Pakistan's One-Man Calamity: By Nawaz Sharif

Pakistan's One-Man Calamity By Nawaz Sharif
November 17, 2007; Washington Post, Page A17

JIDDAH, Saudi Arabia -- My country is in flames. There is no constitution. Judges have been sacked on a whim and arrested, political leaders locked up, television stations taken off the air. Human rights activists, lawyers and other members of civil society are bearing the brunt of a crackdown by a brutal regime. Extremism has assumed enormous and grave proportions.

All of this is the doing of one man: Pervez Musharraf. He first struck at the core of democracy on Oct. 12, 1999, when he dismissed my government at gunpoint. My government was chosen by the people of Pakistan in free and fair elections. But Musharraf so feared my popularity that he banished me from the country and won't allow me to return. After Pakistan's Supreme Court declared this year that I have a right to return, I flew into Islamabad in September. But Musharraf brazenly refused me admittance to my own country.

On Nov. 3, Musharraf struck again at democracy. He abrogated the constitution and declared a state of emergency. For Musharraf, the constitution is nothing but a piece of paper that can be crumpled and discarded. After the Supreme Court stood up to him early this year and attempted to restore the fundamental rights of the people, he dismissed Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry. Stung by the successful civil society movement that led to Chaudhry's reinstatement, Musharraf acted quickly after suspending the rule of law. The Supreme Court was considering Musharraf's eligibility to be elected president despite being the army chief, but before the court could rule, Musharraf dismissed the entire judiciary.

These are the wages of dictatorship. Democracy holds the key to resolving Pakistan's problems. Musharraf hopes that other nations will prefer his despotism to the anarchy he claims would erupt were he to leave office. This is a lie that America and other Western nations should not accept. Tyranny is never a substitute for freedom, and there is no substitute for democracy.

Musharraf's self-serving contention that a free vote would result in extremists coming to power is utterly flawed and intended to frighten the West. First, the people of Pakistan should have the chance to elect people they trust. My party, the Pakistan Muslim League, and Benazir Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party enjoy tremendous support across the country. Both of these parties are more progressive and forward-looking than the general's ineffective autocracy.

Second, were there to be free and impartial elections, the world would see the rise of moderates in Pakistan. We are a moderate country. It is dictatorship that is fueling extremism. Return to the people their right to vote in free elections, and you will see the results. Musharraf and his men have turned their backs on freedom and put their lust for power over the good of the nation. They are hoping that a state of
emergency will continue their control and are ignoring the fundamental damage to Pakistan.

America has always been a friend of Pakistan. It is our strategic and natural ally. I remember the good relationship I shared with President Bill Clinton during my term in office. When Musharraf's misadventures in Kargil in 1999 brought us close to nuclear confrontation with India, I, in close consultation with Clinton, defused the situation. I remember President Clinton saying: "The world should thank Nawaz Sharif for averting a nuclear conflict between Pakistan and India."

Clinton refused to shake hands or be photographed with Musharraf when he visited Pakistan in 2000. People took that as a gesture from a friend who wished Pakistan well. By refusing to associate with a dictator, President Clinton essentially won the hearts of the Pakistani people. That was the policy that should have been pursued. That is the policy that should be pursued now. America should not alienate 160 million Pakistanis by supporting a dictator who prefers rifles to reason.

America must support the Pakistani nation -- not a single individual. America must also support the democratic process in Pakistan. The people of Pakistan are waiting for the powerful voice of America to be heard clearly by the enemies of freedom. The generals must go back to the barracks. The judiciary should be reinstated as it stood before the proclamation of emergency. There is no other way forward.
We are struggling for the restoration of genuine democracy in Pakistan. Our jails should be filled with criminals and law-breakers, not politicians and law-abiding lawyers. The army of Pakistan should be defending the liberty of the people at the direction of elected, civilian leaders, not usurping power and creating a police state. Musharraf is the problem, and he should quit -- both as army chief and as president.

Nawaz Sharif was twice elected prime minister of Pakistan. He is living in exile in Saudi Arabia.

Also See:
GEN. MUSHARRAF AND PAKISTAN'S OPPOSITION ON COLLISION COURSE WHILE U.S. TRIES TO PUT DEMOCRATIC PROCESS BACK ON TRACK: By Masood Haider

Negroponte warns Pakistan's Musharraf over military aid

US warns Pakistan's Musharraf over military aid: diplomats
November 17, 2007: AFP

ISLAMABAD (AFP) — A top US envoy warned Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf Saturday that Washington will its review military aid to the country unless he lifts a state of emergency, diplomats said.

John Negroponte, number two in the US State Department, met Musharraf for two hours of talks Saturday which diplomats had said he would use to send "a very strong message" to end the two-week-old emergency rule.

Western diplomats said Negroponte told Musharraf "military aid would be under review" if he did not quit the army, hold elections on time, lift curbs on the media and release political prisoners.

"Both sides gave their views very clearly," one diplomat said.

But the military ruler told Negroponte that he could only restore the constitution when the security situation improved, a senior presidential aide told AFP.

"President Musharraf made it clear to the visiting US envoy that the emergency can only be lifted once the situation regarding law and order improves," the aide told AFP.

The talks came a day after Negroponte spoke by telephone with opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, who has scrapped power-sharing talks with Musharraf and urged him to quit.

Since 2001 the United States has given 10 billion dollars in aid to Pakistan, most of it in military assistance to combat Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants.

The United States has previously held off warning Pakistan over military aid, saying threats to cut it could hinder efforts to counter extremism.

Negroponte, the most senior US official to visit Pakistan since the crisis erupted, flew here amid growing US concern at the turmoil in its key ally in the "war on terror."

He also met General Ashfaq Kiyani, Pakistan's deputy army chief of staff under Musharraf and his successor if he hangs up his uniform as promised.

The Pakistani leader, who seized power in a coup in 1999, insists he was right to impose the emergency against Islamic militancy and a meddlesome judiciary.

Musharraf has vowed elections by January 9 but indicated they will be held under emergency rule, angering the opposition who fear it will render any vote a sham.

Pakistan's election commission said it would announce a date for elections next Wednesday.

The Supreme Court meanwhile is set to resume hearing a case on the legality of Musharraf's re-election on Monday. If it gives a positive verdict, Musharraf has said he will hang up his uniform.

Bhutto is in talks with other opposition leaders to try to build a united front that may involve boycotting the polls.

She was heading Saturday to her stronghold of Karachi to ponder her next move, a party official said.

Musharraf, meanwhile, came under pressure from a different source when the party that has kept him in power also urged him to end the emergency.

Mushahid Hussain, secretary general of the Pakistan Muslim League-Q, told Dawn television it would be "appropriate and internationally welcomed" for the emergency to end before elections.

Earlier, authorities moved to shut down two of Pakistan's biggest private television news channels, Geo and ARYOne, which had been broadcasting out of Dubai.

After the shutdown, Geo showed a continuous animated loop of its blue and orange logo being tossed about on a stormy sea, with the words "Please inform them" flashing up.

Media authorities in Dubai said they were considering whether to allow the channels to resume broadcasting.

Elsewhere, the army announced it would launch a major operation "any time from now" to clear militants loyal to a pro-Taliban cleric from the northwest Swat Valley.

Also See:
POSTCARD USA: A just man in Washington — Khalid Hasan: Daily Times, November 18, 2007
OP-ED: Democracy at gunpoint — Ahmad Faruqui: Daily Times, November 18, 2007

International Community: Please Keep up the heat on Burma and Pakistan

The broken promises of military rule
By Susan Banki and Hassan Abbas
Boston Globe, November 17, 2007

WHEN TWO of Asia's most prominent female politicians are under house arrest at the same time, it's easy to draw parallels. The scary part: comparing the off and on detention of Pakistan's Benazir Bhutto with the longstanding house arrest of Burma's Aung San Suu Kyi, Burma makes Pakistan look good. But in both cases, this is no time for complacency on the part of the international community.


The women have similar paths. Both were democratically elected after their fathers were killed while serving as the leaders of their respective nations. Twice, Bhutto was elected prime minister and took office, and both times, her government was dismissed early. But at least she served for nearly five years. Aung San Suu Kyi, whose party won a landslide victory over Burma's ruling junta in 1990, has never been permitted to take office, and has spent 12 of the past 17 years under house arrest.

The two nations have tread similar paths as well. Pakistan's formation in 1947 and Burma's independence in 1948 both triggered predictable post-colonial power struggles, in which the military establishments used internal instability as a pretext for abolishing civilian rule.

In Pakistan, a record of irregular elections and the creation of the military-led National Security Council indicate a blurring of the lines between civilian and military rule. In Burma, which hasn't had a civilian ruler since 1962, the ruling junta has built up the military at the expense of human development, producing the largest army in all of Southeast Asia, and the worst record in health and education. Pakistan is not far behind in these terms.

In both countries, the dominant group's hold on political and economic power led to strong public reaction. In Pakistan, annulled elections and a military crackdown against the eastern wing led to Bengali calls for greater autonomy. With the assistance of the Indian Army, the Bengalis got their independent state in 1971.

Burma's marginalized populations have not been as successful. Several ethnic minority groups have been struggling for independence for decades, but without a powerful neighbor to support them, Burma's ethnic minorities have lost ground to the Burmese military almost every year. Hundreds of thousands of Burmese have fled to neighboring countries as refugees, where they have lived in limbo for decades.

Waves of protests in recent months have brought pressure to bear in both countries, but in the face of repression, these efforts may not go very far. President Pervez Musharraf's dismissal of Pakistan's chief justice generated so much outrage that hundreds of thousands of ordinary people inspired by lawyers' brave protests came out in streets and the justice was reinstated four months later by the Supreme Court. He was recently dismissed again in an arbitrary fashion. Now domestic demands and US pressure have influenced Musharraf to agree to national elections in January, but it is doubtful whether the elections will be free and fair.

In Burma, a violent crackdown against peaceful protests brought censure from the international community, to which the Burmese junta responded with bellows that it would not be bullied by the superpowers. Slightly conciliatory gestures allowing the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights to enter the country and permitting Aung San Suu Kyi to meet with members of her outlawed opposition party should be met with skepticism. They are likely a ploy to silence members of Asean, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, from adopting tough measures against Burma, when it holds its 13th summit this weekend.

However, in the case of Pakistan, at least there is a date to which Musharraf can be held accountable. Burma hasn't even offered the pretense of elections anytime soon. Discussions about "national reconciliation" - code words for designing a system whereby the military junta keeps all of its control but pacifies the international community - have been ongoing for more than a decade. Incidentally, Musharraf also used the "reconciliation" drama to withdraw corruption cases against Bhutto and some of his allies recently.

Both countries' military governments have a history of reneging on their promises. If international attention dies down, that is precisely what they are expected to do. The pressure to hold free and fair elections in Pakistan in January must be applied consistently until then, along with demands to restore removed judges. On Burma, the United States should encourage Asean to consider suspending Burma at its upcoming summit and link its continuing economic sanctions to specific timelines for democratic change.

The international community has done well to condemn the autocratic actions of Pakistan's and Burma's rulers. But to effect any positive change, it needs to keep up the heat and stop looking at military institutions there as potential harbingers of change.

Susan Banki is a research fellow at the Institute for Governance, Ethics, and Law at Griffith University in Australia. Hassan Abbas is a research fellow at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government and author of "Pakistan's Drift into Extremism: Allah, the Army and America's War on Terror."

Also See:
U.S. seen trying to revive Musharraf-Bhutto deal: Reuters
Militants Gain Despite Decree by Musharraf: NYT
Dubai agrees to pull plug on Pakistani TV networks: CNN

When a dictator is not a dictator

When a dictator is not a dictator
Editorial, The News, November 16, 2007

General Pervez Musharraf has made some startling statements in the last few days. On November 14, as army chief, he told the Supreme Court of Pakistan in an affidavit that he had imposed the emergency on November 3 because the situation then was analogous to October 1999. As president he told an American news agency that the country risked chaos if he were to give in to the opposition's demands to resign. Then, in an interview with a British news channel, the general said he would step down "when there is no turmoil in Pakistan". To the same channel he made another astonishing disclosure: "We may lose the battle on terror because of misreporting by some parts of the media in Pakistan and around the world." He then went on to say that he was "not a dictator" and that for democracy to return to Pakistan, his presence was essential. Coming from a person who has been the sole master of the country's destiny, almost unchallenged, for over eight years, if one doesn't count his earlier two years as army chief under Nawaz Sharif, it becomes evident that General/President Musharraf is trashing his own record, discrediting his own achievements and trying to convince the nation that if given another chance he will now get it right.

His analogy that the situation in Pakistan is now back to what it was in October 1999 is bewildering to say the least, and almost as ironic as his statement that he was a not a dictator. In 1999 he had been removed as chief of army staff by a duly elected and constitutional prime minister but he did not accept the order. In 2007 there was no such order but he feared, as a commando, that he was going to be ambushed by the Supreme Court, so he took pre-emptive action. On both occasions he kicked the constitution, imposed one-man rule and with the barrel of the gun behind him, coerced everybody to accept whatever he said, including tailoring the constitution to allow him both the post of president and that of army chief. His argument that he will not step down until the "turmoil" ends in Pakistan is another gem. If all he can show for his long one-man rule is a country with turmoil of the worst kind, then perhaps he is the problem. Also, it is not for an individual to decide when a country requires his or her services, that is what democracy and elections are for. On the issue of the war against terror, General Musharraf's argument that it may be lost because of the media does not hold water. It is beyond comprehension to suggest that the media is spoiling progress or compromising the government's participation in this important and necessary effort. The reality is that the government and its security and intelligence apparatus have been so far unable to contain the threat. As one analyst aptly described it recently, the military faces an unusual and asymmetrical threat in FATA and Swat in the form of an unconventional enemy and hence needs to adopt an entirely new strategy.

The fact of the matter is that General Musharraf's Pakistan is now in a shambles, because of his tunnel vision to keep himself in power, because he did not involve the people in real decision-making, because he did not -- and still doesn't -- allow real democracy to take root, because he loves dummies who like to follow the written script, because of his numerous U-turns on critical national-security policies without building a national consensus and because he always thought he was the only one who was doing the right thing for Pakistan. His Pakistan is now under attack from within and outside. His own foreign supporters are putting immense pressure for a change. The constitution is in cold storage, extremists and terrorists (a main reason for the imposition of the emergency) are slowly extending their influence, politicians are in jail or exile, the bars are on strike, the courts have no credibility, the media is dying a slow death, parliament has passed into the dustbin of ignominy, civil society is under attack and the promised elections carry no ray of hope. All this is turmoil created by none other than the general himself -- so it is more than a bit ironic when he says that he will not quit until the turmoil goes away. The general should realise that he has proven to be a bad doctor and needs some rest. The patient certainly does.

Hamid Mir Responds to Questions about Pakistan Crisis: CBC

Your Interview
Pakistan in crisis
CBC - November 9, 2007

As the political atmosphere in Pakistan becomes increasingly volatile, the world’s attention is being focused on that country. Pakistan has been a vocal ally of the U.S. in the so-called war on terror, but it has long been a country with a complex political landscape.

With President Pervez Musharraf having declared emergency rule and Benazir Bhutto, a former prime minister just back from exile, under constant threat, making sense of what’s truly happening on the ground can be difficult.

Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir has been covering the country since 1987 — he was one of the first independent journalists to interview Osama bin Laden back in 1997 and has broken many important stories — and he has an insider’s perspective on the political system.

Hamid Mir joined us on Thursday, November 15 and took your questions on what’s happening in Pakistan and what it means for Canadians and the world.

Stephen Hunter: In your opinion, what would be the reaction of other world powers, particularily the U.S. and India if the current government of Pervez Musharaf were overthrown by an Islamist party or movement?

Hamid Mir: First of all the majority of the people in Pakistan definitely love Islam but they are not extremist and no extremist Islamic party can overthrow Musharraf in Pakistan. Extremists don't believe in democracy — like the militants of Swat. They hate democracy, but Islamic parties like Jamat-i-Islami believe in democracy and they have an alliance with secular and liberal parties opposing Musharraf. Extremists are not popular in masses but if they overthrow Musharraf then not only U.S. and India, but the majority of Pakistanis will also condemn them. Outsiders will only condemn but we will resist them.

rauf (toronto): The current situation in Pakistan is amongst other things, due to pressure upon Musharaff from certain outside sources who also paved the way for Bhutto's return. Could the situation have been a little calmer if Bhutto had not been eased back into the country-all with her failures in the past and proven corruption charges?

Hamid Mir: Musharraf imposed emergency rule just to save himself from an expected Supreme Court verdict against him. The Supreme Court was going to say that a sitting Army Chief cannot contest a Presidential election. Benazir Bhutto was allowed to come back for helping Musharraf but Musharraf’s regime created a situation in which Benazir was forced to start opposing him because some government ministers were taunting her.

Shahid Cheema: Do you think there will be fair elections if they are held as promised in January. Thanks!

Hamid Mir: There was emergency rule in 1971 and a fair election was held under General Yahya Khan but Judiciary was independent at that time. The Chief Justice was not in detention. Musharraf is proving himself worse than General Yahya Khan, no opposition party has any faith in him and there will be no fair and free election under Musharraf.

for Complete text, click here

Campus protests spreading like wildfire?

Campus protests spreading like wildfire
* LUMS prof says movement ‘very significant’ as students not taking political sides, waiting for Opp to unite
* Student movements traditional centre of historical narrative of independence
Daily Times, November 16, 2007

Lahore: The steady rumbling of dissent on university campuses across Pakistan is an ominous development for the country’s military regime. Student activists in Pakistan have a history of effecting dramatic political change, according to a report in The Christian Science Monitor on Thursday.

What began last week as a protest against the arrests of academics at a university in Lahore has quickly spread across larger campuses, energising new movements and inciting old student political groups from near two-decade slumber. But, when opposition leader Imran Khan, a perceived hero of the student movement, arrived on Wednesday to address students in Lahore, members of a powerful and established Islamist student group quickly handed him over to the police. For Khan and others, targeting university campuses is a shrewd move. But his arrest reveals the scattered nature of the students’ potent political power. Unless the opposition can arrive at consensus, observers say, the movement will remain incoherent. At the core of this confused effort lies the clashing visions of the old student political groups with a new wave of activists who hope to effect a more profound shift in Pakistani politics.

‘Very significant, non-aligned’: “This ‘new student movement’ is very significant,” says Rasul Baksh Rais, a professor at Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS) who is a liaison between the administration and student leaders on campus. Rais added that students even snubbed former prime minister Benazir Bhutto when she invited them for a meeting. The students’ lack of interest in Pakistan’s premier opposition figure, Rais says, indicates that “until all parties are able to come on one platform it is unlikely these students will want to support one party over another.”

Whether Bhutto will eventually be able to seise the reins of such a unified movement remains a question, observers say. Security officials said she will likely remain under house arrest until Thursday, at least. On Tuesday, Bhutto called on the president to resign. Her spokeswoman told reporters on Wednesday that she is attempting to rally the political opposition, including former premier Nawaz Sharif, to present a more unified opposition to General Pervez Musharraf’s authority.

Musharraf said on Wednesday he expects to step down as army chief by the end of November, and begin a new presidential term as a civilian, warning that Pakistan risked chaos if he gave into opposition demands to resign. In an interview with the Associated Press, he accused Bhutto of fueling political turmoil and rejected Western pressure to quickly lift emergency rule, which he indicated was likely to continue through the January elections. “I take decisions in Pakistan’s interest and I don’t take ultimatums from anyone,” he said at his army office. Khan was one of the only prominent political leaders to have avoided arrest by going into hiding, and had sparked student activism by speaking at a university campus on the eve of the emergency. Through underground messages from hiding, Khan had called for a “youth army” to take to the streets. “My goal was to set in motion a student movement,” he said after his arrest.

Students became the latest ingredient in the urban street caldron – along with political party workers, lawyers, and civil society groups – after President Musharraf extended his sweeping security crackdown to academics. The arrests of two professors from LUMS, after the declaration of emergency last week, sparked immediate protests and the arrival of riot police at the campus gates. The agitation spread like wildfire to other smaller, private universities. Within a week, Khan visited Punjab University, the historic core of student activism, to try to harness the unwieldy power of the students. Shortly after his arrest, Khan told reporters that student “collaborators” had betrayed him to security officials. His surprising detention indicates that the youth movement is united only by its opposition to the current regime – and little else. “There is no greater ideology at work here that I can describe,” says Hashim bin Rashid, a LUMS student leader, dressed in all black and topped off by a black headband. The students at his campus, he says, are more inspired by larger concepts of social justice.

“It’s easy to turn a blind eye to everything going around you when you have a silver spoon stuck in your mouth,” he says. “But we are here because we have a stake in saving this country.”

Centre of historical narrative: This sentiment, admits Rashid, might not be what is driving students in older, more established student groups, which have been the breeding grounds for many of Pakistan’s old guard politicians. But, in a country that places student activism at the centre of its historical narrative of independence, student politics in any form has often been essential to carving the country’s political power dynamic.

In the 1960s, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto toppled military ruler Gen Ayub Khan on the back of a seething student street movement. The early 1980s saw student groups target Gen Zia ul Haq’s regime, prompting him to ban student unions as part of an effort to depoliticise the schools.

But, some of the newer institutions have no experience with political activism. Their opposition to the military regime is defined by “a liberal ethos, a modernist structure of values,” that focuses on “constitutionalism, rule of law, and the independence of the judiciary, rather than identifying with any prevailing political party,” says Rais.

This new movement has awaked student activism after two-decades of depoliticalisation. While it remains germinal and incoherent, the students have the potential to help decide Musharraf’s fate – as other movements have done in the past. As the new non-aligned movement spreads to the traditional centres of student power, it’s likely to become more complicated – both for the students and the government they oppose.

Nadeem Farooq Paracha, a journalist who was active in student politics during the military rule of General Zia and was arrested several times for “anti-state” activities, sees this as a very different movement than that of the 1980s, when large state owned universities, not elite colleges, were the centre of activity. daily times monitor


Also See:Thousands march against IJT at PU: DT, Nov 16, 2007

The Use and Abuse of Saudi Petrodollar

Jihad and the Saudi petrodollar
BBC - November 15, 2007

BBC Middle East analyst Roger Hardy has spent the last two months investigating Wahhabism, Saudi Arabia's austere brand of Islam.
In the first of a two-part series, to be broadcast on the BBC World Service, he looks at the fierce debate over whether Wahhabism and Saudi petrodollars have fomented extremism.

"The essence of Wahhabism is purity," says Lawrence Wright, author of a Pulitzer-prize-winning book about al-Qaeda.

"They are only interested in purification - and that's what makes them so repressive."

Prince Turki al-Faisal, the former head of Saudi intelligence and former ambassador in London and Washington, dismisses the accusation out of hand.

"From our point of view in the kingdom, there is no such thing as Wahhabism. That's a canard."

Saudis have never cared for the "Wahhabi" label which historically was a term of abuse applied to them by their critics.

They are highly sensitive to the charge that they have used their vast oil wealth to turn an obscure desert sect into a global force.

Charge and counter-charge

Over the last two months I've talked to officials of the Saudi government and Saudi charities who argue the campaign against them is unjust.

I've heard some of the world's leading experts, gathered in a small town in the Dutch countryside, attempt to define Wahhabism - and Salafism, the bigger family of conservative Sunni Islam of which it's part.

I've heard senior US investigators describe their deep-rooted suspicions about Saudi charities - and the frustrations of following the money trail.

Top US attorney Patrick Fitzgerald told me why he'd come to believe a Saudi charity headquartered in Chicago was an al-Qaeda front.

The US authorities shut down the charity, the Benevolence Foundation, in 2002.

Two years later another major Saudi charity, al-Haramain, came under scrutiny.

The US and Saudi governments designated 10 of its branches "financiers of terrorism".

But American investigators have often found it hard to turn suspicion into proof.

And that reinforces the scepticism of Saudi and American Muslims about US government claims.

Hate literature

I looked at the role of Wahhabi literature - used in Saudi schools and exported round the world - in promoting suspicion and hatred of non-believers.

The Saudi ambassador in Washington, Adel Jubeir, assured me a series of steps had been taken to reform the country's educational system to instil values of tolerance.

Saudi educationalist Hassan al-Maliki remains to be convinced.

"They are teaching the students," he told me, "that whoever disagrees with Wahhabism is either an infidel or a deviant - and should repent or be killed."

This, he added, was an attack on half of Saudi society, where Shia and Sufi minorities coexist uneasily with the dominant Wahhabi religious establishment.

I visited the offices of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (Wamy), part of the global network of well-funded Islamic institutions created by Saudi Arabia's King Faisal in the 1960s and 1970s.

Militant networks

These bodies built mosques and schools and provided humanitarian aid to Muslims in need.

But there is evidence that, over time, some of their local branches became involved in militant networks.

Bernard Haykel, professor of Near East studies at Princeton, believes the Saudis set in motion a process over which they lost control. The Saudis' funding of militant Islam reached a new pitch in the 1980s when, with the United States and others, they bankrolled the jihad against Soviet troops occupying Afghanistan.

The Afghan war was the crucible from which emerged al-Qaeda.

"The genie came out of the bottle," says Professor Haykel, "and the Saudis could no longer put it back in."

The first of Roger Hardy's programmes, Jihad & the Petrodollar, can be heard on the BBC World Service on Friday, 16 November.

Winding Back Martial Law in Pakistan: ICG Report

Winding Back Martial Law in Pakistan
ICG: Asia Briefing N°70; 12 November 2007

OVERVIEW

General Pervez Musharraf imposed martial law in Pakistan on 3 November 2007. He suspended the constitution, sacked the chief justice of the Supreme Court and removed other judges of that court who declared his act illegal. Police immediately began arresting lawyers, politicians and human rights activists. Independent television channels were taken off the air and reporting restrictions imposed. Thousands have since been jailed, journalists threatened and protests by lawyers and others suppressed. Replacing dissenting judges with hand-picked appointees, and ruling by decree, Musharraf’s objective is to retain personal power by gaining judicial approval for martial law, followed by the creation of a democratic façade through rigged elections. The international community should demand the immediate restoration of constitutional order, the rule of law and the legitimate judiciary, the release of political prisoners and the appointment of an impartial caretaker government to oversee free and fair elections.

Musharraf has said he expects polls before 9 January and will take off his uniform before taking his oath for a new presidential term. But this offer does not go far enough. No proper elections can be held under martial law, supervised by a Musharraf-controlled Election Commission and a judiciary that has been purged and hand-selected by the military, and while some political leaders are in jail and others are barred from standing.

Musharraf claims he acted to restore stability but in fact he has sought to stamp out demands for democracy after eight years of military rule. The general’s claims to legitimacy had worn thin, and he was facing a challenge by the Supreme Court to his re-election as president by a lame-duck and stacked electoral college in October. While saying he was tackling extremism, the arrests of non-violent, secular people showed his true intentions. Even as the military was filling the jails with lawyers and journalists, they were releasing 28 militants, some of whom had been convicted of terrorism, in yet another deal with violent extremists.

In response to all this, the U.S., the UK and the European Union (EU) have expressed disappointment, but signalled they wish to continue cooperation with President Musharraf and his government, particularly on counter-terrorism. The focus has been on the need for Musharraf to remove his uniform and conduct elections – not on the necessity of restoring the constitutional order and the rule of law. The mistakes of the international response in the past to Pakistan are being repeated. The general has used the issue of terrorism with skill for years, drip-feeding anxious Western governments limited intelligence on jihadi groups while doing little to address extremism at home. Officials in Washington and London have been particularly prone to mistaken belief that the choice in Pakistan is between democracy and stability. Apart from handing over a few high-level al-Qaeda members, Pakistan has done little else: it has refused to close Taliban camps and jihadi madrasas or end extremist recruitment and fundraising. Driven by what is even in the short term a highly questionable interpretation of their security interests, Western governments have weakened their long-term security by supporting military rule rather than democratic institutions and the people of Pakistan.

A strong international response to military dictatorship has been hampered by anxiety that Pakistan might become another Iran, hostile to Western interests and yet a greater security threat if Musharraf were to leave the scene, as happened when the Islamic Revolution deposed the Shah in 1979. The analogy is false. Pakistan is a very different country, with a vibrant civil society, courageous and respected judicial and media institutions and above all a long democratic tradition and civilian parties that are widely popular and experienced in government. Its extremist forces have gained what status they have in the country’s politics as the beneficiaries of military manipulation, not broad citizen support.

This latest coup makes it essential to rethink policy towards Pakistan and to recognise that Musharraf is not only not indispensable; he is a serious liability. Extremism would be better reduced now and would be more assuredly barred in the future by the rule of law under a democratic government led by one of the moderate political parties.

In response to martial law, the international community should take the following steps:

speak out unequivocally for democracy in Pakistan, rejecting the idea that martial law is needed for stability, and demand a return to constitutional order;
outline a series of graduated sanctions starting immediately with suspension of high-level talks on military cooperation, suspension of new military training, review of military aid to distinguish what is essential counter-terrorism (CT) help from general assistance, and establishment of performance-based conditionality on all non-CT military assistance until constitutional order is restored;
follow this up – if Musharraf makes it necessary by not giving up his post as army chief by 15 November when his parliamentary dispensation to hold that post as well as the presidency expires, and does not restore the constitution, release political prisoners, restore the independent judiciary and accept its judgement on the legality of his October 2007 re-election as president, and set a date for elections – with gradually tougher sanctions, including suspension of all non-CT military aid and visa bans for top military and government officials;
if these steps are not taken within 30 days, restrict non-CT arms sales; freeze officer training abroad and foreign assets of the military and its foundations and businesses; and refuse to accept high-level visits by Pakistani officials for as long as the constitution is not restored and the military holds politicians, lawyers and civil society actors under arrest and otherwise restricts their civic freedoms; also insist that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) be given unrestricted access to prevent torture and abuse in custody; and simultaneously
expand aid for education, poverty reduction, healthcare and relief work, channelling money through secular non-governmental organisations (NGOs).
Islamabad/Brussels, 12 November 2007

For Complete Report (pdf), click here

Also See:
U.S. Is Looking Past Musharraf in Case He Falls: NYT
AP Interview: Pakistan's Musharraf says he will quit army this month and rule as a civilian

Imran Khan's Courageous Act

Jamiat shoves Imran into police hands
Bid to mobilise Punjab University students foiled
By Khalid Khattak & Zubair Azam: The News, November 14, 2007

LAHORE: Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan was arrested by police on Wednesday as he emerged from hiding to mobilise students' support at the Punjab University New Campus against the imposition of emergency.

Activists of the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) student wing Islami Jamiat-e-Tulba and PU administration were instrumental in foiling the bid of the cricketer-turned politician to drum up some support for the anti-government protest.

Imran, attracting scores of charged students, was whisked away from the campus, manhandled and forcefully detained by the IJT activists inside the building of Centre for High Energy Physics (CHEP), before the PU administration handed him over to the police authorities outside the varsity premises.

Imran had announced to start the movement from the PU after strong assurance of IJT support from his ally (JI) in the All Parties Democratic Movement (APDM) Qazi Hussain Ahmed, chief patron of IJT and the head of JI and MMA.

In an eventful day, Imran's sudden appearance galvanised the protesting students into action who started to flock to the politician and chanting slogans of 'Go Musharraf Go'. The procession gained momentum and Imran was lifted onto the shoulders of the students then pushed inside CHEP building by IJT students.

IJT varsity head had earlier aired vibes of disapproval regarding Imran's decision to lead a student rally from the PU, stating Imran would not be welcome to the varsity. The protesting students and media flocked to the building in the morning while only some pro-IJT teachers were allowed to enter the premises by the students (IJT members).

The IJT, which had gathered support from other city institutions as well, also fired crackers around the building to disperse the swelling crowd of the students. Some supporters of Imran and students were brutally manhandled by the IJT members besides roughing up the foreign and local journalists who demanded that they should be allowed to talk with Imran.

The detention drama dragged on till 12:00 pm, for almost an hour, during which plain clothed security personnel also reached the spot. Later, a PU van (LRC-526) was brought to the entrance gate of the building and Imran was bundled into the vehicle.

The IJT activists made a protective chain around the van to stop journalists from interaction with Imran. Accompanied by two PU professors, Imran was taken to Gate No. 1, amid silent protest of students, where awaiting police team arrested Imran.

JI Information Secretary Amir-ul-Azeem, who appeared at the scene after Imran had been taken away, was brushed aside by IJT activists while chanting slogans against JI leaders including Qazi Hussain Ahmed. The IJT members said they would not allow any politician to damage the atmosphere of the varsity.

PU Registrar Naeem Khan said the administration did not invite Imran Khan whereas some professors only facilitated the exit of a person wanted by the state. However, he shied away when asked why JI information secretary Ameer-ur-Azeem, who is also wanted by the police, was not handed over.

It merits a mention that the PU administration renounced any link with the IJT and JI but acting Vice Chancellor Prof Dr Muhammad Arif Butt was an office-bearer of the IJT. Though IJT claims being an independent body, its patron-ship by the JI is well known, as the IJT serves as a breeding ground of future political leaders of the JI.

Present Vice head of JI, Liaqat Baloch and many others, held the rank of PU IJT head during their student life. Sources within the JI disclosed that IJT had received specific instructions by the JI command to roughen up the PTI leader, for publicly denouncing Maulana Fazlur Rehman, head of JUI, a coalition partner in the religious conglomeration of MMA.

Despite open assurance of support, Qazi Hussain Ahmed and IJT members, are wary of Imran's popularity within the youth and were afraid that IJT's hegemony as the sole power in PU might be at stake after Imran's rally on Wednesday.

The MMA has been severely criticized in the past for supporting the regime by underhand deals with the government besides remaining in coalition government in Balochistan with the ruling PML.

Also See:
Imran Khan's Message to UK: My life is in danger - Telegraph


Beard or Mask: Sage Movement Blog

"Musharraf Must Quit": Benazir Bhutto Takes a Much Advised U-Turn

Musharraf must quit now, says Benazir
By Nasir Jamal and Ahmed Fraz Khan: Dawn, November 14, 2007

LAHORE, Nov 13: In what is seen as a major shift from her earlier stance, Pakistan People’s Party chairperson Benazir Bhutto has called upon Gen Pervez Musharraf to step down as president, saying there is little possibility now of her working with him even if he hangs up his uniform.

She made the demand on Tuesday morning as the Punjab government mounted a massive police action and arrested nearly 100 party workers and senior leaders from various parts of the city to thwart her party’s planned ‘long march for democracy’. The PPP claims that more than 400 workers have been arrested.

Talking to reporters by telephone, Ms Bhutto said Gen Musharraf had lost the confidence of people and he was incapable of resolving the crisis.

“I’ve tried to work with him and negotiated with him to ensure a smooth and peaceful transfer of power to people through fair, free and transparent elections. But he has made a mess of everything,” she said.

She has been saying that the imposition of emergency rule, extension of the scope of the Army Act of 1952 to civilians and stifling of the judiciary and media have deepened the mess the country has been facing in the recent weeks.

Ms Bhutto, who was detained on Monday night for seven days in Lahore by the provincial government under section 3 of the Maintenance of Public Order (MPO) to prevent her from leading the party’s march, also said on Tuesday she was trying to forge a united front of all opposition parties on a one-point agenda of launching a joint struggle for democracy and rule of law.

“I have contacted Jamaat-i-Islami Amir Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Awami National Party leader Asfandyar Wali and some Baloch leaders, including Hasil Bizenjo, for a united front of the opposition. I’m already in contact with Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) leader Nawaz Sharif and will also contact Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaaf chief Imran Khan,” she said in reply to a question.

In a news release issued on Tuesday evening, Qazi Hussain appreciated the change in Ms Bhutto’s stance and her pledge not to accept Gen Musharraf even as civilian president.

According to a television report, both Nawaz Sharif and Asfandyar Wali also welcomed the PPP leader’s demand and stressed the need for a joint struggle. However, neither Qazi Hussain nor Mr Sharif committed if their parties would launch a struggle for democracy from a joint platform with the PPP.

Police have cordoned off the residence of PPP leader Senator Latif Khosa where Benazir is staying. The main gate of the house, which has been declared a sub-jail, has been blocked by two police trucks and barbed wire has been laid around the house. All exit points on the Ghazi Road, where the house is situated, have been barricaded and are manned by policemen, causing inconvenience to residents of the area. Tractor trolleys, brimming with sand, have also been parked on exit points. Policemen in large numbers have been deployed on roofs of nearby houses.

A resident told Dawn that several people living close to Ms Bhutto’s residence could not go for work or school. “I’m an impartial individual and a resident of this locality. But I cannot leave my place without being watched and searched by these policemen.” He said he did not fear being arrested because he had done nothing wrong but “it is not the way governments function – causing inconvenience to the common man”.

Those living in adjoining streets have to take a detour and undergo a tedious procedure of questioning and search of their vehicle by police before being allowed into the vicinity.

The government insists that Ms Bhutto’s detention was necessitated by threats of a suicide attack on her and other PPP leaders and has advised her to refrain from participating in public meetings.

The PPP had asked its workers to gather at the residence of Senator Khosa for launching the protest march. But the workers could not make it due to deployment of about 900 policemen in the vicinity. In all, some 4,000 security personnel have been deployed across the city.

Some political observers blamed PPP’s “vague policies” for what they called its failure to bring the people out on the streets. They said the party had done little to mobilise the people for the march.

Still, scores of people in small groups reached a place about a furlong from Senator Khosa’s house and raised anti-Musharraf and anti-government slogans before being arrested by police. PPP leader Farzana Raja was also arrested. Some Military Intelligence personnel were present.

Yousuf Raza Gillani, Qasim Zia, Naveed Chaudhry and other party leaders were arrested at a police picket at Roohi Drain after they tried to lead a march to Kasur. Punjab PPP president Shah Mahmood Quraishi managed to lead another caravan first to Kasur and then to Okara.

PPP secretary-general Jehangir Badar told Dawn by phone from his leader’s residence that the party would resume its long march from Okara on Wednesday.

On her arrival in the city on Sunday, Ms Bhutto had warned the government against use of force to stop the long march. Despite rumours in the city that Ms Bhutto might be expelled and forcibly flown to Karachi, it could not be confirmed till late in the night if she would be deported from Lahore.

Also See:
In Interview, Musharraf Defends Rule by Decree: NYT - November 14, 2007
US helping evolve new political formula: Dawn
View: Season finale — Farrukh Saleem: Daily Times, November 14, 2007
Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group’s statement on Pakistan: Daily Times
Lawyers Rally in Support of Colleagues in Pakistan: NYT
What Musharraf could not abide: HDS Greenway - Boston Globe