
opposition? Then civil society would be easily
smashed.

Also, an election campaign can help mobilize masses
(as it did in 1977) and become the forerunner of a
bigger protest movement against polls rigging.
Imran Khan and some of his supporters are wrongly
assuming that Benazir Bhutto's concern in not limiting
themselves to the judiciary demand relates to NRO.

Having shouted at the top of their voices for a decade
about the cases these people really believe that is
Benazir Bhutto's real problem. It is not. Spain has
already dismissed the case on grounds of inadequate
evidence. The Swiss case is in its death throes. The
London case is being quashed by the Appeals Court and
the Pakistani cases will get nowhere given that they
got nowhere in eleven years. So silly suggestions like
"If we reassure Mohtarma that we will end the cases to
get her to boycott the elections then maybe PPP will
boycott" are based on a wrong premise.

Those who have never contested, lost or won an
election do not understand the dynamic of elections.
Especially in rural areas it is very difficult to stop
people from voting. An election is one occasion when
the poor get attention from the candidates. They do
not want to miss this opportunity.

Even now, a boycott would be successful only in
Lahore, Peshawar and possibly Rawalpindi-Islamabad.
The Chaudhries will ensure a high turnout in
Gujranwala division. Southern Punjab will turn out to
vote for the traditional leaders and MQM will get the
vote out in Sindh's large cities like Karachi,
Hyderabad and Sukkur. If PPP boycotts, there might be
low turnout in rural Sindh but who will be there to
see it? Poor Balochistan seldom counts in electoral
arithmetic.

The result of a boycott would be a two-thirds majority
for Musharraf's PML-Q, which would then do whatever it
pleases wih the constitution.

In 1985, Ziaul Haq used smaller parties in MRD to
pressure Benazir Bhutto into boycotting the non-party
polls. All those advocating the boycott later turned
out to be ISI's people. (Read accounts of that
election in books by General K.M. Arif and others).

In principle, it sounds very logical to argue "We will
not legitimize the election" by participating. In
practice, let us go through the mechanism of what
might happen. Elections take place, are boycotted by
the opposition, result in a four-fifths "win" for
PML-Q and JUI.

Then what? Street protests against the illegitimate
assemblies? Who will ensure these protests will be big
enough to make a difference? Assuming the protests are
very large and sufficient to force Musharraf's hand,
what would be the next step? Resignation and handing
over power to the army chief? Is that what we want or
need?

Let us give the politicians, especially Benazir
Bhutto, credit in figuring out how to work out a
political formula of participating in elections under
protest and then using the polls campaign as a
springboard for a methodical protest campaign.

Let us remember that civil society is very important
but it is never a substitute for political parties. If
international pressure makes the polls freer, the
opposition can win and force Musharraf's hand. If the
election is rigged, a wider anti-rigging campaign can
be launched with the involvement of the poor voters
who will feel cheated. In either case, Musharraf will
have to talk to the opposition and an alternative way
for his exit can be found than another military
intervention.

As for the judiciary, civil society should focus on
getting an unequivocal commitment from the political
parties that they will restore the pre-November 3
judiciary upon being elected. And make the judiciary
issue part of the polls campaign, alongside economic
and other issues, instead of insisting that it be
considered a separate matter from the country's
overall politics.

I know my view runs contrary to the sentiment of most
civil society activists but I request that it be given
careful consideration. After all, I am one of you and
am not part of the Pakistani political system.

Sincerely,
Wasiq Ali

Pakistan PCOed

Pakistan PCOed
By Naeem Sadiq: Dawn, December 3, 2007

AS the president took an oxymoronic oath on the “nowhere to be seen” 1973 Constitution, administered by an ever too keen Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) Chief Justice, a $60m Lear jet landed at Islamabad airport to become the fourteenth aircraft of the VVIP fleet that caters to the travelling comforts of the leadership of Pakistan.

Besides a convoluted order of priority, is there a direct relationship between the number of expensive VVIP aeroplanes and respect for the Constitution in a country?

How come a country conspicuous by the absence of a decent education, health or public transport system for its ordinary citizens, be so disproportionately sympathetic to the well being and luxuries of its leaders? Perhaps these aeroplanes support tasks of supreme national importance, such as the Frontier governor’s weekend partridge hunting visits to Nawabshah. After all we don’t expect him to be travelling by Khyber Mail or Chenab Express.

No wonder there is a long queue of people, ever so ready to rattle out oaths for such cushy jobs. The contents and the legality of such oaths is a matter that should interest only the finicky lawyers, the chattering journalists or the emailing civil society.

Pakistan has been badly PCOed and trapped in a tortuous cobweb of illegalities. The ‘emergency’ itself is illegal. It was promulgated by a person not authorised to do so. The Constitution cannot be suspended. Anyone doing so, must be given a fair trial under Article 6, instead of being upgraded to the post of the president. Can we have a president and a prime minister who take oath under a ‘non-existent’ constitution?

Having done so, they could at best be referred to as ‘non-existent’ president and prime minister. It is on record that within the first few hours of its promulgation, the seven member Supreme Court bench had declared the PCO as illegal and extra-constitutional. Thus the judges who took oath on the PCO and subsequently administered it to many other individuals can also be suitable candidates for a fair application of Article 6 of the Constitution.

Pakistan and its people find themselves torn and ravaged by the man-made disaster inflicted upon them on the afternoon of Nov 3. Do we continue to retain our citizenship, after the country itself has renounced its own Constitution? Do we even continue to remain a country which gives up on the core document that defines its nationhood -- almost like denying its own existence?

For how long will the people of Pakistan continue to be PCOed? Why must Pakistan and its people suffer such humiliating global indignity and such demeaning personal assaults? They must put an end to the PCOing of their lives, once and for all. They must refuse to vote for political parties that find it politically expedient to support such unconstitutional arrangements. For sixty years the judiciary and the political parties have extracted their pound of flesh from each PCO. They have regularised, validated, supported and even appreciated each arriving PCO. It is only now, and for the first time that a sizeable number of judges have taken a clear and firm stand of saying ‘No to PCO’. If the citizens of Pakistan do not rally behind their call, we must be ready to live with a fresh five yearly PCO for the rest of our lives.

Pakistan is suffering from an acute disease of compulsive constitutionlessness. The citizens of Pakistan must intervene to save this country. The politicians will not do so. They are only awaiting the next oath taking ceremony that would clear the way for their endless global junkets and Umrahs at the tax payers’ expense, aboard the 14luxury aeroplanes parked in the VVIP section of Islamabad airport.
naeemsadiq@gmail.com

Impact of US wargames on Pakistan N-arms ‘negative’: Dawn

Impact of US wargames on Pakistan N-arms ‘negative’
By Anwar Iqbal: Dawn, December 3, 2007

WASHINGTON, Dec 2: US-sponsored wargames that simulate capturing Pakistan’s nuclear weapons to prevent them from falling into wrong hands are having a negative impact, experts say.

On Sunday, The Washington Post carried a detailed report on such exercises, pointing out that the all such games came to the same conclusion: Pakistan’s cooperation -- particularly that of its military – was crucial.

According to the Post, the US government has conducted several such games in recent years, examining various options and scenarios for Pakistan’s nuclear weapons: How many troops might be required for a military intervention in Pakistan? Could Pakistani nuclear bunkers be isolated by saturating the surrounding areas with tens of thousands of high-powered mines, dropped from the air and packed with anti-tank and anti-personnel munitions? Or might such a move only worsen the security of Pakistan’s arsenal?

“Our best bet to secure Pakistan’s nuclear forces would be in a cooperative mode with the Pakistani military, not an adversarial one,” Scott Sagan, a Stanford University expert on counter-proliferation told the Post.

Feroz Khan, a retired brigadier who until 2001 was the second-ranking officer in the Pakistani Strategic Plans Division, warned that holding wargames exploring the possibility of capturing Pakistan’s nuclear weapons might worsen the situation.

Such exercises, he said, antagonised Pakistanis and might encourage the government in Islamabad to take countermeasures. “You might just want to remember Desert One,” he added, referring to the botched US mission to rescue American hostages in Iran in 1980.

As a result of US government studies of the nuclear issue, Pakistani officials had come to believe a US intervention “is a real threat now,” Mr Khan said. The Pakistani military almost certainly had taken steps to forestall such a raid, he said, such as creating phony bunkers that contain dummy nuclear warheads. He estimated that Pakistan’s current arsenal now contained about 80 to 120 genuine warheads, roughly double the figure usually cited by outside experts.

Zia Mian, a Princeton University physicist and expert on nuclear proliferation in South Asia, agreed. “It may actually make things worse, to attempt that sort of thing,” he said. Among other negative repercussions, he predicted, any US effort to secure Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal “would really increase anti-Americanism.”

US intelligence officials and counter-proliferation experts, interviewed by the Post, however, insisted that an internal break up could allow religious extremists in Pakistan to grab some of the nuclear, not necessarily to use them but to wield them as a symbol of authority.

Robert B. Oakley, a former US ambassador to Pakistan, said that although US officials expressed confidence in the current security measures, the more they examined the risks, the more they realised that there were no good answers. “Everybody’s scrambling on this,” Mr Oakley said.

One participant in last year’s game told the Post that there were no palatable ways to forcibly ensure the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons -- and that even studying scenarios for intervention could worsen the risks by undermining US-Pakistani cooperation.

Mr Sagan argued that mere contemplation of a US intervention might actually increase the chances of terrorists acquiring a nuclear warhead. He said that in a crisis, the Pakistani government might begin to move its nuclear weapons from secure but known sites to more secret but less-secure locations.

“If Pakistan fears they may be attacked,” he said, then the Pakistani military had an incentive “to take them out of the bunkers and put them out in the countryside”.

In such locations, Mr Sagan concluded, the weapons would be more vulnerable to capture by bad actors. “It ironically increases the likelihood of terrorist seizure,” said Mr Sagan, who in the past had advised the Pentagon on nuclear strategy.

He noted that Pakistan moved some of its arsenal in September 2001, when it feared it might be attacked. But Brig Khan said that Mr Sagan’s fears were misplaced. The weapons “are in secure bunkers, with multiple levels of security, and active and passive measures” to mask their presence, he said. And while he conceded that the Pakistani government moved some nuclear weapons in 2001, he said the shifts made the arsenal more secure, not less.

Musharraf's emergency upends Pakistan's courts By Nafisa Hoodbhoy

Musharraf's emergency upends Pakistan's courts By Nafisa Hoodbhoy
McClatchy Newspapers; Nov 30

KARACHI, Pakistan — A month after President Gen. Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency in Pakistan , the country's once-independent judiciary is in disarray and still under attack, making it unlikely that America's closest ally in the war on terrorism will have a functioning democracy anytime soon.

Police lines surround the principal courts, unfit judges are taking over the judicial apparatus and the enormous number of lawyers on hunger strikes has slowed the wheels of justice.

When Musharraf handed down his "Provisional Constitutional Order" on Nov. 3 , the federal Supreme Court was about to declare unconstitutional his plan to run for another term as president while remaining the army's chief of staff. Musharraf said he couldn't find a solution within the Pakistani Constitution, so he took "extraconstitutional measures," with the judiciary a prime target. "Some judges by overstepping the limits of judicial authority have taken over the executive and legislative functions," he said in the order.

Even though he's given up his post of army chief of staff, donned civilian clothes and promised to end the stat of emergency by Dec. 16 , Musharraf has said he won't reverse his takeover of the judiciary.

He put Iftikhar Chaudhry , the chief justice of the Supreme Court , under house arrest and demanded that all other judges swear under his order that they don't have the power "to make any order against the president or the prime minister."

Out of 17 Supreme Court judges, 12 refused to take the oath, a pattern that judges in the country's four provinces followed. Musharraf's military government has had to devise unusual ways to fill the vacancies. In Sindh province— whose chaotic capital of Karachi , population 15 million-plus, is Pakistan's biggest city— the process usually begins with a telephone call from military intelligence to leading lawyers, according to Sindh High Court lawyer Shaukat Hayat .

Sabihuddin Ahmed , who'd been the chief justice of Sindh, said he'd rejected "overtures" from the government to remain in his post because the army chief of staff wasn't allowed to issue emergency orders under Pakistan's Constitution.

When Sabihuddin stepped out of his home to drive to the Sindh High Court on Nov. 5 — two days into the emergency— he found police cars barricading his street.

The officer in charge was apologetic but told him that the police "were merely following orders."

The authorities quickly installed new judges who were willing to promise that they'd never challenge the president or prime minister, in some instances abandoning the usual appointment process and administering the oath "within half an hour," said Justice Majda Rizvi , a retired judge of the Sindh High Court .

Rizvi, the former head of the government's Commission on the Status of Women , was offered a ministerial post in Musharraf's caretaker Cabinet, but said she told the authorities, "I couldn't accept, after what you've done to the judiciary."

In other instances, the military has resorted to severe arm-twisting. In Sindh, where less than a third of the judges took the oath under the emergency, the intelligence agencies have taken the lead role in what critics say amounts to blackmail. Rizvi said government officials had even made use of files they kept on corruption cases pending against lawyers in Pakistan's National Accountability Bureau .

After Sabihuddin was ousted from his post as Sindh chief justice, the government hurriedly appointed three other High Court judges: Khawaja Naveed had been the advocate (attorney) general, Qazi Khalid an additional (assistant) advocate general and Rana Shamim an officer in a government institution before they took their oaths as judges.

Other lawyers in the Sindh High Court often have criticized the flamboyant Naveed— known for his cheerful smile and mop of curly hair— for his attempts at humor: giving a "thumbs up" sign and uttering phrases that television presenters use, such as "be back soon." Human rights groups aren't amused by a remark he made while presiding over a rape case: "Where was I?"

The biggest scandal surrounds the new chief justice in Sindh, Afzal Soomro . According to several former judges, Soomro was forced to resign as a judge from the Sindh High Court about nine months ago because of psychiatric problems. Justice Wajihuddin Ahmed , a retired Supreme Court judge, described Soomro as "mentally deranged" in a speech Nov. 14 before the Karachi Press Club .

Lawyers nationwide are astonished at the new appointees' lack of qualifications. The secretary general of the Sukkur High Court Bar Association , Shabbir Shar , said there was "anarchy" in the courts, since lawyers refused to appear before judges who were appointed under Musharraf's state of emergency.

Sindh Bar Council member Noor Naz Agha , released after 18 days of house arrest, said lawyers wouldn't rest until the emergency was revoked.

Still, economic pressures and the pressure by clients to get their cases resolved are slowly forcing lawyers to appear before the new judges. That's plunged the legal community into disarray.

Outside the Sindh High Court building— a British-built brownstone that still has its colonial grandeur— baton-carrying police seated under leafy old trees keep a vigilant eye out for protesters. Not long ago, the police had been there to protect the court. But after the new directives passed, police officers rounded up large numbers of lawyers and bundled them off to nearby jails. Most of them have been released now, according to the government.

Two streets away from the High Court is the Karachi Press Club . Military vehicles and police cars are parked outside, and plainclothes intelligence officials watch the movements of leaders. Every day there's a peaceful hunger strike by journalists outside the club. Inside, civil society groups hold protest rallies; street protests are put down by force.

The news media and the judiciary are being forced into a virtual alliance. Private television channels filming the "humiliating treatment" meted out to judges and lawyers have been blacked out, said Faisal Aziz , the secretary general of the Association of Television Journalists .

Meanwhile, the government's reconstituted Supreme Court , headed by Chief Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar , has dismissed petitions challenging Musharraf's eligibility to be president and has validated all his orders. A caretaker Cabinet will oversee parliamentary elections scheduled for Jan. 8 .

(Hoodbhoy is a special correspondent for McClatchy)

Too Many Revolutionaries - Too Few Foot-Soldiers So Far!

THE OTHER COLUMN: Drawing-room Notebooks— Ejaz Haider
Daily Times, December 2, 2007

I fervently want a revolution; want to test my theories; but I want others to get clobbered on the streets. Why must people insist that just because I know that only a new ‘political consciousness’ aka ‘revolution’ can make a difference I must also start one?

I am a naturalised Lahori, part of the flotsam washed onto the incestuous shores of this city.

My name’s up there so that’s a fairly good start. I am a Pisces. For reasons both of the two fish going in opposite directions and because Lahore has brushed off on me, I am a mass of contradictions. But lest anyone think the tension that tugs at me is the stuff of high tragedy. Far from it. It’s quite pathetic but that’s not an issue on which I’d like to go public.

I like to think that I think; in any case, I like to hold forth, both in print and at dinners and get-togethers, now sexily called GTs. Since I have been able to read a few books and can string a sentence or two together, I consider myself a cut above my neighbour or anyone who is sitting beside me. Of course, it is not necessary for others to accept this but then who cares. I don’t, and that is what matters.

I am quite passionate. And by this I mean in matters political. Since November 3, I have been on the verge of taking to the street and bringing the Temple down on the Khakis, the modern equivalent of Philistines.

But I haven’t done that. Not because I lack courage. No sir, my cup floweth over with it and no, Courage is not a brand of single malt, though I wish it were. The reason I haven’t taken to the street is because I am to be the ‘mind’ of the movement against oppression. This is not a medieval fight where generals led from the front; in modern combat, the front is the ops room in the rear. Plus, the contested zone requires foot-soldiers.

And don’t you dare think I am the Orsino of revolutions, more in love with the idea of revolution than perpetrating one. That would be too harsh a judgement and a wrong one too. It’s just that if I were to give vent to my fury and take to the street, the vulgar functionaries of the government would not be able to appreciate the difference between a thinking revolutionary and a fighting one.

I am Jean-Paul Sartre. I know that violence like Achilles’ lance heals its own wounds, but that is no reason for me not to keep a safe distance from it. In any case, this is an intellectual discovery. It will be outrageous to want to see a thinker becoming a guinea pig for his own theories.

There are thousands who are useless and whose energies can be diverted towards the task of overthrowing an oppressive regime. They cannot think; they do odd jobs. They will never be able to achieve anything. It is my calling to instil a new consciousness in them. They shall be remembered. I will even write a book, fraught with new formulations, one that will be picked up by the departments of sociology and political science across the world as a classic on socio-political movements.

Why must I present myself on the street to the black-and-tans, who will have no regard for my intellect, and let the world lose an asset? Also, who would enlighten the elites at dinners? If I were put in jail, I would also be deprived of the many necessities of life that are essential to my well-being. It should be obvious that unless I feel good and satiated I cannot think. That would hurt the revolution.

There is the morning cup of tea. It’s an old Bertie Wooster habit without which I cannot begin my day. The cup is brought me by the local variant of Jeeves. It takes me time to get up, sip the tea and read through the morning newspapers. I am also rather finicky about my bathroom. I spent more money per square foot on it than on any other part of the house. Latest research has also found a strong linkage between thinking and crapping. So a decent bathroom becomes essential to deep thinking. I am told the jails don’t put much premium on bathrooms. Going to jail would then mean not being able to think and that would only delay the advent of the much-needed political consciousness and its endpoint — a revolution.

I know Marx thought revolutions were a non-voluntarist phenomenon but he was wrong. You need a vanguard and you can’t have the thinkers in the vanguard go out and get arrested or worse, killed. Once the head is cut off, the movement will be akin to a headless chicken and we all know what a headless chicken does. It does nothing except go round in circles.

I also need to earn enough so I can keep thinking. I must come to office everyday. I need a nice car and a driver to drive me around and so on. Thinking is a full-time job and a sacred one. Comfort and thinking go hand in hand. Now unless jails were prepared to provide me with a suite, cable TV, laptop, books and other stuff to imbibe and regular outings where I could hold forth intellectually, I couldn’t be expected to write Prison Notebooks. I consider it a waste of time to invite myself to jail.

The point really is that I fervently want a revolution; want to test my theories; but I want others to get clobbered on the streets. Why must people insist that just because I know that only a new ‘political consciousness’ aka ‘revolution’ can make a difference I must also start one?

Ejaz Haider is Consulting Editor of The Friday Times and Op-Ed Editor of Daily Times. He can be reached at sapper@dailytimes.com.pk

An Open Letter to Benazir Bhutto from Ghazala Minallah

Ms BHUTTO, A FREE JUDICIARY BUT DETAINED JUDGES???
Dear Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto,

I was absolutely shocked and amazed at your latest statement regarding the judiciary. How could you, of all people, say that you believed in an independent judiciary BUT that personalities did not matter? If personalities did not matter then why was Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry removed? Why were some judges locked up whereas others were not? If personalities did not matter then why is Musharraf waging a personal war against the CJ? You do not have to be a genius to figure out the reason. How can you separate the personalities from the institution? What you have on Constitution Avenue right now is a besieged and helpless building. The unfortunate but harsh truth is that right now we are a besieged nation as well.

Ms. Bhutto, I am writing to you because your statement has shocked and disturbed me to the extent that I feel I have no option but to reach out to you in this manner. I would like to remind you, since you seem to have forgotten, that you too were the victim of a corrupt judiciary. If Justice Iftikhar had been the CJ of the Supreme Court at that time then perhaps your father would never have been hanged. Had the entire bench been like the present one then there would have been a unanimous judgment. But the judgment was not unanimous - it was a 4 to 3 split – just one judge too many on the wrong side. One more upright personality on the right side and our history would have been different. So yes, personalities certainly do matter.

Ms. Bhutto, I am writing to you in desperation because I am the daughter of Late Justice Safdar Shah, who was one of the three dissenting judges. When Mr., Bhutto was the Prime Minister my father was CJ of the Peshawar High Court. Both these headstrong personalities did not get on with each other, and because of Safdar Shah’s constant criticism and disagreement regarding the reforms and policies being introduced by the PM, the latter had him prematurely retired by introducing the 5th Amendment. After the coup, when Gen. Zia took over, and Mr. Bhutto was charged and convicted of Conspiracy to murder by the Lahore High Court, he appealed to the Supreme Court. Gen. Zia wanted Mr. Bhutto dead and he did his best to manipulate the bench. It soon became obvious as to WHY Safdar Shah had recently been appointed as judge of the Supreme Court . Having the typical mind-set of a dictator, Zia was sure that he would be vindictive and take revenge. But, he was wrong and the rest is history. WHY? Because three of the judges had the courage to say NO, and did not give in to the threats and pressure exerted on them. So yes Ms Bhutto, personalities do matter. Had Justice (retd) Wajiuddin’s father , the late Hon.Waheeduddin not been prematurely retired on extremely dubious medical grounds , history could have been different, No one can dispute the fact that the judgment was wrong since Justice (retd) Nasim Hassan Shah confessed on a talk show on TV a few years ago that the judges were threatened and pressurized into giving that judgment. Yes Ms. Bhutto, they were, and I am a witness to that fact.

Ms. Bhutto, our paths crossed briefly and both of us were victims of a corrupt judiciary which colluded with a Military Dictator. But I am not writing this letter to lament about our plight, since nothing we went through can possibly compare to the torture and torment you and your family went through .Have you forgotten the times when you visited your father in prison? Have you forgotten the humiliating tactics those heartless tyrants subjected you and your family to? Have you forgotten the last time you went to visit him in prison and were not able to hug him? Whenever I think about that grave injustice, which was nothing but a judicial murder, my heart goes out to you and what you suffered then and have suffered since. That is precisely why I am at my wits end and cannot understand WHY you cannot value the importance of independent judges.

Ms.Bhutto, do you think you are invincible? Are you so blinded that you cannot or will not acknowledge the truth? Does it never occur to you that some day you might have to face those judges in the present Supreme Court.? Well let me please spell it out. With independent judges you get a verdict you deserve, whereas with the present kind of farce you get a judgment dictated by the intelligence agencies or the dictator himself. Do you honestly not know or are you honestly not aware of the grave injustice going on? Does it not send a chill up your spine that if the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court can be tossed around by Musharraf it could very well be you as well ?For God’s sake Ms. Bhutto , WAKE UP .You owe it to your father as well as to the nation to defend the judiciary and fight for its independence.

My father continued to be persecuted even after the judgment and we were forced to leave the country. But I will never forgive or forget those responsible for the torment my father went through during his last years. He died an unhappy man and was never able to get over the fact that he was not able to prevent the cold-blooded murder of an innocent man. And that innocent person was your father for God’s sake! I have vowed that I will continue to fight for the independence of the judiciary come what may! I was confident and certain that once you were back you would definitely take up this battle and lead the nation towards sanity.

Ms. Bhutto, is it not obvious to you WHY Musharraf wants Justice Iftikhar out of the way? Ask the families of the ‘missing persons’, who for the first time were being heard and for the first time they could see a light at the end of the tunnel. Everyone knows who is responsible but no one before this CJ had the courage to take up the matter. Ask the countless downtrodden people who had discovered that they could have direct access to the CJ through Suo Moto notices. Ask 2 and 3 yr old Aneela and Tasleem from Naudero Feroze in Sindh , ask 4 yr old Shaneela or 6yr old Munni or 8 yr old Marina from Mardan what this Chief Justice has done for them. These innocent little girls were the victims of jirga decisions according to which they were to be handed over to the enemy as a symbol of truce .It was Justice Iftikhar who took serious notice of this barbaric custom and passed strict orders to the local authorities to prevent this atrocity from carrying on. It was during the tenure of this CJ that serious environmental disasters were averted .Who took notice of the New Muree Project? Who took action in the Dungi ground case? Who prevented Shah Sharabeel from converting a public park in sector F-7 Islamabad into a multi-million commercial project? Ask the poor people living in the adjacent Christian colony what that decision meant to them. Sharabeel has taken up arms against the CJ since this decision because for that class of people the slum dwellers are a low life who do not deserve any special attention. I can go on and on about the cases in which the SILENT CRIES OF THE DOWNTRODDEN of our society were being heard by a sympathetic judge for the first time. Ms. Bhutto, these are the Suo Moto notices which Musharraf said were a waste of time in his speech justifying the emergency. If personalities did not matter then why is Musharraf so threatened by this man? On any and every occasion he gets he attacks and tries to malign the CJ with a vengeance. His abnormal hatred for the man has exposed the truth. He knows very well that this man was the biggest hurdle in his plans to destroy what is left of our country. The coup was against the judiciary, the ‘emergency’ was created to sack the CJ and the other conscientious judges. Musharraf needs to be told that we are not a nation of imbeciles and that everyone is aware of the truth and the depth of the situation. We all know that the ‘crisis ‘ in Swat or the threat of terrorism had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the sacking of the CJ and the locking up of him and the other judges.
Once again Ms Bhutto, I beg you to think very carefully about where you are heading. I beg you not to betray your father or the nation. I beg you not to fall into Musharraf’s trap and to boycott the elections. The rigging has already taken place, so why are you allowing yourself to become a party to this farce? I beg you to realize that you are the one holding the trump card right now. If you boycott the election, THEY lose face. But if YOU participate, you not only lose face, you lose the confidence and the faith the people of Pakistan have in you. Last but not least, you owe it to Bilawal, Bakhtawar, Aseefa and all future generations of our beloved country.

Yours sincerely,
Ghazala Minallah
D/O Late Justice Safdar Shah

Introducing Three New Excellent Blogs on Pakistan

Watandost encourages its readers to visit these three new blogs:


1. PAK TEA HOUSE
Pak Tea House is a little corner in the blogosphere that will endeavour to revive the culture of debate, pluralism and tolerance. It has no pretensions nor illusions but the motivation of a few people who want to see Pakistan a better place - where ideas need to counter the forces of commercialism, adverse effects of globalisation and extremism. And, ideas must translate into action that leads us to an equitable, just and healthy society.

2. The Pakistan Policy Blog
The Pakistan Policy Blog provides a regular, critical perspective on Pakistan’s domestic and foreign affairs. Its principal goals are to stimulate discourse on policies furthering a prosperous, progressive, and secure Pakistan, and bridge the gap between the U.S. and Pakistani policy communities. The site is run by Arif Rafiq, a policy and communications consultant, based in New York. He is author of the upcoming independent report, “Pakistan: The Way Forward.”


3. The Insider Brief
The Insider Brief is a blog that provides an insider’s view to Pakistan with critical intelligence, analysis and commentary. By disseminating in-depth and insightful analysis, the blog seeks to enable policy makers — both within and without Pakistan — to make informed decisions about a country that is vital to regional and global security. The site is run by Shaan Akbar, a New York-based financial analyst.

What's Next in Pakistan ?: Husain Haqqani

What's Next in Pakistan ?
By HUSAIN HAQQANI: Wall Street Journal November 29, 2007

Pervez Musharraf was sworn in as Pakistan 's civilian president today after doing what opposition leaders in his country and the Bush administration have been asking him to do for some time -- resign as army chief. The move has helped clear the way for elections early next year. But those elections will be neither free nor fair unless Mr. Musharraf does much more to restore the rule of law, and repair the damage he's done to Pakistan 's civil society and constitution.

Mr. Musharraf's desire to change Pakistan 's politics -- the justification for a 1999 coup ousting then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif -- remains unfulfilled. Indeed, Mr. Sharif's return to Pakistan on Sunday, after eight years in exile, points out the poverty of Mr. Musharraf's idea of reforming Pakistani politics without democratic political participation. Mr. Sharif, it would seem, was allowed to return in the hope that his old rivalry with another former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, would be rekindled and ideological polarization would enable Mr. Musharraf to remain in power.

Although Ms. Bhutto and Mr. Sharif agreed to a "charter of democracy" last year and represent strong populist constituencies, their ideological differences are quite pronounced. Ms. Bhutto stands for modernity and identifies closely with the West. Her Pakistan Peoples Party is the country's largest political organization that describes itself as Social-Democratic, and has feuded often with Pakistan 's entrenched civil-military oligarchy. She spent her years in exile writing in American and English publications, and lecturing at U.S. universities. Her opposition to Islamist extremism and jihadism is unequivocal.

Mr. Sharif, on the other hand, is a religious conservative who started his political career as a protégé of former military dictator Gen. Zia-ul-Haq. In his tenure as prime minister, plagued by accusations of corruption, he tried to impose Shariah law in the country. After the 1999 coup, he was jailed and then exiled to Saudi Arabia after promising to stay out of politics for 10 years. He returned to Pakistan on a special plane provided by King Abdullah.

Overall, Mr. Sharif is more acceptable to the religious elements within Pakistan 's army and intelligence services that ran Pakistan before 9/11, and remain influential within the country. He, too, is opposed to Islamist terrorism, but is likely to be more compromising towards extremist groups. The fact that Ms Bhutto's homecoming rally was targeted by suicide bombers, while Mr. Sharif faced no such threat, highlights the different attitude of Islamist terrorists towards the two leaders.

Mr. Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League is divided into two factions, one led by him and the other supporting Mr. Musharraf. Even if Mr. Musharraf seems averse to the idea, many in the Pakistan army and intelligence services would like the two factions to unite, in the hope that pro-jihadi elements within the security services could then reassert their influence.

While the U.S. appears to be giving mixed signals to Mr. Musharraf, the British Commonwealth 's decision, to suspend Pakistan 's membership until certain benchmarks for the restoration of democracy are met, is the right message for Pakistan 's military leadership. Although Mr. Musharraf has stepped down as army chief, he has not lifted the Nov. 3 imposition of martial law disguised as a state of emergency. He has also issued decrees that allow him to wield draconian powers even after he lifts the state of emergency. Mr. Musharraf's hand-picked Supreme Court has rubber-stamped all his decisions, while the majority of judges of the original court remain under house arrest.

Yes, legislative elections have been scheduled for Jan. 8 and more than 5,000 of the estimated 8,000 people arrested under the emergency decree have been released. But these partial steps are meant to silence critics without changing the reality on the ground.

Few Pakistanis believe that a free and fair election can be held without a free judiciary, a free media or freedom for political parties to campaign. Many candidates and campaign workers of major opposition parties remain in prison. Mr. Musharraf has stacked the Election Commission and the caretaker cabinet, which under Pakistani law must be neutral during the run-up to elections, with his own supporters.

U.S. public opinion is solidly against Mr. Musharraf's autocratic measures. According to a poll by Opinion Dynamics released by Fox News this week, 50% of those surveyed said "yes" in response to the question, "Do you think the United States should cut off aid to Pakistan until the state of emergency is lifted and democracy is restored?" Thirty four percent disagreed and 16% expressed no opinion.

The Bush administration, however, seems willing to let Mr. Musharraf get away with suspending Pakistan 's constitution and sacking independent Supreme Court judges now that he's resigned his army post and promised to hold elections. The administration's reasoning appears to be based on the limits of U.S. influence within Pakistan , and the need for gratitude toward an ally in the war against terror. But Mr. Musharraf's stepping down as army chief and holding elections in an atmosphere of intimidation would not make Pakistan a democracy. It would make Pakistan resemble many of America 's Middle Eastern allies, notably Egypt , where elections are routinely held and a weak civil society survives at the sufferance of a dictatorship subsidized with American aid.

For his part, Mr. Musharraf is unhappy with even the limited criticism of his policies by U.S. officials. He has said that he feels "let down by the West" and "betrayed by the media." He recently spoke of Ms. Bhutto as "the darling of the West" -- a disparaging reference to stalled U.S. efforts for a negotiated transition to democracy that would have accommodated Mr. Musharraf as a civilian president and allowed Ms. Bhutto's election as prime minister.

Yet it is Mr. Musharraf, not Ms. Bhutto, who has received billions of dollars in aid from "the West" and personal praise from a long list of U.S. luminaries ranging from President Bush to former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Mr. Musharraf has been proud of his American connections, citing on more than one occasion U.S. support since 9/11 as somehow conferring legitimacy on his military regime. Now, however, it is useful for him to pretend the West has turned its back on him and through no fault of his own.

In doing so, Mr. Musharraf is following in the footsteps of the Shah of Iran , Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines and Manuel Noriega of Panama . Challenged by their own people, each one of these U.S.-backed authoritarian rulers blamed the America for failing to understand their compulsions, and for creating the circumstances that eventually led to their downfall.

The uproar against Mr. Musharraf has been caused by his disregard for Pakistan 's constitution and his disrespect for the rule of law -- not by his support of U.S. policy in the region and the war on terror. Last Saturday's deadly terrorist attacks outside Pakistan 's military headquarters prove that martial law has not improved the Pakistani government's ability to fight terrorists.

The way forward does not lie in legal or political maneuvers by Mr. Musharraf, or for the military to cling to power. This would only result in greater instability. A better course would be the creation of a government of national consensus, comprising secular and moderate politicians and civic leaders. Such a government could mobilize popular support for the war against terrorism and prosecute that war effectively, while ushering in a transition to democracy through free, impartial and fair polls.

Yesterday, President Bush helped clarify U.S. policy by saying Mr. Musharraf has "got to suspend the emergency law before elections." He might also make it clear to Mr. Musharraf that foreign policy cooperation does not give him license to trample Pakistan 's constitution underfoot.

Mr. Haqqani, director of Boston University's Center for International Relations, is the author of " Pakistan : Between Mosque and Military" (Carnegie Endowment, 2005). He's also served as adviser to several Pakistani prime ministers, including Ms. Bhutto .

Is Pakistan Heading Toward ‘Rigged’ Vote?

Lawyer Says Pakistan Heading Toward ‘Rigged’ Vote
By JANE PERLEZ: New York Times, December 1, 2007

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Nov. 30 — A corporate lawyer dressed in a pinstriped suit, Munawar Akhtar, 71, clutched a poster of a defiant colleague held in solitary confinement for three weeks, and marched Friday to the house of the dismissed chief justice of the Supreme Court.

The act of solidarity was necessary, the gray-haired Mr. Akhtar said, because the promise of President Pervez Musharraf to lift emergency rule in two weeks was deceptive.

The chief justice, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, remains under house arrest. Without his reinstatement and the restoration of other judges who were also dismissed, Mr. Akhtar said, the parliamentary elections scheduled for Jan. 8 cannot meet international standards.

“No matter how many observers you send, the elections will still be rigged and we will have what Pakistan has been going through for the past 55 years,” said Mr. Akhtar, a partner in the Islamabad branch of the London law firm Amhurst Brown Colombotti, as he and the protesters faced a phalanx of 500 policemen outside Mr. Chaudhry’s house.

Pakistan’s lawyers have led the opposition to Mr. Musharraf since his dismissal of the Supreme Court and declaration of emergency rule on Nov. 3. Some observers say Mr. Musharraf is relaxing strictures after being sworn in as a civilian president on Thursday morning and announcing that night that he would lift emergency rule on Dec. 16. But the lawyers are saying he is not really doing so.

Stories of rough prison treatment of lawyers who were arrested after Nov. 3 are emerging through relatives.

Munir Malik, 57, a former head of the Supreme Court Bar Association whose photograph was displayed at Friday’s protest, was held in a remote jail in solitary confinement in a cell so tiny he could not stretch his legs, said his nephew, Jahmasp R. Razvi.

A neon light shone into the cell, making it almost impossible for Mr. Malik to sleep, Mr. Razvi said. Mr. Malik’s notebook and pencil were confiscated, and in protest over what he considered the inhuman conditions, Mr. Malik went on a hunger strike, Mr. Razvi said.

Mr. Malik was hospitalized in Islamabad last weekend with severe kidney problems. He remains in a hospital but has been formally released from detention.

Three other leading lawyers remain under house arrest, including Aitzaz Ahsan, the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association.

Sixty of about 100 judges who served on the Supreme Court and four provincial high courts have been ordered to remain in their homes because they have refused to take the new oath of office under emergency rule, according to Wajihuddin Ahmed, a former Supreme Court judge.

The chief justice and his court were the centerpiece of Mr. Musharraf’s emergency decree. The president accused the court, and Mr. Chaudhry in particular, of being ready to block his re-election, and dismissed the entire bench.

Mr. Musharraf’s second term was ratified by a more pliant Supreme Court.

Some opposition political parties have said they will boycott the parliamentary elections unless the court is allowed back by Dec. 15. But one of the major parties, the Pakistan Peoples Party, led by Benazir Bhutto, has announced it will take part in the elections, and it is not clear whether the boycott will hold.

The United States and other Western governments have stopped short of calling for the restoration of the Supreme Court, even as they have pressed Mr. Musharraf to lift emergency rule in time for the elections.

The Western governments have been reluctant to insist on the return of the old Supreme Court because, like Mr. Musharraf, they say Mr. Chaudhry was interfering in the executive branch, a Western diplomat said.

Some lawyers said they were disappointed that Western diplomats who had met with leaders of the opposition had not shown the same interest in meeting them.

Recounting the experiences of the lawyers in jail, relatives told of sleep deprivation, cold and sleeping on stone floors. Tariq Mehmood, 57, a retired judge, spent three weeks on the floor of a cell, with no heating or bedding, said his wife, Sohaila Tariq, who is also a lawyer.

Her sons were able to visit him in the Sahiwal jail, about an eight-hour drive south from their Lahore home, she said. But she was forbidden to see him, she said.

He was transferred to a Lahore hospital on Monday suffering from exhaustion and back and nerve problems. “He’s looking very weak,” Ms. Tariq said after visiting him on Tuesday.

She said that her husband was still resolute and that his first words to her were, “I am on the path of truth.”

A doctor at the hospital said the jailers had used bright lights, noise and fighting tomcats to keep Mr. Tariq awake in the isolation cell. He has been told he will be detained for three months, Mrs. Tariq said.

Mr. Ahsan, now in confinement at his house, where visitors beyond his family are forbidden, was also kept awake by bright lights in a jail in Rawalpindi, said his wife, Bushra Ahsan.

The number of police guards at Mr. Ahsan’s house in Lahore has been increased to 40, from 20, and jail officials sit at the three entrances to the house and control who goes in and out with locks they have installed on the doors, Ms. Ahsan said.

Catch Me If you Can: Musharraf & Osama Bin Laden

Catch me if you can
Hamid Mir | November 30, 2007 | Rediff.com

Retired General Pervez Musharraf and Osama bin Laden spoke to the world on the same day, November 29. Musharraf spoke on Pakistan television and Osama spoke through a taped message from an undisclosed location. The content of the two were different but the message was the same in terms of the meaning.

Musharraf issued his message on his first day as� civilian president. Musharraf's first day as a civilian president was very tough. He took oath in the morning of November 29 in Islamabad. He delivered a speech the same late evening on the state-run Pakistan Television and announced he would lift the emergency by December 16. In the same speech, he urged a national reconciliation and expressed a strong hope that Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif would not boycott the coming election.

Sharif took just few minutes to respond to Musharraf's speech. He exploded a bombshell by announcing he would boycott the election along with many Islamist and secular leaders. His biggest achievement was to win over the heads of the Islamic parties' alliance Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal and the nationalist secular parties' alliance Pakistan Oppressed Nations Movement, or PONAM. Sharif won the support of not only an Islamist like Qazi Hussain Ahmad but also got the support of nationalist secular leader Mehmood Khan Achakzai along with cricket hero Imran Khan. This bombshell was a big surprise for all those who were of the view that Sharif returned to Pakistan after striking a secret deal with Musharraf.

Another impression was that the United States played an important role in Sharif's return to Pakistan and that Bhutto and Sharif would form a broad-based moderate alliance with Musharraf against Islamic extremists. At least Sharif dispelled the impressions about him.

There is no doubt that the US and Saudi Arabia pressurized Musharraf to allow Sharif to come back to Pakistan. Initially, Musharraf was not ready to accept any 'dictation' in this regard. He visited Saudi Arabia and requested King Abdullah not to support Sharif, but this time the king behaved like a king and disappointed a general in uniform. Contrary to Bhutto of Sindh, Sharif from Punjab returned to Pakistan without any understanding with his old enemy. Sharif had all the assurances from his foreign friends that the election commission would not disqualify him despite the fact that he was convicted by the Sindh high court in 2000 for hijacking Musharraf's plane. It was also proposed that the Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid-e-Azam and the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz could unite and Sharif was offered to lead the united Muslim League. Spokesman of the pro-Musharraf PML-Q, Senator Tariq Azeem, issued a statement in the Pakistani press that his party was ready to shake hands with Sharif. One close friend of Musharraf even offered the PML-N prime ministership but the industrialist turned politician declined all these offers. Now, the big question is: Why did Nawaz Sharif boycott the election? Why did he refuse the premiership?

Sharif is sure Musharraf will use the next parliament for providing a constitutional cover to his unconstitutional acts after November 3. Musharraf needs a two-third majority of his supporters at any cost in the next parliament; otherwise his opponents can impeach him easily. A hung parliament will not serve Musharraf's interest and Sharif is sure Musharraf will rig the election at any cost. He is sure that despite taking off his army uniform Musharraf will continue trying to drag the army into politics to safeguard his interest. The bosses of the two powerful army intelligence agencies are considered to be among� Musharraf's most loyal aides. All the four provincial governors controlling the administration are Musharraf loyalists; they will look after the rigging with the help of the police and bureaucracy. The caretaker prime minister is also from the PML-Q and it will be very easy for Musharraf to get election results of his liking.

Everybody knows the results of the next election. Old allies of Musharraf like the PML-Q and the Muttahida Qaumi Movement will get the majority. Musharraf can give a reasonable share of seats to both Bhutto and Sharif if they are ready to cooperate with him. These two former prime ministers will get some share in power through a coalition government; they will not be all powerful. If one of them becomes prime minister to promote national reconciliation, s/he will take oath from Musharraf. A prime minister under Musharraf will not be different from Shaukat Aziz. Taking oath from Musharraf and becoming another Aziz is political suicide for Sharif and that is why he decided to boycott the coming 'election.'

Instead of participating in the coming election, Sharif is planning a countrywide agitation against Musharraf. This agitation may provide an excuse to Musharraf for extending the emergency beyond December 16.

Sharif will demand the restoration of deposed Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry along with other judges who refused to accept the emergency. A majority of lawyers, civil society and people in the media will support Sharif because these deposed judges are the new heroes of Pakistan.

New divisions in Pakistani society have emerged. Before November 3, Musharraf tried to divide Pakistanis as moderates and extremists. Now Pakistanis think they are divided between law breakers and law abiders. Musharraf is a law breaker. A law breaker and his supporters inside and outside Pakistan cannot claim to be moderates. That is the reason moderate segments of Pakistani society�-- like lawyers, the media and civil society�-- are angrier with Musharraf than Islamists like Maulana Fazalur Rehman.

There is a big threat that the anti-Musharraf movement may change into an anti-US movement because President George W Bush is still supporting a man in Pakistan who fired and arrested a chief justice of the supreme court�-- a first in the history of Pakistan�-- without any solid evidence. Musharraf accused the deposed chief justice and some people in the media of hatching a conspiracy against him but never provided any details of the so-called conspiracy to the people of Pakistan. He is talking about national reconciliation but his actions are different from his words. He still uses threatening language against deposed judges and the media.

Many people in the US are happy that at least Musharraf took off his uniform. Now the Pakistani army will have a full-time chief and continue the war against terror in a professional manner, Musharraf will only supervise this war. It is not true. Musharraf will not have any relaxing times in the next couple of months. He will face a lot of problems in promoting the US-led war against terrorism and moving towards resolving some disputes with India.

The new army chief, General Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani, was selected for the job because of his seniority and competence. He is the second former Inter-Services Intelligence chief to head the army chief after General Ziauddin who was appointed by Sharif as army chief in 1999. In 2005, as ISI chief, Kiyani arrested a top Al Qaeda leader, Abu Faraj. Kiyani is also supervising army operations in the tribal areas of Pakistan since October.

The day Musharraf took off his uniform and Kiyani took over the office of army chief, Osama bin Laden issued a new message. This message was mainly addressed to Europe, but actually he challenged all those who are trying to hunt him down for years. The message was loud and clear: 'I am the sole responsible person for the 9/11 attacks, but I am still at large after six years, I will organize more attacks against you, catch me if you can.'

This new message will definitely spread new fear in Europe and it will irritate many in the West. It seems bin Laden wants the West to put more pressure on Musharraf and Kiyani to hunt him down. He wants to exploit Musharraf's weak political position in Pakistan.

Musharraf is looking very confused after taking off his uniform�-- which he once declared was his skin. He still claims to be enjoying the army's confidence. His recent statements have the same message for Pakistani civil society as Osama has for the West. Musharraf is challenging the civil society by conveying a message that 'I am the one who subverted the constitution of Pakistan but I am still the president of Pakistan, I will introduce democracy of my own liking in Pakistan, I will continue violating the constitution, catch me if you can.'