How CJ was shown Pro-terrorists

The Bush administration and the world was deliberately and systematically presented a mutilated and distorted image of the deposed Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammed Chaudhry, according to well planned strategy of the Presidency so that Washington may not raise serious objections when the Nov 3 coup against the judges was carried out. The main objective of this strategy was to convince the US that Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry was soft on terrorists and could create serious problems by asking for the production and release of all missing persons, most of whom were handed over by Pakistan to US.

Top government officials holding key positions in the previous government have revealed in separate interviews that the Presidency had reached the conclusion that it had no option but to take extra constitutional steps to remove the apex court judges, which was impossible without taking the US into confidence. According to the officials, the government had decided to take advantage of the missing persons’ case which was being heard by the apex court then.

A key plank of the strategy was to produce some of the missing persons but not provide any evidence to the court so that the judges had no legal ground to keep them under detention. “The court was being forced to release these missing persons which would then be presented as a proof of Justice Chaudhry’s sympathy for terrorists,” one official said.

The chief justice and some lawyers had smelled a rat. The chief justice thought it may be a good idea to accept a request for a meeting pending with him from the US Ambassador Anne Patterson and explain the situation. But he used the official procedure and asked the Pakistan Foreign Office to give clearance for the meeting as is required under the rules. But according to the government strategy, this meeting could be damaging, so the Foreign Office did not give permission to the CJ to see the US ambassador. Accordingly, the CJ declined the meeting with Ambassador Patterson.

But the denial was presented by the Pakistani officials as part of Justice Chaudhry’s anti-American tilt, an official said. “Refusing a meeting with the US ambassador easily conveyed the wrong message to the US government that the sitting judiciary was adopting a hard line on the war on terror,” the official added.

The chief justice had received the Saudi Ambassador in Islamabad on December 8, 2007, but when a US diplomat was then asked whether Ambassador Patterson also wanted to see him, the diplomat was quoted as saying no. Explaining his answer, the US diplomat had said that Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry had turned down the request for a meeting with the US ambassador twice after his re-instatement on July 20 and before imposition of emergency on November 3. “Now, we don’t feel any need to request for an appointment with Justice Iftikhar as he may also refuse,” the senior US diplomat had told ‘The News’.

Deposed Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry on knowing the US embassy concerns had informed two lawyers in contact with him about the actual situation. Justice Iftikhar told them that it was not he, but the Foreign Office, which had instructed him not to meet the US ambassador.

“It is mandatory for any top official of the judiciary to inform the Foreign Office before meeting such a high profile diplomatic official, and especially in the situation the country was passing through. On our intimation to the Foreign Office, we immediately received a message that we could not meet with the US ambassador and subsequently there was no option other than regretting the US ambassador’s request,” Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry said in his message. The same situation was also conveyed to the US ambassador, credible sources told ‘The News’.

A senior government official said that when the Supreme Court started hearing of missing persons case after restoration of the chief justice on July 20 last, the attorney general and other government officials repeatedly promised the court to provide credible evidence about the alleged involvement of these “traced” missing persons, but never did so.

According to reports, in the post July 20 scenario, cases of only three traced missing persons were decided and subsequently they were released, in the petitions filed by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and former senator and Pakistan People’s Party’s spokesman Farhatullah Babur. These were Naeem Noor Khan, Aleem Nasir and Hafiz Abdul Basit.

According to these reports, Naeem Noor Khan, a computer expert and resident of Karachi, was released by the agencies holding him on the grounds that he cooperated with them, and because of his help the agencies managed to arrest Musaad Aruchi, who was alleged to be a senior member of the al-Qaeda leadership.

With the information provided by Naeem and his help the UK police arrested a terror gang of 13 people. The Supreme Court was informed on August 20 last that Naeem Noor Khan was released and had reached his home. “The court was never provided with the details of the crimes in which Naeem was involved, otherwise no judge could order release of a person even allegedly involved in such heinous crimes,” a member of the bench hearing the case told a senior lawyer.

These facts are also evident from the Supreme Court record as well as from the media reports published in all leading national dailies in the month of August 2007.

Aleem Nasir, a German national, was arrested by the ISI from Lahore Airport on July 18, 2007, while on his way to Germany on charges of smuggling precious stones and was missing from the same day. He was never even charged by the government of being involved in some terrorist activity, according to a senior former official of the Supreme Court. “The government did not come up with any proof against Aleem, and he had to be released by the apex court on August 21, 2007,” the official added.

The most important case was that of Hafiz Abdul Basit, who was allegedly involved in a terrorist attack on General Musharraf, according to the official. “Basit was arrested from Faisalabad by police and was subsequently handed over to the Military Intelligence (MI) on Pindi Bhatian Interchange of Lahore-Islamabad Motorway on the instructions of the then Additional Inspector General of Police Tariq Pervez, who was DG-FIA at the time of hearing, as court was informed by the police officials themselves.

The attorney general was quoted by all the newspapers of Pakistan on August 21 and 22, telling the apex court that proof of his involvement in heinous crimes will be provided to the court. This was never done.

When Attorney General Malik Qayyum was approached by this scribe last week and asked why the Supreme Court was never provided with authentic proof of involvement of Basit, Aleem and others, his response was: “This is an old case, and I don’t remember anything about it.”

Another important case heard along with these three persons was that of Imran Munir, a Malaysian Pakistani. According to one official this case seriously damaged the credibility of the whole process of detaining civilians by secret agencies on terrorism charges.

“Imran was in love with the niece of Brigadier Mansoor of ISI. He was invited to dinner by Brigadier Mansoor and went missing from that day,” Imran Munir’s attorney, Mujeeb Pirzada, told the Supreme Court on Aug 20, 2007, after Imran was traced in Mangla Cantt. Imran’s sister provided evidence that her brother loved the niece of Brigadier Mansoor of ISI. This, she did outside the Supreme Court building the same day.

“This was the first incident which told the world that some of the missing persons in the custody of intelligence agencies of Pakistan were not just terrorists but also lovers. It was the worst case which demolished the credibility of intelligence agencies,” the former Supreme Court official said.

He added: “The most interesting point was that government officials never came up with any allegation of involvement of Imran in any terrorist activity but shockingly, he was sentenced to eight years imprisonment by a military court, Field General Court Martial (FGCM), on spying charges. Loving a niece was equal to spying for a military court, it proved.

This conviction had been set aside, and his retrial was ordered by another military court, the SC official said. But this higher military court did not order Imran’s release because of the serious nature of allegations levelled against him.

According to the former senior official of the SC, the SC bench hearing these cases comprised deposed Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Justice Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, Justice M Javed Buttar, Justice Nasirul Mulk and Justice Raja Fayyaz Ahmed.

“The bench was of the view that all the missing persons should be produced before the court and should be prosecuted and kept in jail in accordance with the Constitution,” the official said, adding: “The bench never made even any observation indicating that it wanted the release of those persons involved in terrorist activities.”

The official also repeated that the allegations regarding supporting terrorism leveled by the General Pervez Musharraf at the time of imposition of emergency on Nov 3 against the apex judiciary was about the Lal Masjid case.

The official said that it was worth mentioning that Justice Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Justice Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, who first took suo moto action and then heard the case, were both invited for taking oath under PCO on Nov 03 last.

Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry himself had told The News on Nov 04 last that if any alleged terrorist was released by the Supreme Court, it was not the judges’ fault but the government never provided any evidence justifying the arrest. He had then said: “I have never been lenient towards the terrorists, but it was not possible for the judges of the Supreme Court to start punishing people without any evidence against them.”

He had also revealed that out of his serious concern over terrorism, he set up a committee under him that included judges from each provincial high court to expedite terrorism cases. Every month, he had said, the said committee used to meet and review the cases of terrorism to ensure that there were no delays.”

The official said that all the drama of presenting some innocent people as alleged terrorists and criminals was the part of a conspiracy against the country’s judiciary just to deceive the outside world that our judges were supporting terrorism and were hard liners.

By: Muhammad Ahmad Noorani, Islamabad
Published in The News, Monday, March 24, 2008

Principle of Growth

No horse gets anywhere until he is harnessed.
No stream or gas drives anything until it is confined.
Niagara is never turned into light and power until it is tunneled.
Life grows great only when it is focused, dedicated and disciplined.

Pakistan Day

On this day 68 years back, Muslims of India passed an historic resolution at, the then, Minto Park Lahore, situated near Badshai Mosque built during the period when Mughals ruled India, and where Minar-e-Pakistan stands now.

This Resolution resulted in creation of a new Muslim country, Pakistan, on the face of this globe at 11:57 PM on 14th August, 1947.

Today we celebrate the 68th anniversary of this Resolution.

LONG LIVE PAKISTAN

Why the Brick ?

A young and successful executive was traveling down a neighborhood street, going a bit too fast in his new Jaguar.. He was watching for kids darting out from between parked cars and slowed down when he thought he saw something. As his car passed, no children appeared. Instead, a brick smashed into the Jag’s side door! He slammed on the brakes and backed the Jag back to the spot where the brick had been thrown.

The angry driver then jumped out of the car, grabbed the nearest kid and pushed him up
against a parked car shouting, “What was that all about and who are you? Just what the heck are you doing? That’s a new car and that brick you threw is going to cost a lot of money. Why did you do it?” The young boy was apologetic. “Please, mister…please, I’m sorry but I didn’t know what else to do,” He pleaded. “I threw the brick because no one else would stop…” With tears dripping down his face and off his chin, the youth pointed to a spot just around a parked car. “It’s my brother, “he said “He rolled off the curb and fell out of his wheelchair and I can’t lift him up.”

Now sobbing, the boy asked the stunned executive, “Would you please help me get him back into his wheelchair? He’s hurt and he’s too heavy for me..”

Moved beyond words, the driver tried to swallow the rapidly swelling lump in his throat. He hurriedly lifted the handicapped boy back into the wheelchair, then took out a linen handkerchief and dabbed at the fresh scrapes and cuts. A quick look told him everything was going to be okay. “Thank you and may God bless you,” the grateful child told the stranger. Too shook up for words, the man simply watched the boy! push his wheelchair-bound brother down the sidewalk toward their home.

It was a long, slow walk back to the Jaguar. The damage was very noticeable, but the driver never bothered to repair the dented side door. He kept the dent there to remind him of this message: “Don’t go through life so fast that someone has to throw a brick at you to get your attention!” God whispers in our souls and speaks to our hearts. Sometimes when we don’t have time to listen, He has to throw a brick at us. It’s our choice to listen or not.

Go Musharraf Go

A genuinely concerned voice on the other end of the line asked “so, is there really democracy in Pakistan now?” It was Marianne Murfett, a dear friend from law school, now a senior associate at a top London law firm. I was stumped. Now how do I answer that? I scrambled for words and gave her a less than satisfactory answer, barely summarizing a deceptively complex reply to this seemingly straightforward question.

If I wasn’t worried about running up her phone bill, this is what I would tell Marianne about the new democracy in Pakistan:

We, the people of Pakistan feel strangely empowered. This unfamiliar feeling comes from the simple act of dropping our votes in ballot boxes and then watching leaders with a genuine mandate form government. Something that you probably take for granted in your country.

But my dear Marianne, how can I tell you that there is real democracy in my country when a dictator, who declared himself our president through illegal, immoral and unconstitutional measures, continues to rule over us.

Let me give you a brief round up of our self-styled president’s deeds: When General Musharraf feared that the courts might hold him ineligible to become president, he declared martial law, held our constitution in abeyance and ousted the senior most cadre of our judiciary. He mauled our constitution in order to give himself outrageous powers. And when judges protested against the illegality of such acts he house-arrested them and their families and held them as prisoners of conscience (yes, including young school-going children who have not been allowed to attend school, visit the doctor, or even step into their own courtyard for some fresh air!). He unlawfully arrested some of our most respected and senior lawyers who were not only held in prisons meant for the most hardened criminals but were also beaten and physically manhandled. Lest people made too much noise over all this, he then muzzled the media and banned certain private channels till they were ready to behave and play by his rules!

Here is a man who has perversely violated fundamental human rights. He has put the principles of democracy through the shredder and has shown utter disregard for the rule of law and supremacy of the constitution. I ask you, how can we ever expect real democracy to flourish under his dark shadow? How can the most potent symbol of anti-democratic beliefs and practices contribute to strengthening democratic institutions?

This is not all. The problem does not end with General (r) Musharraf. It extends to those forces which he represents and who have enabled him to retain control and rule by force. These forces are, (a) the internal conspirators– our corrupt and morally parched ‘establishment’ which has sold its soul to the devil and, (b) the American administration which cares not a tad that my country, its men, women and children are suffering as collateral damage to their ‘war on terror’.

The quid pro quo is simple: he does their work and fights their war on our soil. On America’s call, he turns our army on our own people and then watches civilians face retribution in the form of suicide bombings ripping through the heart of our cities. And in return he is duly awarded with the reins of our country and doles of ‘aid’ to fatten our military. These forces are where the real power vests. Their individual as well as collective agenda can only succeed at the expense of Pakistan’s national interest–and hence, Pakistan is suffering.

In a genuine democracy each institution of the state, be it parliament, the executive or the judiciary, function as per their role envisaged by constitution. These institutions are the driving engines of the state and help it remain afloat. One pillar of the state should not be beaten into submission by another. They are meant to respect each other’s role and at all times submit themselves to the ultimate word of law.

But the warrior instinct of the ex-general knows no submission. To retreat is to accept defeat and the only way forward in any combat is to destroy all that stands in his way. So the general marched on ravaging every piece of law that stood in his way to powerdom. With a stroke of his pen, he unilaterally validated his self-admittedly illegal acts and further awarded himself with perverse powers. The skewed distribution of power amongst our state organs sneers at the very concept of democracy. How democratic our new democracy will be shall depend hugely on the next government’s ability to correct these imbalances of power and allow our state institutions to function independently, without fear or favour.

However, subtle warnings against any measures to undermine the ex-general’s authority are surfacing even before the new parliament has been sworn in. As if the support of the establishment and the US were not enough to intimidate his opponents, Mr Musharraf has now taken to openly brandishing his relations with the army. In Davos earlier this year Mr Musharraf said: “His (General Kayani’s) loyalty is personal to me”. In Jacobabad on the March 7, he said: “There is a rumour that now there is a distance between the president and the army. These rumours are baseless and fabricated.

Is Mr Musharraf not increasingly sounding like the school bully? Weak from within, vulnerable as an individual, but belligerent on the strength of another. I ask you, in which democracy do you have the purported president trying to intimidate the judiciary, parliament and civil society by flaunting the support of the army. Is this not a travesty of democracy?

Just take the issue of the restoration of judges. In the historic Murree Declaration Nawaz Sharif and Asif Zardari have promised that the deposed judiciary will be restored within 30 days of them forming government. Super! It’s good to see our leaders speaking our mind. However, Musharraf remains adamant that his decision to remove the judges was a ‘constitutional act’ (funny man!) and cannot be challenged in the parliament. There are reports of immense pressure from the GHQ and its patron embassy in Islamabad for the two leaders to roll back all plans to rehabilitate the judiciary-consequences be damned.

I ask you, how can there be real democracy under a so-called president who loathes the independence of judiciary and serves his foreign masters better than his own people? How can there ever be real democracy without a free and independent judiciary?

But my dear Marianne, we have not lost hope. With the lawyer’s movement, the awakening of our civil society and the role of the media, dictatorship has been dealt a blow and real democracy now stands a true chance. The common man or ‘civil society’ deserves a special mention here for fearlessly standing behind the media and the legal fraternity in their fight against oppression.

Armed with banners, placards and an awe inspiring spirit they raise slogans which leave no room for ambiguity: “Restore the judiciary” “Go Musharraf Go” (did Musharraf not say that he would leave if the people no longer wanted him?) Ordinary men and women, girls and boys, and even children from all walks of life are seen taking the frontline at demonstrations and protests. They are mercilessly beaten with batons and are bombarded with teargas shells. But this only fuels their spirits and reinforces the demand that Musharraf must go.

Mr Musharraf warns us that ‘a war between the presidency and the newly elected parliament could be catastrophic’. The man still does not realize that it is he who is at war, not only with parliament and the judiciary but also the people of Pakistan.

By: Alizeh Haider, a barrister and human rights activist currently based in the UAE.
Email: alizeh_haider@yahoo.com

Our democracy — or theirs?

As the political parties arrange the jigsaw of government into a moderately coherent — if transitional — picture much is being said about democracy and the democratic process. Much of what is being said seems to lack form and clarity — and is probably not meant to as those at the microphone in this power-broking phase are more interested in effect than substance. For the people the sense of relief at an election that was no more corrupt than most in south Asia is beginning to dissipate, to be replaced by the one-size-fits-all phlegmatic cynicism that is the default position of the average man and woman in the street.

With democracy, even Pakistan’s democracy-lite, you get what you vote for. And what you get is not necessarily what you want, particularly when the choices on offer are as unappetising as those currently writing the menu for the upcoming political meal. Despite obvious flaws in the process and a tainted political cohort, Pakistan has made a positive move in a different political direction. That might not be the direction of ‘democracy’ in terms of how it is understood by the developed nations, but it is a direction that is a significant shift away from the voting behaviours of the past and towards a more pluralist, less tribal, polity of the future. It looks nothing like the genteel ‘democracy’ of Washington or Brussels but it is a move towards a local interpretation of democracy that will be just as valid as any elsewhere.

In most western countries the multiparty democratic system emerged from the labour movements of the 18th and 19th centuries. The modern labour movement extended enfranchisement and steered political parties which were hitherto distinctly feudal and mostly moribund, into political mobilisation. People began to feel as if they were part of the political process and that their vote mattered. It was a time of enormous social change. Literally, the face and fabric of society was transformed. Sewers were built, and hospitals and railways. Child labour was abolished and literacy rates rocketed as nations industrialised — needing workers who could read and write; and the working man for the first time began to get a sense of security in the workplace. This was a time before the devaluation of political coinage, and a time when the difference between the political parties was sufficient to allow voters to make real choices.

Today, with the aging social-democratic parties in gentle decline choice is no longer an option in any real sense because the difference in policies between the parties is so fine as to be almost invisible; in effect by choosing one you are choosing all. The coats and badges may be different but they are the same underneath. Voting for many in the west has lost both meaning and value — evidenced by fewer people voting — as more and more reject the union between politics and the market.

Business and politics rub along in an adoring symbiosis—politics feeds on money, business has it. Politics feeds on money. Business has it. A marriage made in heaven. America is perhaps the clearest example of the paradigm as millions pour into the coffers of presidential hopefuls. America is also no longer (indeed it might be argued that it never really was) a democracy; instead it is what it always wanted to be — a plutocracy only vaguely mediated by democratic process. In other states the media, a branch of the business machine, has merged with politics and in Italy the dominance of the Berlusconi family is an ignoble example of a feudal press-baron looming large in the political landscape. The west, it is suggested, has moved to a position wherein the markets dominate and largely control political process and consumerism is established as the overriding societal ethos. Democracy, a shy and retiring animal, has disappeared in a welter of ‘freedoms’ and become indistinguishable from the market that bustles around it.

Attempts to export democracy in recent years have not always been successful. Russia was to be an example of the democratic triumph of the free market over a centralized, archaic and corrupt central control that stifled growth and development, the movement of goods and people and capital. The slightly grubby reality today is that the free market never really happened — or rather has yet to do so in a way that others might feel comfortable with — at least, not for the majority of Russians. The west, in its concerted efforts to promote and embed the free market under Yeltsin gave rise to the ransacking of its most valuable natural resources by his political cronies. The advice of the brokers of democracy and the Alan Greenspans of the free world seem to have done little beyond create a new cadre of Boyars and an extremely effective indigenous mafia.

Post to Yeltsin and Gorbachev, we have Putin, whose personal vision of democracy is doubtless shaped by his years as a secret policeman and whose personal omnipotence — validated through democratic elections — is redolent of a past littered with despots by the dozen. It may be possible that what went before colours what comes after, and that nations may have characteristics that ‘read across’ historical strata; and in the case of Russia to the type of democracy that is emerging and the way in which the internal free market has evolved.

The Post-colonial nations have not all fared well either. Africa is something of a democratic desert and the south Asian states with the exception of India have a decidedly patchy record of democracy. China, our neighbour to the north, remains an authoritarian communist state yet is economically bullish — clearly authoritarianism is not necessarily an impediment to national wealth. It does not work for everybody either and there have been some spectacular failures of authoritarianism, most notably in the Latin American countries over the last four decades; but a case can be made for democracy not always being best suited to achieving the conditions necessary for economic takeoff.

Amy Chua, writing in ‘World on Fire’ says ‘…Democracy is far from a sufficient condition for benign governance in the kind of multi-racial societies that are common in Africa and Asia.’ Pakistan is arguably not multi-racial but it is ethnically diverse and riven by sectarianism, hardly the best seed-bed for democracy. It is as feudal as when the Tolpuddle Martyrs first put their toe in the democratic waters and it most decidedly does not want many of the ‘freedoms’ that come packaged with western values. What it wants most of all is to find its own place, its own level, and its own democracy. It will be untidy, unruly, occasionally teetering on the brink of disaster and whatever form of democracy eventually evolves — and it could take generations, it did in the west — it is probably not going to look much like that of the EU or even that of India or Bangladesh. It will have elements of authoritarianism and militarism and will probably not be particularly benign. It will also be the product of the people of Pakistan, who have just demonstrated a growing political sophistication as voters that bodes well for the future. Democracy? Yes, please…but with ‘made in Pakistan’ written on the package it comes in.

By Chris Cork, a British social worker settled in Pakistan.
Email:manticore73@gmail.com

US yearns for Pakistan capitulation

Pakistan has given them bases and logistic support as well as intelligence sharing but what the US is now demanding from Islamabad has shocked the Defence and Foreign Ministries and the initial reaction has been a rejection of what are highly intrusive demands for the US military and auxiliary personnel in Pakistan.

This scribe has learnt of the latest set of 11 demands the US has put to the Government of Pakistan through the Ministry of Defence. As one goes down the list of the demands, they become increasingly untenable.

The first demand is for granting of a status that is accorded to the technical and administrative staff of the US embassy. The second demand is that these personnel be allowed to enter and exit Pakistan on mere National Identification (for example a driving licence) that is without any visas.

Next, the US is demanding that Pakistan accept the legality of all US licences, which would include arms licences. This is followed by the demand that all these personnel be allowed to carry arms and wear uniforms as they wish, across the whole of Pakistan.

Then comes a demand that directly undermines our sovereignty – that the US criminal jurisdiction be applicable in Pakistan to US nationals. In other words, these personnel would not be subject to Pakistani law.

In territories of US allies like Japan, this condition exists in areas where there are US bases and has become a source of major resentment in Japan, especially because there are frequent cases of US soldiers raping Japanese women and getting away with it. In the context of Pakistan, the demand to make the US personnel above the Pakistani law would not be limited to any one part of the country! So the Pakistani citizens will become fair game for US military personnel as well as other auxiliary staff like military contractors.

The next demand is for exemption from all taxes, including indirect taxes like excise duty, etc. The seventh demand is for inspection-free import and export of all goods and materials. So we would not know what they are bringing in or taking out of our country – including Gandhara art as well as sensitive materials.

At number eight is the demand for free movement of vehicles, vessels including aircraft, without landing or parking fees! Then, at number nine, there is a specific demand that selected US contractors should also be exempted from tax payments.

At number ten there is the demand for free of cost use of US telecommunication systems and using all necessary radio spectrum. The final demand is the most dangerous and is linked to the demand for non-applicability of Pakistani law for US personnel. Demand number eleven is for a waiver of all claims to damage to loss or destruction of others’ property, or death to personnel or armed forces or civilians. The US has tried to be smart by not using the word “other” for death but, given the context, clearly it implies that US personnel can maim and kill Pakistanis and destroy our infrastructure and weaponry with impunity.

Effectively, if accepted, these demands would give the US personnel complete freedom to do as they please in Pakistan – in fact, they would take control of events in areas of their interest.

It is no wonder then that Pakistan’s Defence Ministry, the Foreign Office and the Law Ministry have reacted with complete rejection. But, as one official source feared, “This is just the opening salvo of demands and the US can be expected to bargain in order to seek the most critical of these demands.”

As he put it, “Any hesitation or weakness that the US senses on part of Pakistan will put us on a fatal slippery slope to total submission. This would result in increasing instability in the country.”

So, for those who feel there is bonhomie and complete understanding between the Pakistan military and the US military, and the trouble only exists at the political level, it is time to do a serious rethink. The first step in dealing rationally with our indigenous terrorist problem holistically and credibly is to create space between ourselves and the US. As the US adage goes: “There is no free lunch”. For Pakistan lunching with the US has become unacceptably costly. When US embassy in Islamabad was approached for reaction to this report, Elizabeth Colton, US Embassy Spokesperson, said, “We will not dignify this attack with a comment.”

By Dr. Shireen M Mazari, Director General, Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad.
Email: smnews80@hotmail.com

Time to take stock of US threat

By Dr. Shireen M Mazari, Director General, Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad.
Email: smnews80@hotmail.com

What is with Pakistanis and the Americans? Despite over sixty-one years of independence; despite our successful struggle to acquire nuclear capability in the face of massive hurdles put in our way by these folk, despite the dismal record of our past military alliance with the US and its allies; despite the constant abuse being hurled at us Pakistanis in particular and Muslims in general, by them, post-9/11, we have continued to sustain the imperialists and neo imperialists in their misplaced assumption of the “White Man’s Burden”.

How else can we explain our continuing tolerance of the abuse — a form of psychological terrorisation — being meted out to us by the US? Their Administration continues with its mantra of “do more”, and continues to scamper to build new political favourites as old ones lose domestic currency. Their politicians in and out of Congress hysterically threaten us with dire aid cut-offs if we do not deliver — although the only delivery they will ever be satisfied with is the handing over of our nuclear assets, Dr Khan and at least an Osama look-alike to appease their populace. As for the US media, we are definitely their bete noir, not least because our leadership is so readily accessible and prone to erring on the side of indiscretion — including our leadership-in-waiting. All and sundry make pronouncements on sensitive foreign policy issues with no thought to the implications and unintended consequences.

As for the US military, it is playing an interesting double game at the moment. The command in Washington critiques us, while at the operational level on the ground in the Trilateral Commission, they feign an atmosphere of camaraderie and goodwill which makes our local commanders adopt an unnecessarily accommodative approach towards them.

It is in this bizarre environment that our own security situation has been vitiated even as we have sought to please the US ad nauseum. Certainly, we have had a terrorist problem even before 9/11, but the US-led war on terror in Afghanistan has distorted our indigenous terrorist problem as well as aggravating it. To make matters worse, the US has adopted a duplicitous and treacherous strategy vis a vis the Pakistani state. On the one hand, it wants us to fight its designed war against terror, but it is itself supporting Baloch terrorist groups with the aim of destabilising both Iran’s Sistan and Pakistan’s Balochistan. The use of terror group Jundullah by the US against the Iranian state has been discussed in the US media. Additionally, the US has done nothing to push the Karzai government to close the offices of Pakistani terrorist groups like the BLA — now renamed the Baloch Republican Army, after the UK declared BLA a terrorist organisation.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. US citizens joined some Baloch expats in 2006 to launch the so-called “American friends of Balochistan” (AFB) in Washington DC with Robert Selle, apparently a journalist, as its chairman. The aim of the group is to separate Balochistan from Pakistan and its level of funding tends to show more than a passive acceptance by the US establishment. Interestingly, the group was formed a year after French diplomat Frederic Grare went to Washington and began claiming expertise on Balochistan.

Then there is the Baloch Society of North America, established in 2005, which is active against both the Pakistani and Iranian states and has access also in Canada and the UK, post the BLA ban. There is also a big question mark over the diversion of funds received from international donors by the World Sindhi Congress (WSC) and World Sindh Institute (WSI), to terrorists in Pakistan rather than for the philanthropic purposes for which the funding was given. Both these organisations have given financial support to the Sindh Liberation Army which has claimed responsibility for a number of bomb blasts in Sindh. To make matters worse, US officials even maintain contact with members of these groups in Pakistan.

The issue is why America has failed to monitor or curtail such activities emanating from its territory. After all, we all know that terrorist organisations have to have their political wings to raise funds and the US has attacked many religious groups on this count in Pakistan. We also know how Washington has emphasised the issue of terrorist financing and many Muslim charities have suffered on this count. Are we not interested in some level of reciprocity from the US?

With all these shenanigans which directly undermine our security, we have allowed US bases in the sensitive province of Balochistan, as well as in Sindh, and there is now evidence that they are also using a short refurbished runway near Tarbela for launching Predator flights. With all this logistical support offered by Pakistan, where is the US reciprocity on anti-terrorism? Of course, if we Pakistanis had even an iota of dignity, we would stop all logistical support and let Congress do its worst. What will that be? US marines coming into Pakistan? They can barely manage Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment.

Unfortunately, despite being abused all around, we continue to do US bidding — much against our own long term interests. Now we hear US military personnel are coming in to not only train our paramilitary forces but also to accompany them on missions within Pakistan. There has also been talk of the US “training” our military in counter-insurgency. What absurdities are we reducing ourselves to? Has no one studied the US’s dismal record in this field — both in Vietnam and Iraq, not to mention in our own neighbourhood in Afghanistan? All that will happen with the additional influx of US military personnel in Pakistan is more acts of terror against our own security forces.

The only way to fight a successful war on terror against our own indigenous terrorist problem is to begin thinning out US personnel from Pakistan and adopting a holistic approach in dealing with the tribals. To make it a perceptually credible national effort we have to create space between ourselves and the Americans so that our security forces can become more effective with local support. Unless the locals flush out the terrorists, the state will see no success in this war. This is where the ANP victory can play a crucial role in a two-pronged strategy of dialogue, development and establishment of law and order. We have to overcome the psychological confidence deficit that prevents us from creating the necessary distance between ourselves and the US.

Is it not interesting that post the ANP victory in NWFP, when it was seen that the local people had rejected the extremists and elections had been conducted more or less peacefully in that province, and there was hope of the new political leadership using a policy of dialogue to isolate the militants and terrorists — something that went against the US policy — suddenly we have been hit with a spate of suicide attacks with even funerals being targeted — something that has not happened before.

Unfortunately, so far our ruling elite seem unable or unwilling to see the US design for what it is: a weakening of the Pakistani state and nation with perhaps a long term goal of balkanisation. After all, US scholars with close links to the establishment are referring increasingly to this end goal. Yet even here we seem to retain a strange subservience and continue to give academic space to perennial Pakistan-bashers, especially in terms of access to data and information. Such is our continuing hangover of kowtowing to old and new imperialist powers. No wonder we Pakistanis today face a double-headed terrorist threat: psychological terrorisation of the state by the US, and the physical home grown militant terrorism. One feeds on the other.

What Goes on in USA

An American Wife, aged about 50 years who is pure American living in some part of Nevada, reveals a bit of her Experience in her own country.

I was told by an engineer’s wife when I arrived here, to expect appliances that touch the water to be replaced every two years. That means hot water heater, washing machine….even the faucets. This last machine lasted two months longer.

I knew about the arsenic (percentage in water) but the same engineer’s wife who informed me about my appliances also let me know the arsenic levels in the water. We try to have as little as possible to do with the water. We drink and cook with bottled water.

America is misunderstood worldwide. It is not what people think it is globally. I spent a month trying to explain the school system to a woman in India who insisted that everything was free as far as education went….and wanted India to follow the footsteps of American schools. It was as if she did not believe me how the taxes are distributed as to the population of an area. I told her that those school lunches that she thinks are free….are not free….and they are so loaded with fat and salt it would make the angels cry. They make the fast food restaurants look good. If I had a choice of serving my child school cafeteria food or McDonalds…..I would take her to McDonalds and get a salad. That is not saying anything good.

Our water system has been on the books for years, for filtration……..but due to greed…..the budget never seems to be able to handle the filtration system that would take the arsenic out or at least reduce it down.

The U.S. only cares about money….not people, not resources….nothing but money. What the U.S. has forgotten about since about the 1980’s is that it is people who built the country…..and companies used to be family oriented. That is no more.

Anyway….I am tired of American lifestyles….I cannot handle much more. The stress of everything is beginning to wear on me. My own family is falling apart. My only child (daughter) is doing her own thing….my husband is so obsessed with gambling that he got a special credit card for doing it. I have no choice but to leave….and to where I do not know….but America is killing me. I have to get out of here. I have done what I can.

General Musharraf Didn’t Care

“We had urged Musharraf many times during the corps commanders meeting that the PML-Q leadership was the most condemned and castigated personalities. They are the worst politicians who remained involved in co-operative scandals and writing off loans. But Musharraf never heard our advice,” Kiyani said while recalling discussions in their high profile meetings.

He said one of their colleagues, who was an accountability chief at that time, had sought permission many times for proceeding against the King’s party top leaders but was always denied.

Kiyani asked Musharraf to quit, the sooner the better, as otherwise the country would be in a serious trouble.

Former corps commander of Rawalpindi, Lt-Gen (retd) Jamshed Gulzar Kiyani said majority of corps commanders had continued opposing Musharraf’s alliance with top leadership of the PML-Q.

“Not just in one meeting, we opposed his alignment with these corrupt politicians in many meetings but who cared. Now Musharraf has been disgraced everywhere, thanks to his political cronies.”