Ali Malik's blog

An assessment of Pak-US Relationship!

2009-11-12T09:32:00.001+05:00

Diagnosing Pakistan  
By Kathy Kemper - 11/10/09 02:34 PM ET

Husain Haqqani offered a candid assessment of where Pakistan stands at my IFE / INFO Global Connections Public Policy Roundtable last Friday. In addition to being Pakistan’s youngest ambassador to the U.S., Haqqani was a strong advocate of the late Benazir Bhutto, who stood as a symbol of democracy in a country where dictatorship has long prevailed.   

Pakistanis, Haqqani noted, believe that the U.S. has long used their country, not engaged it. Hillary Clinton’s trip there was significant to the extent that they saw a different side of our country. In attending town halls and visiting colleges and universities, she tried to demonstrate that the U.S. is genuinely concerned with Pakistan’s welfare. Polls showed that Pakistani approval ratings of the U.S. went up by 7 percent after her visit. Unfortunately, though, one high-profile visit is unlikely to do much, because many of the country’s woes are historically rooted. Pakistanis had no idea what suicide bombers were prior to 9/11. The U.S. supported radical Islamists in their fight against the Soviet Union, but it’s precisely those Islamists who are now waging jihad across the globe, including in Pakistan; many Pakistanis regard the Taliban as an existential threat to their country.

Although Pakistan’s economy is back on track (largely due to IMF lending), insecurity limits its ability to achieve sustained economic growth. It shares a border with a hostile neighbor (India), with a desperately poor country in which the Taliban is reasserting its influence (Afghanistan), and with a nation that’s in the midst of tremendous domestic upheaval (Iran). Being in a near-constant struggle against internal and external threats, real and imagined, has its consequences: Pakistan spends far more on defense than education, with the result that the country has only a 38 percent literacy rate. As both Ambassador Said Jawad of Afghanistan and Ambassador Husain Haqqani say, "We live in a dangerous neighborhood."

Haqqani noted that India is perhaps the biggest elephant in the room. Pakistan is wary of the Indo-U.S. relationship, which is robust and multifaceted. He mentioned that India is Boeing’s largest customer, and also that 26 members of the Obama administration are Indian-American; facts like these naturally make Pakistan nervous.

As much as it’s concerned with India, Pakistan is also anxious to see how its relationship with the U.S. evolves. Haqqani noted that Pakistanis want to receive credit for their counterterrorism efforts; Pakistan has killed or captured more al Qaeda leaders than has any other country. He concluded by saying that the U.S. won’t truly be able to win hearts and minds there until it adopts a more comprehensive engagement strategy — one that has a political element and a socioeconomic element. Haqqani encouraged American companies to invest in Pakistan, offering a Thomas Friedman-like thought that Pakistanis need to be making boxer shorts for Wal-Mart, not boxes of bombs.

Whether or not that hope is realized will depend a lot on how Pakistan’s military fares against the Taliban. Let’s hope that it succeeds.

Kathy Kemper is founder and CEO of the Institute for Education, a nonprofit foundation that recognizes and promotes leadership and civility locally, nationally and in the world community.

Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/foreign-policy/67203-diagnosing-pakistan

Power Play in Pakistan - Analysis and Consequences

2009-11-05T12:30:00.001+05:00

On recent political developments, I would not waste my time on dealing with the principled arguments, for post mid-night GHQ meeting, the Jeddah dealers (who happened to be convicts as well) had taken the highest moral ground in opposing NRO (a law for mere accused). Neither am I going to ponder on the dichotomy that the biggest beneficiary of NRO, MQM has become its principled opposition. For in power play, talk of principles is waste of time.
The realistic analysis thus should revolve around the following questions:
• Why Army wants Asif Ali Zardari out?
• In this battle of Army (Establishment) vs. PPP, will army succeed in ousting Asif Ali Zardari?
• What are the options that Army has, and how practical they are?
• What are the options of Asif Ali Zardari?
• What will be the consequences if establishment succeeds? What will be the consequences if it fails?
I think the reason to oust Zardari can be traced back to PPP’s confrontation with Army on issues like India policy, Kerry Lugar Bill, civilian control over ISI, difference of opinion on good Taliban vs. Bad Taliban doctrine of national security establishment, and difference of opinion on permanent settlement of Afghan issue. More importantly, there is a genuine fear on part of elements in Army that if the current process is allowed to get unchecked, it will close the doors for a military intervention forever because of public mood against military intervention and commitment of international powers for a democracy in Pakistan.
Asif Ali Zardari has been continuously under attack by his opponents led by Army. Starting from Long March, when Army’s support seemed covert (though civilian bureaucracy’s was overt) to Kerry Lugar Bill and now NRO, it seems the design to undermine the reemergence of PPP to the helm of affairs in Pakistan through the Frankenstein of judiciary is well on its way. The only difference is that this time the PPP’s rise is backed by a wave of a massive international support coupled with her large vote bank.
Till now the establishment has succeeded in undermining PPP on at least two occasions, one on the issue of restoration of judges and the other on NRO. On the contrary, in the greater scheme of things, PPP’s wins have been securing all key political posts and a victory on Kerry Lugar Bill issue.
Establishment, led by Army, in this battle has been organized and is in full control of mass media. On the other hand, PPP seems to have her share of gaffes when it comes to managing the issues of on-going power play. First it erred in not having a comprehensive plan to tackle the post-Governer Raj situation in Punjab. You cannot plan on stopping long march while having Shahbaz Sharif’s loyal bureaucracy in place. It seems the docile, all-compromising nature of Prime Minister Gillani was to be blamed for it. Another failure came on media management front. If you plan on surviving in a hostile power game, you cannot do it with Fauzia Wahab as your media manager. Even bigger folly came in taking the support of allies for granted on KLB and NRO, without realizing their close relationship with the establishment.
From where things are, Asif Ali Zardari seems under considerable pressure. But for now, he cannot be taken out through any constitutional process, for 2/3 majority in parliament is not there to impeach him and because of immunity he enjoys being the president; he cannot be removed through courts even if NRO is set aside by the courts. Army’s best bet is to pressurize him, force his closest team members out through courts, and in the process hope that a larger chunk of PPP MPs breakaway.
Army’s another problem is that if PPP is ousted; no coalition can be formed without combining Q and N factions of PML. This arrangement will be hard to negotiate. Army will be hoping on a breakaway in the PPP led by PM Gillani for its plan to fall in place. Army’s biggest advantage is that it has shown beyond doubt that it still controls enough political parties in Pakistan to turn a government with comfortable majority into a minority government. Another thing on which Army is banking is that in the present regional situation, US and Western powers will overlook any political adventure on part of Army because of their reliance on it. We analyze this in detail below.
For Asif Zardari, he still holds card of PPP vote bank and his strong support in Sindh. He will also be banking on support from Western powers. The biggest variable, yet unknown for its silent style of diplomacy, is China. How far will China go to extend support to any post-Zardari government and how clear it signals her role in post-Zardari Pakistan will be a key piece to solve the political puzzle of Pakistan. Same goes for United States. Pakistani establishment’s calculation is that America wants to cut-and-run from Afghanistan, just as they did in Iraq. This assertion to me seems flawed on two accounts. First, a deep analysis of Americans withdrawal plans from Iraq clearly indicate that US is not leaving Iraq for foreseeable future and second, it is not showing any signs of disengagement from Afghanistan to the extent it is disengaging from Iraq. Also, any quick disengagement from Afghanistan will be preceded by something on the lines of Joe Biden’s Pakistan first doctrine where drone attacks on Quetta etc are highly likely. Pakistani establishment’s calculation is that because of its inevitability, US will accept its actions. Now whether US is willing to revert to a policy of 90s, leaving Af-Pak to Pakistani and Saudi security apparatus, is yet to be seen. One thing that can be said for sure is that positions US and China take will play very heavy on the eventual outcome of this conflict. But above all, Asif Zardari’s survival will depend on his ability to mobilize a resistance in the event of his ouster and how well he displays the potential resistance at his ouster to his opponents.
If the present setup falls, Pakistan is likely to head into a period of extensive political instability. The length of this period will depend on the relationship between Q and N and the success of establishment in tearing apart PPP’s parliamentary party. It will also depend on the response of Mr. Zardari and PPP workers to any such act. Moreover, removal of Mr. Zardari is likely to lead to a major policy shift in war on terror where the distinction between good and bad Taliban will be back and will lead to a resurgence of religious extremism under government’s patronage carried out by good Taliban. Ouster of Mr. Zardari also has a potential of increasing Pakistan’s international isolation and economic hardship. More so, it will escalate the already existing threat of a nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan if, God forbid, another Mumbai like incidence happens.
For his part, if he survives this recent attack, Mr. Zardari and PPP will emerge stronger and it will be first major setback to Pakistan’s establishment in their fight with civilian leadership. Ironically, this battle for civilian supremacy, once again, has to be fought by PPP and PPP alone.

Sugar Crisis – Shouldn’t we be thinking free market?

2009-11-03T08:55:00.000+05:00

On October 29th, in Supreme Court, during a suo motto notice on sugar prices, Federal Govt. and mill owners agreed to sell sugar at a price fixed by the Lahore High Court. This has averted a standoff for now. However this seems to be an ad hoc arrangement on the pricing and is unlikely to address the shortage issue. There remain issues that need to be debated for they are not only linked with the current sugar crisis but go way beyond the sugar crisis to our overall economy. Unfortunately, the whole sugar debate has been argued in the gambit of superficial of greed and oppression and the real reasons for these events are a little deeper than what appear on the surface.
Pakistan’s economy has always been a variant of a socialist economy. The state has been sitting on the most lucrative economic opportunities directly (i.e. through nationalization) and indirectly. This is the reason of a whole range of economic issues we face and by devising a price formula, a problem created by the state’s intervention is being fixed by the same.
The food industries in general and sugar industry in particular are the most heavily regulated industries in Pakistan. The government has been controlling prices through imposition of import/export quotas and fixing prices. For sugar, the aim in the last decade was to protect a noncompetitive dying sugar industry. In real economic sense, the issue is not the higher price now but the price that people paid in the past to support a noncompetitive industry. If an industry is competitive no more, it better die down rather than being supported at the expense of consumers and taxpayers. To fix our economic mess, we need to consider this not only in the case of sugar but a whole range of other industries. Successive governments, in vain, have been trying for years to protect the textile industry. Same is for sports good industry and IT industry. And for this protectionism, a consumer in Pakistan is paying on average $1000-$3000 more for an average car of the same built and make and of poorer quality than does one in India. When the competitive advantage is lost, the smart societies plan a smooth transition of resources to the sectors which are still competitive. For us, protectionism remains our first big folly that has led to the present disaster.
Second folly is price control itself. Assume that some 25 miles from Lahore in Amritsar, the sugar is sold at India Rupees 32 (Appox. PKR 60). Sugar has a very large distribution network, involving dealers and sub-dealers in thousands across the country. When the government fixes a price at mill that is significantly below the regional price and enforces mills (the only entity where government can practically manage the price) to sell sugar to dealers at PKR 36 assuming that it will be sold at the retail at PKR 40, it leads to nothing but hoarding or smuggling to Amritsar or Afghanistan. Distributors can simply wait till the shortage forces the government to allow the import of the sugar at a higher than PKR 40 price thus allowing them to sell their stock at a higher price. Even if 10% of the distributors indulge in this, what you get in market is shortage of the commodity. One can argue that this act on the part of distributors is cruel but it does not change the ground reality and the public policy needs to be formulated on rationality and not the utopia.
Price fixing, at the best, partially solves problem in the short-term while making it emerge more severely in the future. Last year, we were dealing with shortage of wheat which we decided to fix with fixing the price of wheat. That has led to the lower production of sugarcane and a sugar crisis. Now, the rice crisis is on the horizon. This cannot go like this. Someone needs to take a bold step of deregulating the food market completely. Government’s intervention in the market has made the market inefficient and has led to rampant corruption on the part of bureaucratic bodies like TCP and PASSCO. It is time that the government leaves the market to its own and let the prices and supply and demand settle based on market dynamics. Government’s role in food supplies should, at the best, be to have buffer stock of food for security needs and to deal with famine like situations.
The process will be painful initially. This is a pain that has to be suffered, for if delayed, these long queues for food items will descent us into a chaos similar to that of former communist bloc. You suffer a bit now or you suffer a lot later is the choice we have. The short-term solutions, like paying to poor and philanthropy, will somewhat ease the pain on an inevitable path. In the longer run, we need to focus on increasing the purchasing power of our masses, for in a globalized economy, we will be crushed if we do not increase our spending power. We as a nation have very little time to be agents of change or else we will become its victims.

Pakistan Army - A Need to Change the National Security Doctrine

2009-10-16T22:30:00.007+06:00

We live in a world that sits on the brink of a world war. Never has there been more volatility in the world since early twentieth century. The volatility is of the magnitude that gave birth to two world wars and ended with the emergence of a new global order of post-colonial era.
Of a few possible flash points of this imminent conflict, the most serious are Af-Pak and Indo-Pak issues. Pakistan Army, marred by a series of internal and external changes on ground, has to take this factor into their calculation when they devise any strategy in their bid to hold on to the absolute power, they have enjoyed in Pakistan in last five decades.
Army in part created and in part allied with conservative fundamentalist elements who drew their strength from either religion or a perceived Ideology of Pakistan or a combination of both. It had done this historically against a strong liberal leftist movement, having special attraction among poor and among people of smaller provinces. In fact, Pakistan Army served as a gun to protect and ensure protected economy where certain classes, within and outside Army, thrived on a system of perks and privileges granted by the state.
Initially, it was Army through whom the derived their power. However, with time the conservative elements gained enough strength to become a force to reckon with. Thus started the infighting between the establishment of Pakistan on many fronts. On one level, Nawaz Sharif's fight with Ghulam Ishaq Khan, Asif Nawaz and ultimately Pervez Musharraf was a manifestation of this infighting amongst the ruling establishment of Pakistan. On another level, the fight between fundamentalist elements and Pakistan Army, especially in the backdrop of Lal Masjid Operation reflects this infighting.
Things have reached a point where in the triangle of Army, conservative elements and liberal democratic Pakistan, Army needs to ally with one of the two remaining elements to survive. Army realizes that the existential threat to all things Pakistani, including Army, comes from the conservative base who are not only fighting an armed war against the state but have penetrated into country’s bureaucracy, judiciary, media and even Army itself. This ideology has no room for an Armed Force modeled on British Military practices. If and when these forces triumph, the Army, just like all the other institutions, will be among the targets of these forces. Unfortunately, in the wake of this eminent threat that has weakened but not subsided, the debate within the Army seems to be stemming from the ideological beliefs of individuals, a strong sense of xenophobia, and a world view that has been proven wrong many times in last 7 years. Sometimes it seems as though the same elements are shaping/reshaping the debate within the Army. Army needs to weigh her options carefully and figure out how best to protect its power from complete erosion in Pakistan.
What Army needs to realize is that the near-collapse Pakistan was facing in 2007-08 was not because of one man. It was the result of an ideology and policy that spans more than 4 decades. It is through a series of surgical and cosmetic initiatives that The State of Pakistan has recovered a bit from abyss. Resorting to the same policies and embracing the same ideology will lead to similar consequences.
For now, Army seems bound to cut to size the present democratic setup. For this, it will need full support of PML-N, a conservative political party with substantial sympathy for Taliban and other hard-line organizations, along with covert support of outfits like JI, Tehrik-i-Insaaf etc who are open in their support for militants. This move is likely to strengthen these elements. The question both sides need to ask themselves is what will happen once PPP is out of picture. A rational analysis on part of Army is lacking as to whether it is better of letting the present setup work, root out the conservative challenge to its hegemony and to the state of Pakistan of which Army is the biggest stakeholder or to side with conservatives, root out the present setup and then settle score with conservative elements. In latter, Army will not have the much needed backing of liberal political forces, especially PPP, which was instrumental in Swat operation and other such gains Army has made against militants. Where things stand right now, it seems highly unlikely that Army will succeed in ensuring that it is not subservient to some other element in the new power equation. The question is whether it decides to be subservient to conservatives or to a genuine democratic setup.
In an impulsive thought process, one distant probability could be that Army, sensing the change in global power balance, is biding time by ensuing chaos through collaborating with fundamentalists. The only drawback of this approach is that once things reach the tipping point in chaos, they do not remain in control of anyone. Even if successful, the end result of this approach seems more likely to be advantage fundamentalists rather than advantage Pakistan Army. If the calculation is that the political conservatives Army is planning to ally with will be able to compensate for the popular support of the present setup, it seems unlikely. The political forces it is planning to align with will lose bulk of their support base the moment they start siding with Army against militants. Where will N or TI derive support if it becomes a part of a pro-US armed assault? And how can JI support any assault of armed militants?
To start with, this approach of siding with conservatives is not sustainable because of international considerations. Just when US and allies are willing to offer reward for Taliban who might renounce their previous ideology and are willing to accommodate Pashtuns in any permanent Afghan setup, it will be naive to assume that they are going to let go Afghanistan any time soon or are going to agree to a pre-9/11 status quo in the region. This is the biggest factor being overlooked by Pakistan Army in their strategic calculations. If history is anything to go by, Pakistan Army has time and again failed to realize the geo-political realities of the region and to come up with a practical strategic roadmap for the institution as well as the country and it seems this time its calculations are no different.
Army might be thinking that because of its vitality in the region, as has been the case in the past, US will tolerate any of Army's misadventures in the domestic political scenario of Pakistan. In my humble opinion, post 9/11, US has not spent US$ 2.1 trillion in Afghanistan and Iraq to agree to a status quo. It seems evident that greater civilian control through elected representatives in Turkey, Pakistan and Lebanon (the buffer states between the modern world and the Middle East) remains cornerstone of US/West’s policy in the new world order. My fear is that if Army pushes too far against the democratic setup and present regime, it will have to face a very sharp response from international community. In this course of conflict, the day will be very unfortunate for Pakistan when international forces warn Pakistan's Security Apparatus to ensure the physical safety of President of Pakistan.

Army might be hoping that in any open conflict with West, China or KSA will come to their aid. In case of China, this assertion has been proven wrong time and again in recent times (most notably Kargil and situation emerging after attack on Indian Parliament). Also, China is apprehensive of growing militancy and rise of conservative elements in Pakistan and considers it a destabilizing factor in its western areas. As for Saudi Arabia, it does not have enough clout to pull such Anti-US venture through in a region like Af-Pak.
No matter how one sees it, short of an all out chaos, Army's best option is to agree to a subservient role to the civilian setup and sit with the civilian govt. to layout parameters for national security doctrine ensuring the preservation of Army's clout to the degree it can be protected and ensuring that Pakistan's vital interests vis-a-vis India, Nuclear Program, and economic affairs are safeguarded. If Army's concerns are these issues, I am hopeful that civilian setup and Army can reach a consensus. If Army wants to assert itself as the dominant player in policy making and national politics, then I am afraid the days for it are numbered. In that case, Army must be ready to face the monster, the conservatives in this country are. I would recommend that this is high time that an informal think-tank should be established comprising sane heads from all political parties in parliament and of notable national security professionals and analysts to analyze the security, foreign affairs and defense affairs. The forum should debate openly all the issues confronting Pakistan’s national security and discuss possible courses of action without the fear of being labeled unpatriotic etc. The aim should be to come up with bare-minimum consensus on key national security issues san hypocrisy in light of emerging global realities. It is time to be true to ourselves rather than being marred by a world view created in utopia. Without it our survival seems at stake.

Kerry Lugar Bill and Pakistan's internal power game

2009-10-10T00:08:00.002+06:00

The cat is out of the bag. Pakistan is heading for the most decisive moment of its political history. The issue at stake is not merely the survival of PPP government but also of future direction of Pakistani politics, foreign policy and social fabric. What bothers me the most is that all the debate around this bill is mere rhetoric. The opponents of this bill in Pakistan are playing on rhetoric and have no substance to offer. Not even one article or discussion has actually pointed to the sections of the bill on which the opponents of the bill have objections. The usual buzz words of ghairat, sovereignty etc are used without substantiating the points of contention in the bill.

In fact, the whole line of attack of the opponents of the bill is absurd and opportunistic. Shaheen Sehbai, Kamran Khan and PML-N etc a week ago were saying that US does not trust the present civilian setup of Pakistan and thus will not give them any aid. Now once the aid is here, the same elements are saying that the civilian govt. convinced Americans to insert these clauses. Now I am confused on which of their assertions should I believe. How could the govt. on which Americans were not willing to trust to give aid overnight convinced Americans to insert these clauses and what does this contradiction tell us about the credibility of opponents of this bill? More importantly, in the words of Sheikh Rasheed, is American Senate or House a “sola saal ki dosheza” who got swayed by Ambassador Haqqani to add these clauses to the bill? Come on, talk sense and give us a break, you propaganda organs of military establishment.

Also, the opponents, aligned with the Pakistan Army, say that we do not need aid on such humiliating conditions. Now, as the bill states and we can all read this that all the conditions are for military aid. Now if the military does not need the aid on these conditions why all this fuss. If there will be no military aid, there will be no conditions. And if military itself needs military aid, then sir beggars cannot be choosers is what your media mouth organs tell us day in day out.

From food aid coming on camels with placards of “Thank You USA” to the conditions of Pressler amendment, in which 12 Presidential certificates were required on issues ranging from democratization, to rollback of nuclear program, to human rights violations came under Zia Ul Haq regime and the Amir ul Momineen and father of these ghairatmunds accepted all aid (total $ 3.2 billion in 5 years, peanuts compared to $ 7.5 billion current aid) under it, it was not humiliating for these ghairatmunds. In 2003, under the regime of COAS Pervaiz Musharraf, $ 3 billion for 5 years (again peanuts compared to $ 7.5 billion) aid was sanctioned on condition of presidential certification on restoration of democracy, nuclear non-proliferation, and countering terrorism. Not only this, but under COAS’s regime, military aid was linked to Pakistan’s assurance of not letting “Pakistani Occupied Kashmir’s” territory to be used for terrorist camps. Neither media henchmen nor PML-N or Pakistan Army created any fuss about such “humiliating conditions” and accepted and consumed all the aid.

And how can we blame Americans for asking us to ensure nuclear nonproliferation, when under our COAS President, country’s chief nuclear scientist acknowledged his role in nuclear technology smuggling on national TV? Or how can we blame Americans for asking us to ensure that our land will not be used to export terrorism when our COAS president banned six outfits blamed to be involved in terrorist activities in India on January 14, 2002? Can these rhetoric machines talk any sense to start with? Is any honesty left in Pakistani journalism?

The fuss is not about aid or any of the rhetoric these clones talk about. Nor is it about Army’s concern for national security. It’s a power game where Army sees its power being seriously curtailed as a result of changing times and geo-political realities of the world and the region. The converged interests have made the Army under-siege by fundamentalist political forces join hand with the same forces. The target for now is Asif Zardari and in the hatred of the man both sides are overlooking what will await them, if they succeed.

I wonder how Army can be so short-sighted to have joined hands with the same elements whose websites even today have clips portraying it as a barbaric force committing human rights atrocities in Swat? Has Army forgotten how ruthless these elements have been in their propaganda against Army when their interests collided? Has Army forgotten the blowing up of Army convoys in the aftermath of Lal Masjid and the support by these same elements of these attacks?

On the other hand, these fundamentalist elements will at the best reach a regime like Musharraf regime even if Zardari is out of the picture. The fundamentalist forces need complete control of state and Army wants the same. Zardari for now is the common enemy but even if he is out, both sides will be up in arms against each other. If fundamentalist elements think that Army will give them the same political backing that they enjoyed in 80s and 90s, then this is not going to happen anymore for now Army and fundamentalist political forces need absolute power for themselves.

The role of PML-N in the whole episode has been highly disappointing. The party, who wanted to hang Musharraf for set an example for any future military interventionist and portrayed itself as flag bearer of democracy, ran on one call from COAS for a mid-night secret meeting. As Ahmad Faraz once said

Bus is kadar tha ke darbar se bulawa tha – gadagaran-e-sukhan ke hajoom samne hain

Also, Aitzaz Ahsan who would give us lectures on why this state should be turned from a national security state to social welfare state is silent when the emotional exploitation is on in the name of national security once more. I was expecting a dharna of Wukala bradari against the blatant interference of Army in the affairs of civilian government.

I personally think that it is a storm in teacup. Army just wants to stretch herself and see how far it can go in the wake of attempts to curtail its political dominance in Pakistan. They want to give a signal to US that they still have politicians in their pocket in Republic of Pakistan and also want to see how serious Americans are in their determination to democratize Pakistan? They also want to gauge the response of other international players in the wake of threat of military takeover in Pakistan. They will specially be looking for silent consent of China and UK for such action to see if they have the ability to do another coup or intervention in the future.

This, however, is a dangerous strategy. Army’s action has raised the stakes for all political players. And events might take turn where impulsive actions might lead to a situation leading to things which are not intended, including a military takeover or agitation on streets by elements backed by Army.

What options does the political government have? First and foremost, it has no room to budge. Budging now will be the beginning of countdown for this setup which cannot be afforded. What is at stake is whether Pakistan will become a modern democratic state or will it become a lawless jungle controlled by dictators. Govt. needs to stand firm. It needs to make sure that it gets the bill in its present form endorsed through the parliament and then take a massive restructuring of armed forces and intelligence agencies to assert its writ. As for masses, I am sure they do not care about conditions imposed by US.

Govt. should also initiate the proposed Anti-Terrorism Force under Interior Ministry. If Army decides to stage a takeover, this time it should be a final showdown. PPP should give call to masses to do dharna outside the parliament house to protect the civilian setup and should challenge Army to come crushing these masses. This is how Russians protected their newborn democracy in 1992 and this is what we should do in Pakistan. I, for my part, am ready to do this. It’s a make or break decision for us all. So get ready for this my countrymen. Unlike the media perpetrated dharnas of last one year, this time, if things come to this point

Tu jena hu ga marna hu ga – dharna hu ga dharna hu ga

If Govt. fails in getting this bill passed, the government should go for new elections. If it wins well and good, if it does not, then let us see how these ghairatmunds run Pakistan without the aid and loans for even 6 months in these turbulent moments of our history.

For some reason, I personally think that tide of time is in favor of us the people. Sooner the Mododites and Army realize this, the better they and Pakistan will be. In the words of Manmohan Singh, no force in the world can stop the march of an idea whose time has come. Time of Army’s exit from country’s polity, midnight GHQ deals and rhetoric based exploitation is over in Pakistan. We are moving forward. Join us or be left out.

On Opposition to Kerry Lugar Bill and Other Emotional Exploitation in the name of Anti-Americanism

2009-10-05T19:36:00.004+06:00

Below is complete text of Kerry Lugar Bill. The fuss about the bill has been that it's a sellout of national interest to US. I don't think anyone criticizing the bill has actually read this bill. So I invite the readers to read this bill before commenting on it.

First and foremost, the civilian aid has no strings attached to it. The only conditions are on military aid (which is not part of $ 1.5 billion/ yr). Even these strings are far from sellout that our right-wing fundo toddies are bound on telling us.

What are the conditions? In Section VI of the bill they are stated as:

(c) Certification- The certification required by this subsection is a certification to the appropriate congressional committees by the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence, that the security forces of Pakistan--

(1) are making concerted efforts to prevent al Qaeda and associated terrorist groups, including Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, from operating in the territory of Pakistan;

(2) are making concerted efforts to prevent the Taliban and associated militant groups from using the territory of Pakistan as a sanctuary from which to launch attacks within Afghanistan; and

(3) are not materially interfering in the political or judicial processes of Pakistan.

Now I can understand, like anyone else, what is pinching these toddies the most. It's the 3rd clause which emphasizes US's support for constitutional process in Pakistan. These toddies (rightly called as Syapa Group by Abbas Athar) have always thrived on such military interventions in the past. So, it makes sense that it hurts them. But for people of Pakistan, nuclear non-proliferation, anti-terrorism, ensuring that Pakistan's territory is not used for attacks in neighboring countries (including China and Central Asian states which had such complaints in last 20 years), and a commitment of USA to democracy in Pakistan are all issues of consensus.

It is just that the forces of regression, whose seed was sowed in our land by Mododi's philosophy and which have infiltrated deep in our media and academia under the patronage of various military regimes (most in Zia-Ul-Haq's) are bound on putting Pakistan on path of confrontation with not only United States but everything that stands for modern world. These Majid Nizamis, Hamid Guls and Jamat-I-Islamis and their prodigies in political classes, judiciary, media, business community and academia have thrived on this isolation of Pakistan. Ghairat, hamiyat, khudmukhtari etc are emotional catch phrases whose repeated utterance in media arouses the educated classes of Punjab and with out looking at the facts and applying their brains to analyze issues, they fall for the cliches so cleverly created by the Mododi's media in Pakistan.

There first argument was the government wouldn't succeed in getting the aid. When it became eminent that this wouldn't be the case, the line was that because of the credibility of the government, no direct aid will be given to the civilian government. In the actual bill, there is complete trust on political government. In fact, reading it will give you a sense that all the conditions are a clear indication that the mistrust US has is on civilian and military bureaucracy of Pakistan and so it wants to make sure that the constitutional process continues for the proper disbursement of this aid to Pakistanis. So now anokha ladlas had no option but to call this bill a sell out and flare the anti-US sentiments among people of Pakistan.

This misled and deceitful exploitation of emotions is not limited to Aid alone. Another instance of such misleading Anti-US propaganda can be seen in opposition to Drone Attacks. All the hue and cry on drone attacks comes from Punjab or Mullah elements of Pashtun areas. It is claimed that these attacks are a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty. This is something which again is an arousing argument repeated time and again on media and has resonance with urban educated classes of Punjab. Here is the other, and I think more clearer side, of the picture. Drone attacks take place in areas on which Pakistan has lost control and are made against elements who have declared themselves to be enemies of Pakistan and have taken responsibility of attacks inside Pakistan. Now, what should I call these Hamid Mirs, Ansar Abbasis, and Imran Khans opposing these drone attacks, if not 5th columnists. For just like when Allied Forces were fighting Nazis to free France, the Hamid Mirs of France (the 5th columnists) were saying that Allied Forces are violating the sovereignty of France. This is the level of absurdity of this Anti-US campaign carried out by Mododi media and accepted by the urban educated classes of Lahore and Islamabad.

Yes we need to thrive for economic self reliance but this is something that the government cannot do. No govt. in the world has done this for its citizens. This is something that the society and its entrepreneurial spirits does. So my countrymen let us join hands to revive that entrepreneurial spirit in our land rather than taking this anti-American bait of inaction. Till then our friends across the world are trying to help us, so let us accept their help on terms that are more in our best interest than theirs.

Instead of wasting our anger at Anti-US sentiments flared up by Mododi media, let us focus on ensuring that we put pressure on our government to take to task the supporters and inciters of terrorism in our society including TV anchors, political leaders and scholars. This is a war of our survival in which our men, women and children are losing their lives day in day out. It is not America's war. It's our own war since late 70s when these monsters started blowing our mosques and markets. We have to fight it for our survival and we need to combat everyone who is on their side with word or with sword.

To the Mododites, the time for a modern, democratic and liberal Pakistan walking side by side international community towards prosperity is here. Join us wholeheartedly or you will be left out.

S.962

Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by Senate)

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:

(1) The people of Pakistan and the United States have a long history of friendship and comity, and the interests of both nations are well-served by strengthening and deepening this friendship.

(2) In February 2008, the people of Pakistan elected a civilian government, reversing years of political tension and mounting popular concern over governance and their own democratic reform and political development.

(3) A democratic, moderate, modernizing Pakistan would represent the wishes of the Pakistani people and serve as a model to other countries around the world.

(4) Economic growth is a fundamental foundation for human security and national stability in Pakistan, a country with over 175,000,000 people, an annual population growth rate of 2 percent, and a ranking of 136 out of 177 countries in the United Nations Human Development Index.

(5) Pakistan is a major non-NATO ally of the United States and has been a valuable partner in the battle against al Qaeda and the Taliban, but much more remains to be accomplished by both nations.

(6) The struggle against al Qaeda, the Taliban, and affiliated terrorist groups has led to the deaths of several thousand Pakistani civilians and members of the security forces of Pakistan over the past 7 years.

(7) Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, more al Qaeda terrorist suspects have been apprehended in Pakistan than in any other country, including Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, and Abu Faraj al-Libi.

(8) Despite the sacrifices and cooperation of the security forces of Pakistan, the top leadership of al Qaeda, as well as the leadership and rank-and-file of affiliated terrorist groups, are believed to be using Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and parts of the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) and Balochistan as a haven and a base from which to organize terrorist actions in Pakistan and globally, including--

(A) attacks outside of Pakistan that have been attributed to groups with Pakistani connections, including--

(i) the suicide car bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, which killed 58 people on June 7, 2008; and

(ii) the massacre of approximately 165 people in Mumbai, India, including 6 United States citizens, in late November 2008; and

(B) attacks within Pakistan, including--

(i) an attack on the visiting Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore on March 3, 2009;

(ii) an attack at the Marriott hotel in Islamabad on September 9, 2008;

(iii) the bombing of a political rally in Karachi on October 18, 2007;

(iv) the targeting and killing of dozens of tribal, provincial, and national holders of political office;

(v) an attack by gunfire on the U.S. Principal Officer in Peshawar in August 2008; and

(vi) the brazen assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto on December 27, 2007.

(9) In the 12-month period ending on the date of the enactment of this Act, Pakistan's security forces have struggled to contain a Taliban-backed insurgency that has spread from FATA into settled areas, including the Swat Valley and other parts of NWFP and Balochistan. This struggle has taken the lives of more than 1,500 police and military personnel and left more than 3,000 wounded.

(10) On March 27, 2009, President Obama noted, `Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the U.S. homeland from its safe-haven in Pakistan.'.

(11) According to a Government Accountability Office Report (GAO-08-622), `since 2003, the administration's national security strategies and Congress have recognized that a comprehensive plan that includes all elements of national power--diplomatic, military, intelligence, development assistance, economic, and law enforcement support--was needed to address the terrorist threat emanating from the FATA' and that such a strategy was also mandated by section 7102(b)(3) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458; 22 U.S.C. 2656f note) and section 2042(b)(2) of the Implementing the Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-53; 22 U.S.C. 2375 note).

(12) In the past year, the people of Pakistan have been especially hard hit by rising food and commodity prices and severe energy shortages, with two-thirds of the population living on less than $2 a day and one-fifth of the population living below the poverty line according to the United Nations Development Program.

(13) The people of Pakistan and the United States share many compatible goals, including--

(A) combating terrorism and violent radicalism, both inside Pakistan and elsewhere;

(B) solidifying democracy and the rule of law in Pakistan;

(C) promoting the economic development of Pakistan, both through the building of infrastructure and the facilitation of increased trade;

(D) promoting the social and material well-being of Pakistani citizens, particularly through development of such basic services as public education, access to potable water, and medical treatment; and

(E) safeguarding the peace and security of South Asia, including by facilitating peaceful relations between Pakistan and its neighbors.

(14) According to consistent opinion research, including that of the Pew Global Attitudes Survey (December 28, 2007) and the International Republican Institute (January 29, 2008), many people in Pakistan have historically viewed the relationship between the United States and Pakistan as a transactional one, characterized by a heavy emphasis on security issues with little attention to other matters of great interest to citizens of Pakistan.

(15) The election of a civilian government in Pakistan in February 2008 provides an opportunity, after nearly a decade of military-dominated rule, to place relations between Pakistan and the United States on a new and more stable foundation.

(16) Both the Government of Pakistan and the United States Government should seek to enhance the bilateral relationship through additional multi-faceted engagement in order to strengthen the foundation for a consistent and reliable long-term partnership between the two countries.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES- The term `appropriate congressional committees' means the Committees on Appropriations and Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committees on Appropriations and Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives.

(2) COUNTERINSURGENCY- The term `counterinsurgency' means efforts to defeat organized movements that seek to overthrow the duly constituted Governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan through violent means.

(3) COUNTERTERRORISM- The term `counterterrorism' means efforts to combat al Qaeda and other foreign terrorist organizations that are designated by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189), or other individuals and entities engaged in terrorist activity or support for such activity.

(4) FATA- The term `FATA' means the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan.

(5) NWFP- The term `NWFP' means the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan, which has Peshawar as its provincial capital.

(6) PAKISTAN-AFGHANISTAN BORDER AREAS- The term `Pakistan-Afghanistan border areas' includes the Pakistan regions known as NWFP, FATA, and parts of Balochistan in which the Taliban or Al Qaeda have traditionally found refuge.

(7) SECURITY-RELATED ASSISTANCE- The term `security-related assistance' means--

(A) grant assistance to carry out section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2763);

(B) assistance under chapter 2 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2311 et seq.);

(D) any equipment, supplies, and training provided pursuant to section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163; 119 Stat. 3456); and

(E) any equipment, supplies, and training provided pursuant to section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181; 122 Stat. 368).

(8) SECURITY FORCES OF PAKISTAN- The term `security forces of Pakistan' means the military and intelligence services of the Government of Pakistan, including the Armed Forces, Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, Intelligence Bureau, police forces, levies, Frontier Corps, and Frontier Constabulary.

(9) MAJOR DEFENSE EQUIPMENT- The term `major defense equipment' has the meaning given in section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2794(6)).

SEC. 4. STATEMENT OF POLICY.

It is the policy of the United States--

(1) to support the consolidation of democracy, good governance, and rule of law in Pakistan;

(2) to support economic growth and development in order to promote stability and security across Pakistan;

(3) to affirm and build a sustained, long-term, multifaceted relationship with Pakistan;

(4) to further the sustainable economic development of Pakistan and the improvement of the living conditions of its citizens, including in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, by expanding United States bilateral engagement with the Government of Pakistan, especially in areas of direct interest and importance to the daily lives of the people of Pakistan;

(5) to work with Pakistan and the countries bordering Pakistan to facilitate peace in the region and harmonious relations between the countries of the region;

(6) to work with the Government of Pakistan to prevent any Pakistani territory from being used as a base or conduit for terrorist attacks in Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, or elsewhere in the world;

(7) to work in close cooperation with the Government of Pakistan to coordinate military, paramilitary, and police action against terrorist targets;

(8) to work with the Government of Pakistan to help bring peace, stability, and development to all regions of Pakistan, especially those in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border areas, including support for an effective counterinsurgency strategy;

(9) to expand people-to-people engagement between the United States and Pakistan, through increased educational, technical, and cultural exchanges and other methods;

(10) to encourage and promote public-private partnerships in Pakistan in order to bolster ongoing development efforts and strengthen economic prospects, especially with respect to opportunities to build civic responsibility and professional skills of the people of Pakistan; and

(11) to encourage the development of local analytical capacity to measure progress on an integrated basis across the areas of donor country expenditure in Pakistan, and better hold the Government of Pakistan accountable for how the funds are being spent.

SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF FUNDS.

(a) Authorization- There are authorized to be appropriated to the President, for the purposes of providing assistance to Pakistan under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.), the following amounts:

(1) For fiscal year 2009, up to $1,500,000,000.

(2) For fiscal year 2010, up to $1,500,000,000.

(3) For fiscal year 2011, up to $1,500,000,000.

(4) For fiscal year 2012, up to $1,500,000,000.

(5) For fiscal year 2013, up to $1,500,000,000.

(b) Availability of Funds-

(1) IN GENERAL- Of the funds appropriated in each fiscal year pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in subsection (a)--

(A) none of the amounts appropriated may be made available after the date of the enactment of this Act for assistance to Pakistan unless the Pakistan Assistance Strategy Report has been submitted to the appropriate congressional committees in accordance with subsection (j); and

(B) not more than $750,000,000 may be made available for assistance to Pakistan in any fiscal year after 2009 unless the President's Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan submits to the appropriate congressional committees during that fiscal year--

(i) a certification that assistance provided to Pakistan under this Act to date has made or is making substantial progress toward achieving the principal objectives of United States assistance to Pakistan contained in the Pakistan Assistance Strategy Report pursuant to subsection (j)(1); and

(ii) a memorandum explaining the reasons justifying the certification described in clause (i).

(2) MAKER OF CERTIFICATION- In the event of a vacancy in, or the termination of, the position of the President's Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, the certification described under paragraph (1)(B) may be made by the Secretary of State.

(c) Waiver- The Secretary of State may waive the limitations in subsection (b) if the Secretary determines, and certifies to the appropriate congressional committees, that it is in the national security interests of the United States to provide such waiver.

(d) Sense of Congress on Foreign Assistance Funds- It is the sense of Congress that, subject to an improving political and economic climate in Pakistan, there should be authorized to be appropriated up to $1,500,000,000 per year for fiscal years 2014 through 2018 for the purpose of providing assistance to Pakistan under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

(e) Sense of Congress on Security-related Assistance- It is the sense of Congress that security-related assistance to the Government of Pakistan--

(1) should be provided in close coordination with the Government of Pakistan, designed to improve the Government's capabilities in areas of mutual concern, and maintained at a level that will bring significant gains in pursuing the policies set forth in paragraphs (6), (7), and (8) of section 4; and

(2) should be geared primarily toward bolstering the counter-insurgency capabilities of the Government to effectively defeat the Taliban-backed insurgency and deny popular support to al Qaeda and other foreign terrorist organizations that are based in Pakistan.

(f) Use of Funds-

(1) IN GENERAL- Funds appropriated pursuant to subsection (a) shall be used for projects intended to benefit the people of Pakistan, including projects that promote--

(A) just and democratic governance, including--

(i) police reform, equipping, and training;

(ii) independent, efficient, and effective judicial systems;

(iii) political pluralism, equality, and the rule of law;

(iv) respect for human and civil rights and the promotion of an independent media;

(v) transparency and accountability of all branches of government and judicial proceedings;

(vi) anticorruption efforts among bureaucrats, elected officials, and public servants at all levels of military and civilian government administration;

(vii) countering the narcotics trade; and

(viii) the implementation of legal and political reforms in the FATA;

(B) economic freedom, including--

(i) sustainable economic growth, including in rural areas, and the sustainable management of natural resources;

(ii) investments in energy and water, including energy generation and cross-border infrastructure projects with Afghanistan;

(iii) employment generation, including essential basic infrastructure projects such as roads and irrigation projects and other physical infrastructure; and

(iv) worker rights, including the right to form labor unions and legally enforce provisions safeguarding the rights of workers and local community stakeholders;

(i) broad-based public primary and secondary education and vocational training for both boys and girls;

(ii) food security and agricultural development to ensure food staples and other crops that provide economic growth and income opportunities in times of severe shortage;

(iii) quality public health, including medical clinics with well trained staff serving rural and urban communities;

(iv) vocational training for women and access to microfinance for small business establishment and income generation for women; and

(v) higher education to ensure a breadth and consistency of Pakistani graduates to prepare citizens to help strengthen the foundation for improved governance and economic vitality, including through public-private partnerships; and

(D) long-term development in regions of Pakistan where internal conflict has caused large-scale displacement.

(2) FUNDING FOR POLICE REFORM, EQUIPPING, AND TRAINING- Up to $100,000,000 of the funds appropriated pursuant to subsection (a) should be used for police reform, equipping, and training.

(g) Preference for Building Local Capacity- The President is encouraged, as appropriate, to utilize Pakistani firms and community and local nongovernmental organizations in Pakistan, including through host country contacts, and to work with local leaders to provide assistance under this section.

(h) Authority To Use Funds for Operational and Audit Expenses-

(1) IN GENERAL- Of the amounts appropriated for a fiscal year pursuant to subsection (a)--

(A) up to $10,000,000 may be used for administrative expenses of Federal departments and agencies in connection with the provision of assistance authorized by this section;

(B) up to $30,000,000 may be made available to the Inspectors General of the Department of State, the United States Agency for International Development, and other relevant Executive branch agencies in order to provide audits and program reviews of projects funded pursuant to this section; and

(C) up to $5,000,000 may be used by the Secretary to establish a Chief of Mission Fund for use by the Chief of Mission in Pakistan to provide assistance to Pakistan under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.

SEC. 6. LIMITATION ON CERTAIN ASSISTANCE.

(a) Limitation on Certain Military Assistance- Beginning in fiscal year 2010, no grant assistance to carry out section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2763) and no assistance under chapter 2 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2311 et seq.) may be provided to Pakistan in a fiscal year until the Secretary of State makes the certification required under subsection (c).

(b) Limitation on Arms Transfers- Beginning in fiscal year 2012, no letter of offer to sell major defense equipment to Pakistan may be issued pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.) and no license to export major defense equipment to Pakistan may be issued pursuant to such Act in a fiscal year until the Secretary of State makes the certification required under subsection (c).

(1) are making concerted efforts to prevent al Qaeda and associated terrorist groups, including Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, from operating in the territory of Pakistan;

(2) are making concerted efforts to prevent the Taliban and associated militant groups from using the territory of Pakistan as a sanctuary from which to launch attacks within Afghanistan; and

(3) are not materially interfering in the political or judicial processes of Pakistan.

(d) Waiver- The Secretary of State may waive the limitations in subsections (a) and (b) if the Secretary determines it is important to the national security interests of the United States to provide such waiver.

(e) Prior Notice of Waiver- A waiver pursuant to subsection (d) may not be exercised until 15 days after the Secretary of State provides to the appropriate congressional committees written notice of the intent to issue such waiver and the reasons therefor. The notice may be submitted in classified or unclassified form, as necessary.

(f) Annual Report- The Secretary of State, after consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees an annual report on the progress of the security forces of Pakistan in satisfying the requirements enumerated in subsection (c). The Secretary of State shall establish detailed, specific requirements and metrics for evaluating the progress in satisfying these requirements and apply these requirements and metrics consistently in each annual report. This report may be submitted in classified or unclassified form, as necessary.

SEC. 7. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON COALITION SUPPORT FUNDS.

It is the sense of Congress that--

(1) Coalition Support Funds are critical components of the global fight against terrorism, and in Pakistan provide essential support for--

(A) military operations of the Government of Pakistan to destroy the terrorist threat and close the terrorist safe haven, known or suspected, in the FATA, the NWFP, and other regions of Pakistan; and

(B) military operations of the Government of Pakistan to protect United States and allied logistic operations in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan;

(2) despite the broad discretion Congress granted the Secretary of Defense in terms of managing Coalition Support Funds, the Pakistan reimbursement claims process for Coalition Support Funds requires increased oversight and accountability, consistent with the conclusions of the June 2008 report of the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO-08-806);

(3) in order to ensure that this significant United States effort in support of countering terrorism in Pakistan effectively ensures the intended use of Coalition Support Funds, and to avoid redundancy in other security assistance programs, such as Foreign Military Financing and Foreign Military Sales, more specific guidance should be generated, and accountability delineated, for officials associated with oversight of this program within the United States Embassy in Pakistan, the United States Central Command, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the Office of Management and Budget; and

(4) the Secretary of Defense should submit to the appropriate congressional committees and the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a semiannual report on the use of Coalition Support Funds, which may be submitted in classified or unclassified form as necessary.

SEC. 8. PAKISTAN-AFGHANISTAN BORDER AREAS STRATEGY.

(a) Development of Comprehensive Strategy- The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, and such other government officials as may be appropriate, shall develop a comprehensive, cross-border strategy that includes all elements of national power--diplomatic, military, intelligence, development assistance, humanitarian, law enforcement support, and strategic communications and information technology--for working with the Government of Pakistan, the Government of Afghanistan, NATO, and other like-minded allies to best implement effective counterterrorism and counterinsurgency measurers in and near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border areas.

(b) Report- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a detailed description of a comprehensive strategy for counterterrorism and counterinsurgency in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border areas containing the elements specified in subsection (a) and proposed timelines and budgets for implementing the strategy.

SEC. 9. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the sense of Congress that the United States should--

(1) recognize the bold political steps the Pakistan electorate has taken during a time of heightened sensitivity and tension in 2007 and 2008 to elect a new civilian government, as well as the continued quest for good governance and the rule of law under the elected government in 2008 and 2009;

(2) seize this strategic opportunity in the interests of Pakistan as well as in the national security interests of the United States to expand its engagement with the Government and people of Pakistan in areas of particular interest and importance to the people of Pakistan;

(3) continue to build a responsible and reciprocal security relationship taking into account the national security interests of the United States as well as regional and national dynamics in Pakistan to further strengthen and enable the position of Pakistan as a major non-NATO ally;

(4) seek ways to strengthen our countries' mutual understanding and promote greater insight and knowledge of each other's social, cultural and historical diversity through personnel exchanges and support for the establishment of institutions of higher learning with international accreditation; and

(5) explore means to consult with and utilize the relevant expertise and skills of the Pakistani-American community.

SEC. 10. TERM OF YEARS.

With the exception of subsections (b)(1)(B), (j), (k), and (l) of section 5, this Act shall remain in force after September 30, 2013.

Passed the Senate June 24, 2009.

Baseless Hue and Cry on Kerry Lugar Bill

2009-09-29T22:18:00.001+06:00

A section in Pakistan media has raised a storm in a tea cup about Kerry Lugar bill and has called it a sellout. Looking at it rationally it seems the best deal Pakistan got get and has got in its history.

In the 1980s the US congress passed the Pakistan Aid Bill for US $ 3.2 Billion over a period of 5 years and the Bill, which required 10-12 Presidential Certifications (at different times) every year including on restoration of democracy, human rights protection, nuclear non proliferation and drugs control.

In the 2003 Congress again passed Pakistan Aid Bill for US 3 billion over a period of 5 years and that too included Presidential waivers certifying Pakistan is moving toward restoration of democracy, nuclear non proliferation, countering terrorism etc.

Kerry- Lugar Bill is the first Pakistan Aid Bill that does not carry Presidential certification every year. However the Secretary Of State has to certify that Pakistan is moving on path to democracy, nuclear non proliferation and control of democracy. This is also Pakistan State Policy.

In any case, it is for US Congress to determine US conditions and for Pakistan to reject aid with conditions it deems unacceptable. In case of the Kerry Lugar bill, the Govt of Pakistan does not consider any condition onerous or unfulfillable. All branches of the Pakistan government have examined and understand the implications of the bill as passed and the Govt is confident that it does not impose humiliating or restrictive condionality. Needless to say this aid package is the best deal Pakistan can get. What is most surprising is that just when Army itself has become custodian on democratic rule why are these fundo elements of media trying to create chaos?

The media fundos cannot digest a Pakistan moving on the path of political and economic stability and have resorted to tactics of lie, deceit and propaganda.

Whom does Punjab belong to?

2009-09-06T12:49:00.003+06:00

Our media pundits always portray Nawaz Sharif as the sole leader of Punjab and PML-N as the dominant political force in Punjab. A closer look at the facts and figures and one can find out that this too is an eye-wash created by the media. For its limited nationwide penetration, PML-N needs steroids of the media to rally its limited base. For this a lot of myths have been created about it, the biggest being its dominance in Punjab.

If results of 2008 elections are anything to go by, N is no where close to the dominant status that we are made to believe. We have taken NA results as a benchmark because the larger constituency size makes them more representative of a district. Here are the facts:

Of 36 districts in Punjab, N one at least 1 seat in 26 districts, PPP won at least 1 seat in 24 districts.
N has more than 50% of seats in 11 out of 36 districts, PPP has more than 50% seats in 9 of 36 districts.
N swept 4 districts, PPP 2.
Of 5 big cities of Punjab, N is far behind PPP in terms of number of seats in Faisalabad (2nd largest) and Multan (4th largest).
In districts north of Okara, N did not win a single seat in 4 districts - of total of 22 districts. For the same area, PPP did not win a single seat in 9 seats.
In districts comprising Okara and South, PPP did not win a single seat in only 2 districts (of total 14 distrcits - almost 40% population of Punjab). In comparison, N didn't win a single NA seat in 6 districts of the same area.
PML-N won 60 NA seats (41%) compared to PPP's 45 seats (31%).
For Provincial Assembly N won 111 seats (37%) compared to 82 seats by PPP (28%).

Above statistics clearly indicate that just when PML-N is the largest party in Punjab in terms of parliamentary presence, it is far from being the dominant force in Punjab.

The media anchors and columnists who are trying to portray Punjab as a one-party province are doing a great disservice to Pakistani Federation on two grounds.
1. It pitches any issue between ruling coalition and PML-N as a clash between Punjab vs Rest (something that is not true based on political map of Punjab shown above).
2. It is undermining the national out-reach of PPP, for now the only national party of Pakistan. Not only that but when it comes to national out-reach (till next elections prove otherwise) even Q has greater national outreach than N.

This smear propaganda coming from the saviors of "Pakistan's ideology" and democrats (like Nusrat Javed and Talat Husain) is, deliberately or unconsciously, a very sinister attempt to make Pakistani political landscape more divisive on ethnic/ regional grounds and must be checked in the larger interest of the Federation.

Kissa sote jagte ka

2009-08-27T10:00:00.016+06:00

The establishment which had our country in her grip for decades is exposed as a result of their infighting. But most surprisingly, the "independent media" is desperate to cover their beloved elements of the establishment (read Nawaz Sharif). Anchors, columnists, spin doctors of PML-N and media in their attempts to cover this mess are creating stories at par with Alif Laila and Kissa Sote Jagte Ka. This Kissa Sote Jagte Ka has signs of their desperation and changing times.
It all started with Supreme Court's hearing of petition against Nov. 3 actions of General Musharraf. Supreme Court, partly riding on vendetta and partly on the quest for limelight, in one of its observations on July 29th proclaimed that if Cromwell's skeleton can be hanged after his death, it is time to punish the violators of the constitution in Pakistan. (Below is an image of Express News' next day coverage of Daily Express).

Next day, Supreme Court had a complete change of heart ruling they do not have the authority to initiate a treason trial of Musharraf (Image of Daily Express report below). Now, this statement coming from a very proactive Supreme Court famous for her ability to take suo-motto notices and extending her domain to issues of taxation (which by the way is a prerogative of parliament under the principle of "taxation with representation" which remains the cornerstone of parliamentary democracy) was a surprise to say the least. Not till you read a news in July 30th's The News (News Link) mentioning a meeting held between the Principled Ch. Aitzaz Ahsan and COAS. And so the Supreme Court conveniently passed the ball to Parliament.
Then the principled Aitzaz claimed that Parliament can decide to try Musharraf, Govt. can move with the case or even an ordinary citizen can go to Supreme Court for Musharraf's trial. What the Principled forgot in the due course was that he being the ordinary citizen of Pakistan should do it himself. (By the way an individual Zafar Ali Shah’s petition has been thrown out of Supreme Court on grounds that Supreme Court is not the forum to do Musharraf’s trial).
On August 6, fiery Ch. Nisar Ali Khan continuing the assault on the PPP-led Govt. (in N's trademark spirit of cooperation and stability) on the floor of National Assembly announced that PML-N will table a resolution demanding Musharraf's trial for high treason under article-6 of constitution. Then came the invisible hands and the upright and uncompromising PML-N had to back down from their commitment (N Backtracks). They needed an escape goat and so firebrand Ch. Nisar Ali Khan blasted MQM in NA for protecting Musharraf. In his rhetoric he even acknowledged that the operation against MQM was done on the behest of PML-N (a confession which since then PML-N is trying to dispell). This drew a sharp reaction from MQM led by Haider Abbas Rizvi. The reaction caught N off-guard and opened a Pandora’s box. Things got worse for PML-N when Brig. Imtiaz acknowledged that the allegations of Jinnah Pur on MQM were fabricated and the operation had the consent of the then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. This drew a sharp response from Altaf Hussain and N was on defensive. But N being N, they and their media anchors tried to avert the issue in many different ways.
On one hand, the response was that MQM should also talk about PPP's operation without realizing that both MQM and PPP have apologized for past mistakes including the operation of 1995-96. On the other hand, they pretended as if Nawaz Sharif was kept in dark about operation against MQM (on this a friend of mine who supports PML-N jokingly said, Nawaz didn't know of operation against MQM in his first term, of Kargil in his second term, and we punks will make sure that the dumb gets the third term).
Another line of attack was that our Army and Agencies work on their own and so the spin was to blame everything on Army/ Intelligence officials. This line of defense also suits fundamentalist elements’ desire to malign Army when it is taking the Islamist Militants to task. For this, the instances were cited including Operation Midnight Jackal.
This started with "pseudo Liberal" Nusrat Javed's assertion on Live With Talat that this whole fuss is created by Army and Agencies to corner Nawaz Sharif. Nusrat allegedly quoted sources of Agencies saying that two more stories of wrong-doings and they will be able to control Asif Ali Zardari but the bigger trouble is Nawaz Sharif with his mass popularity. In his desperation to absolve Nawaz Sharif of the allegations regarding Midnight Jackal, Nusrat brought in many people in his program to discuss Midnight Jackal and pass the blame solely to Army and Agencies. But the truth could not be hidden. In the first episode, the fingers were openly pointed to Nawaz Sharif as being at the center of Midnight Jackal conspiracy. In desperation, in the second episode, Zahid Sarfaraz was brought in to deny Brig. Imtiaz's claims. He claimed that Brig. Imtiaz was no body in no-confidence motion. In the same interview, Mr. Zahid Sarfaraz also narrated a story which rather than absolving Mr. Nawaz Sharif of his role in the dark chapter of Pakistan's political history drags him further in. Mr. Sarfaraz claims that Arif Awan (A PPP MNA approached by Brig. Imtiaz to switch loyalties) asked a meeting with Nawaz Sharif. Now the very assertion proves that both sides (Imtiaz and Arif Awan) agreed that Nawaz Sharif was the key figure in the saga. Not only that but Mr. Sharif's agreement to meet Arif Awan at the request of Brig. Imtiaz proves a link between Brig. Imtiaz and Nawaz Sharif in Midnight Jackal.
If this was not enough came the statement by Lt. Gen. Asad Durrani that he on the behest of Gen. Aslam Beg distributed PKR 140 million to leading politicians including Mian Nawaz Sharif. Despite repeated questioning by Express News, Pervaiz Rasheed, NS's spokesman, refused to categorically deny the allegation. Now the myth of Principleds in shattered and assertions by the likes of Talat Husain that N wouldn't come down easy are desperate attempts to do the damage control. Question is not whether Brig. Imtiaz did it on behest of Army or Agencies or a long-shot Husain Haqqani? Question is whether what has been said is true or not? These spin doctors are trying to divert attention from the real issue. If Agencies are to be blamed for controlling the polity, the politicians who collaborated with them must not be absolved either.
So in the spin of media and N, following are the real issues - without any spin - give them a thought my fellow countrymen:

Try Musharraf for breaking constitution and try him and his aides and those who abetted him, but not for Nov. 3, 2007 but for October 12, 1999. Not only Musharraf but try Zia Ul Haq for his act of July 5, 1977. Try Aslam Beg, Hamid Gul, and Brig Imtiaz for their role in Midnight Jackal, creation of IJI and rigging of 1990 General Elections. Also, try those who collaborated with them.
Nawaz Sharif should live up to the standards he preaches or should preach what he has practiced.
Alleged involvement of Prince Naif, Saudi Arabia and Osama Bin Laden must be probed and made public.
Saudi Arabia must be warned never to interfere in political affairs of Pakistan again and must be demanded a public apology for the past deeds.
And in the spirit of national reconciliation, all the trials must not be aimed at vendetta and sentencing the culprits but to set the record straight.
As for Nawaz Sharif’s popularity, of Pakistan’s 107 districts, N has presence in only 28 (a mere 26%). In Punjab, of 34 districts, N has parliamentary presence in 24 districts (71%). Also in Punjab, there are only 11 districts where N has more than 50% of seats (a mere 33%). N neither has a nation-wide spread nor a dominant penetration in Punjab as we are made to believe by the media and opinion polls.
And last but certainly not the least, Armed Forces of Pakistan must let the political process take its due course without any intervention in future. My fear is that with Nawaz Sharif’s image being tarnished, knowing their history, some in the Defense Establishment of Pakistan might be thinking of creating an alliance comprising Aitzaz Ahsan, PPP-SB, PTI, elements from PML-N and Hamkhayal’s to raise a counter force to PPP. This has not succeeded in past and is not likely to succeed in the future. The Army must learn their lessons from the debacle of Creation and Glorification of Nawaz Sharif. In the continuation of political process, ultimately a counter force to PPP will organically emerge. We must wait for that rather than engineering things and creating more mess.

Asif Ali Zardari - I Support Thou!

2009-08-16T09:43:00.006+06:00

Gossip circles of the power centers of Pakistan are ripe with the buzz of a "minus-one" formula aimed at removing President Asif Ali Zardari from country's political map. This might be a wishful desire on part of the regressive circles that have dominated this nation for decades and are responsible for most of its miseries in economic and geo-political realm. From where I see, there is no reason to remove Mr. Zardari. More so, despite the wishes of many to get rid of the widower of Benazir Bhutto, there is no way he could be removed from the presidency or political scene. And if at all, the vultures succeed in removing him, the repercussions for the nation and our social order will be nothing short of a fiasco.

So let us look at the reasons first. Some junk polls, published by some US think tanks are continuously trying to build an impression that Zardari is an unpopular figure. Now to the best of my knowledge, US agencies do not conduct these surveys themselves but outsource them to local agencies. Also, the only two local agencies famous for conducting opinion polls in Pakistan are owned/ managed by people known for their association with Jamat-i-Islami and General Zia Ul Haq. If this was not enough, the opinion polls world over have proven to be biased. I will just give two instances, in India the BJP in last two elections performed a lot worse than what was predicted by opinion polls mainly because the poll conducting urban educated classes have traditionally been BJP supporters and thus bias skewed the results. Secondly, in every US Presidential Election, the polls conducted by liberal and conservative media outlets in almost the same time frame are more favorable for Democratic and Republican Parties respectively. There is a whole range of biases ranging from deliberate bias, to sample bias, to question-crafting, to respondent bias (where some classes of people are more willing to share their opinion than another) which makes opinion polls a totally unreliable source to gauge public opinion. Also, what I cannot understand is how come Nawaz Sharif's popularity is continuously hovering around 80% when the guy could not find candidates to field anywhere outside a few districts of Punjab. The US agencies conducting the opinion polls must realize that in their ignorance they are alienating a vast majority of Pakistanis which voted for PPP and comprise country's heartland. They term these polls as US’s attempts to sabotage the public mandate. Whether right or wrong, Pakistanis’ discontent for US mainly stems from alleged US role in ouster of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s democratic government by Gen. Zia Ul Haq. The tool to gauge public opinion is elections and if Zardari is unpopular, he and his party will be rooted out in next elections. Even at an approval rating of 19%, no one asked Bush to resign or considered minus-Bush formula for this is one of the fundamental principles of democracy to allow a winner to complete his term.

Second reason given for minus-one is tales of massive corruption. In all honesty, all the stories of corruption filed by Mr. Kamran Khan (renowned for his MI connections in the past and famous for a lollypop interview with Gen. Pervez Musharraf (after March 9, 2007), in a desperate attempt to allow Mr. Musharraf to restore his lost credibility at a time when the guy was on his way out) do not have any substantiation of how corruption took place. It is the same Kamran Khan, who was behind corruption charges against Ms. Bhutto and Mr. Zardari during 1993-96 government of PPP and needless to say despite repeated attempts by governments and courts bound on crushing PPP and Bhuttos none of them was proved in the court of law. More than half of the allegations are based on speculation about the decisions that have yet not been taken. The remaining are based on logic that some decisions are taken which could not have been taken without corrupt motives without proving how corruption actually took place and without the evidence of who benefitted. Even if the corruption took place, all the Ministers concerned have been quick to own decisions themselves, so the buck stops there and does not go to Mr. Zardari. Also, it is Mr. Gillani who is head of executive and has the responsibility for the executive decision making. If Mr. Gillani had found it hard to resist the alleged demands of corruption by the President, he should have resigned and if he has not he, being an upright and principled man that he is, is taking the full responsibility of the decisions. This is further reflected by Mr. Gillani’s statement on Rental Power Projects published in today’s newspapers. It was Shaukat Aziz who was threatened legal action on reversal of Privitization of Steel Mills and not Mr. Musharraf. So dragging Mr. Zardari in corruption allegations is vicious to say the least. Lastly, Public Accounts Committee is headed by Leader of the Opposition Ch. Nisar Ali Khan (from whom I am awaiting a resolution for trial of Musharraf under Article-6 in National Assembly) and Supreme Court is headed by the Chief Justice known for his record of taking sue motto notices in public interest. If there are any allegations, rather than trumping the drum on media outlets, they should be brought to any of these relevant forums and proven there.

Third possible reason could have been poor governance. Again, even under the present constitution, governance falls in the domain of the Executive and not the Presidency. On that account, the executive headed by P.M. Gillani deserves full credit for damage control and correction to the mess it inherited. To his credit, President Zardari has been a great help in both war against extremism and raising international assistance for a collapsed economy. Even his worst opponents acknowledge (though in their own sinister fashion) that Mr. Zardari has turned the tide of public opinion against Taliban in a short period through his political acumen. This public support has ultimately allowed Army to fight the biggest threat to Pakistan's and Army's existence in decades.

Another reason could be Mr. Zardari's soft stance on India which many in the defense establishment see as a direct threat to their hegemony. First and foremost, when Mr. Zardari talks about mending differences with India, it is not a thought he shares alone. Mr. Sharif, Mr. Musharraf and Ms. Bhutto followed the same policy and they did this because it is the inevitable that has to happen. Post bipolar world, the state of Pakistan cannot sustain a continuing confrontation with her neighbors. We only have two options, either to amicably resolve our differences with India or get ready to be sucked by the conflict all together. More importantly, to his credit, Mr. Zardari's vision is to have a common market of Pakistan, China and India ultimately extended to SAARC, Central Asia and Turkey. Even if India and China find it hard to join hands, we can benefit from having separate free trade agreements with both nations. Any of these arrangements, putting Pakistan part of an economic setup comprising half of global population, are only likely to benefit Pakistanis and are going to enhance influence of Pakistan and Pakistani institutions globally. Also, isolation and confrontationist attitude in the region with the most extensive economic activity in the world is simply not sustainable and will turn us into a pariah state. I can see two elements which might be afraid of this regional bloc, apart from some skeptics in our defense establishment. One will be the industrial classes (not all but those who benefit from the system of perks and permits) of Pakistan (whose reflection we have seen in sugar mafia) who have benefitted a great deal in the protectionist economy comprising a culture of permits and perks. It is natural for them to fear competition. Second are our Mid-Eastern neighbors, on whom we have been reliant on because of our years of international isolation till a few years back. Mid-Eastern monarchies also fear a progressing, democratic Pakistan for her potential to destroy the hegemonic autocratic regimes in their own countries through her example. So if there are any elements in our defense establishment who want to get rid of Zardari on the hope that this will end the process of mending fences with India, they need to undergo a serious reality check for the time for more cordial relations with India has come and any resistance to this effort will only put the existence of our nation state in turmoil and danger. I am sure Pakistan Army under General Ashfaq Pervaiz Kayani has learnt her lessons and is not ready to fall prey to conspiracy to drag her and Pakistan into a mess which she would not be able to resolve. For our defense establishment in particular, the time has come to discard “a world view” with a more dynamic approach aimed at readiness to deal with any unfolding of events.

Another section that might want to get rid of Asif Zardari might be the one afraid of findings of investigation into Benazir Bhutto's assassination. Every time there has been a development on the UN investigations, coincidently the country has been dragged into a crisis. Be it the resignation of PML-N from cabinet, or load-shedding riots in Punjab, or long march, or the decision against November 3 acts of Musharraf, or now the talk of minus-one formula, all of them have somehow coincided with developments in UN investigation. And now when the findings are likely to be published in a few months, the pressure is at its peak. Coincidently, every time, it has been PML-N that has been behind the chaos. I strongly believe that for a strong system, PML-N must remain part of the system and so my advice to Mian Sahab is to watch his ranks closely. Till now vast majority of people of Pakistan and PPP supporters consider General Musharraf responsible for the killing of Benazir Bhutto, with the above-mentioned concern growing in the ranks of PPP, coupled with the fact that Mian Sahab turned out to be the biggest political beneficiary of the killing, I fear the day when the gossip might be in air on Mian Sahab or his party’s role in the unfortunate incident. It is in the best interest of us all to avoid that and Mian Sahab holds the key.

Just when there is no reason for minus-Zardari at this stage, it seems impractical to oust Mr. Zardari as well. Parliament can impeach Mr. Zardari by 2/3^rd majority. As of now, PPP has 155 of 442 members of parliament. This alone is sufficient to foil any impeachment move. If anyone thinks that there can be a major coup in PPP against widower of Benazir Bhutto and father of the party chairperson Bilawal Zardari, having full backing of the only living daughter of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, I pray for sanity to him. If Leghari in presidency and PPP-Patriot Ministers with most lucrative of portfolios could not break PPP at a time when Benazir was in exile, then it seems unlikely that this will happen at a time when the man himself sits in Presidency. Also, knowing Mr. Gillani, he is not likely to be Farooq Laghari and will prefer resigning himself rather than backstabbing Zardari. Also, presently, it seems unlikely that ANP or MQM will go against Mr. Zardari in any such move.

Another way is to disqualify Mr. Zardari through courts. If this happens, keeping in view courts favorible attitude towards PML-N and her inability to move against Musharraf, this will be seen as an act of vendetta. This will revoke the memory of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's hanging among the supporters of PPP across the country and it will be very difficult for PPP leadership not to launch an allout assault on courts. Also, these are the same courts which tried Mr. Zardari for 12 years without a single conviction. If they could not find anything against him in 12 years, what moral authority they have to oppose NRO. Not only that, in most of his cases, Mr. Zardari been acquitted outside the gambit of NRO. So, even in case the decision gets over-turned on NRO, it is unlikely to remove Mr. Zardari on these grounds.

An Army coup against Mr. Zardari at this stage is not likely either. First, Army has hardly regained the repute she lost for her last misadventure. If she marches again on Islamabad, the resentment all across the country especially in Sindh and Balochistan will be hard to curtail and will lead to events which might become totally uncontrollable. Same goes for an attempt to get Mr. Zardari's resignation on gun point.

A repeat of March 15, 2009 is another way of getting rid of Mr. Zardari. An agitation in few distrcits of Punjab leading to ouster of Mr. Zardari will not go down well with Sindh and Saraiki areas as well as ranks and files of PPP across the country and the consequences for the state will be unthinkable. In Sindh, less than 2 years after the assassination of Ms. Bhutto this can cause havoc. So most likely, any such misadventure this time is likely to result in the much-feared balkanization of Pakistan. On March 15^th, Mr. Zardari compromised just when he could have gone on to escalate the confrontation and the powers that be fully know this. It might be unjust to accept him to show the same restraint again.

Since the forces aiming at getting rid of Zardari seem so adament, they might try to bring him down by killing one of his prominent opponents. If this happens, it will be most unfortunate, for then it would be the State of Pakistan and not Mr. Zardari which would be at stake. For Mr. Zardari, Pakistan Army and Govt. of Pakistan, this should be the matter of utmost consideration. For those of us, who hate Zardari, ask yourselves one question to yourself, before being sucked in by any such conspiracy by forces who want to balkanize Pakistan, do you hate Zardari more than you want Pakistan? I leave the rest to your sane judgement. As for his political opponents, if they find this assertion credible, it is a food for thought for them as well.

If, at all, the forces bound on getting rid of Mr. Zardari succeed, the consequence for Pakistan and all of us will be disastrous. Taliban are down but not out. If given any opportunity, which they are definitely likely to get in case of derailing of present setup, they are likely to regroup and launch an all out assault on the State of Pakistan. Also, even if my fears of uprising in smaller provinces prove wrong, just because of the menace of Taliban and Militancy that we have created, anyone who is likely to come is not going to last even a few months. I say this for the following reasons. One, the process of removal of Mr. Zardari will at least make the country fragile if not completely crippled. And Secondly, any alternative to PPP lacks the vision to understand the nature and scope of the problem of Militancy. If you do not believe me, to guage PML-N's ability, just look at the statements of PML-N leadership between April 15th and May 15th on Taliban and you will find an overnight shift in their stance based on no rational thinking but swing in public opinion. And for Pakistan Army, Army could not have moved an inch in this battle without the political support that was provided to it both internally and internationally by the present setup. Lastly, majority of urban educated Pakistanis and our right-wing political classes do not fully realize that we, right now, are at a fore-front of a great game. On one side is the present global order, represented by US and on the other side is a faceless element bound on destroying everything. The other side does not have the courage to reveal its identity and its anonymity can be gauged by the mere fact that its trumpets hail Taliban for fighting Imperial US before labeling them agents of US before once again condemning US for killing them through drone attacks.

Co-chairperson Zardari, they try to create the impression that you have no following among PPP ranks and files. They tried to create the same impression when Ms. Bhutto got the reins of the party after Mr. Bhutto. They tried to create the same impression after the death of Murtaza Bhutto. Being a sympathizer and supporter of PPP, I believe, I speak on behalf of all of us (with exception of some elitist Kishwar Naheeds) that we thank you for what you have done for the party and country at a time when the murderers of Benazir Bhutto thought that they had destroyed the party and the country beyond repair. We thank you for leading the nation into the last bout against Musharraf Dictatorship and through the crises the nation faced and is facing. We expect you to deliver on your commitment to the nation and We Support THOU!

Sugar Scam - Bar the Culprits from Public Offices

2009-08-15T16:54:00.004+06:00

The News Link
Daily Dawn Link
Daily Naya Akhbar Link

It has been revealed that the sugar mills belonging to Humayun Akhtar Khan and Sharif Brothers are behind the current sugar shortage. They are refusing to release 84.5 million KG of Sugar which has been bought by Trading Corporation of Pakistan to ensure ample supply of Sugar into the market. The Sugar sold at PKR 25 to Govt of Pakistan is now being sold by the Sugar mills at PKR 50-55 in open market, by creating an artificial shortage, while the mills are not letting TCP lift the stock it has purchased. This amounts to an extortion of PKR 2.28 billion and has also caused great suffering to ordinary citizen both through scarcity of sugar as well as hiked prices.

Ironically, Urdu media which is completely in pocket of fundamentalists and Sharifs has completely blacked out the story. In Urdu press, only a news item was published in evening newspaper Naya Akhbar of August 15th but even the sister newspaper Khabrain blacked-out the news the next morning. This gross dishonesty is enough to expose the design of media in general and Urdu media in particular.

This extortion of the worst kind must be checked and ECP, Apex Courts and Govt. of Pakistan must make sure that the politicians involved in the scam are barred from holding any public office till they get their names cleared.

Also, an investigation needs to be launched into why Punjab Govt. was slow to launch a crackdown on mill owners who had illegally stocked the sugar belonging to TCP.

Happy Independence Day!

2009-08-14T13:25:00.006+06:00

We have made it into 63rd year of our existence. Our journey has been far from perfect but one thing we have proved along the way is our ability to bounce back and do the unthinkables when we decide to do them.

(Image: Celebrations of Independence Day in Mingora, Swat)

We have managed to root-out an internal insurgency bigger than many in the world in less than 3 months.
We succeeded in bringing back home our brethren who had to flee from their homes because of militants in only a matter of weeks.
We succeeded in producing statesmen par excellence who have charmed the world with their eloquence, smartness and vision.
We are at the fore-front of a renaissance in the near-East.
Despite all odds, all propaganda, we have succeeded in establishing that we want to be a democracy and a republic, we have made 4 dictators run and get buried in the sands of time.
We succeeded in being the 7th nuclear power in the world.
A countryman named Abdus Salam managed to be a Nobel laureate in his cutting-edge research in quantum physics.

We are a nation of extra ordinary resilience, marred by a skeptic class of urban educated elements (who unfortunately control major avenues of public discourse i.e. media). This class has resisted every single change from advent of loud speaker to space shuttle. It laughed at cell phones. It resisted satellite television, internet, and every modern innovation and yet was cozy in using them shamelessly when the merits became clear. The representatives of this class told us that Swatis are fed up with the Pakistani system and need Taliban and the celebration of independence day of Republic of Pakistan in Swat by Swatis is a slap on their faces for contrary to their propaganda, Pakistanis want liberation, democracy and modernity.

My countrymen, let the regressive thinkers bark, and let us move on. For our genesis is not in being skeptic but in being daring enough to welcome any change. For no change is powerful enough not to be channelized by us. We are not made to fear change but the ones who should shout loudest "Bring it on!". We are ready for every change and we are ready to make the best use of it. We want to move on, move forward towards modernity, liberation, progress and evolution. We are agents of change and not the victims of it.

You regressionists, keep barking, for we are moving on and the time has come for the idea of a Pakistani Republic standing side by side with the modern world. A society based on tolerance, democracy, rational thinking and modernity - World here we come! Losers, either join us or be left out.

Supreme Court's Historic Verdict - Another Perspective 3

2009-08-07T22:51:00.001+06:00

Click on the image or the link below:

http://express.com.pk/epaper/PoPupwindow.aspx?newsID=1100687332&Issue=NP_LHE&Date=20090807

Supreme Court's Historic Verdict - Another Perspective 2

2009-08-07T22:44:00.004+06:00

Click on the image or the link below:

http://jang.com.pk/jang/aug2009-daily/06-08-2009/col8.htm

Supreme Court's Historic Verdict - Another Perspective 1

2009-08-07T22:42:00.000+06:00

Writing of history or triumph of amnesia?

Islamabad diary - The News

Friday, August 07, 2009
Ayaz Amir

“Historic”, we are being told — and told without end — is what the judgment of their Supreme Court lordships is. General (r) Pervez Musharraf’s Nov 3, 2007, action has been declared “unconstitutional” and “civil society” is ecstatic, some of our wilder drumbeaters assuring us that the doors on military interventionism have been closed forever. Ah, if wishes were horses.

The Supreme Court judgment not so much revises history as cuts it up, wrapping it in neat packages. For it declares only one action of Musharraf’s unconstitutional — his Nov 3 Emergency, which came at the fag end of his rule. The inescapable conclusion we are left with is that everything else the man did fell within the ambit of the Constitution.

Now what was Musharraf’s original sin from which flowed everything else? Why, his coup d’état of Oct 12, 1999, when his generals overthrew an elected government, disbanded the National Assembly, put the Constitution into cold storage and imprisoned not only the then prime minister but his closest colleagues and even members of his family.

Just as Adam ate the apple he wasn’t supposed to touch and as a consequences was expelled from Paradise, the apple which Musharraf plucked and put into his mouth was on the fateful evening of Oct 12, all those years ago, when he was in the air on a flight from Sri Lanka, while his generals — chief among them Usmani, Aziz and Mahmood — went about the removal of the elected government.

That was the mother of all sins. So how strange and dripping with irony this omission: about that seminal event, which set in train all the sorrows the nation was to reap thereafter, their lordships in their “historic” judgment have nothing to say.

For this of course we must understand the problems of the past. For in 2000, a few months after the mother of all sins, when this matter came before the then Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Irshad Hasan Khan, the nation witnessed another of those electrifying performances which have made “the doctrine of necessity” so famous in our land, the Supreme Court validating Musharraf’s coup and, what’s more, allowing him a grace period of three years to hold elections. In its generosity, it also gave Musharraf the authority to amend the Constitution for purposes of holding elections.

So just as the Anwarul Haq Supreme Court gave a clean chit to General Ziaul Haq’s coup of 1977, another Supreme Court signed a papal bull conferring legitimacy on another illegitimate offspring of our political adventures.

Now for an inconvenient fact. On the bench headed by Chief Justice Irshad Hasan Khan there sat an up-and-coming jurist, stern of eye and distinguished of look, by the name of Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. Yes, he was among the illustrious upholders of the law and the Constitution who bathed Musharraf and his generals in holy water.

Before that baptismal ceremony, Musharraf, following the example of military saviours before him, had issued another Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) requiring judges of the high courts and the Supreme Court to take a fresh oath pledging obedience to the new order. A few difficult judges — among them Chief Justice Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, Justices Wajeehuddin, Nasir Aslam Zahid, Mamoon Qazi, Khalilur Rehman, Kamal Mansoor Alam — spurned Musharraf’s PCO and promptly found themselves out in the cold. But a majority, preferring discretion over valour, thought it wiser to go along with the new order of things.

Among this lot — the original lot, that is — was Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. And it was from this PCO crowd, which saw no evil in wearing the robes of the judiciary under a usurping general, that the Supreme Court bench was composed which in double-quick time conferred absolution on Musharraf and his triumphant generals.

Chief Justice Irshad Hasan Khan wrote the judgment and the other judges on the bench, including Justice Chaudhry, without adding a word of their own (which was slightly unusual) concurred with his sweeping validation. As PCO judges they were expected to toe the line dictated by the country’s martial law masters and, to no one’s surprise, they went along faithfully, Chief Justice Irshad in front and they in his train. In the museum dedicated to the doctrine of necessity this was another trophy.

So it is not a little surprising to see the present Supreme Court coming down so hard on the Nov 3, 2007, PCO judges when they themselves (most of them, if memory serves) felt few qualms in being PCO judges in January 2000. Let him cast the first stone who hath not sinned, said Christ. Their lordships of the “historic” judgment are no doubt made of sterner stuff, preferring to interpret the past as a closed and shut transaction while bringing down the executioner’s axe on those who could well plead in their defence that they were doing no more than following the example, set in times past, by their betters.

What about the nation which faces a serious test? For it is being asked to believe, if we go along with all the implications of the “historic” verdict, that Musharraf’s rule was legitimate until Nov 3, 2007, and it was only his proclamation of emergency that evening which put him outside the pale of the Constitution. This is a very selective rendering with which most Pakistanis are not likely to agree. .

According to this interpretation Musharraf did nothing unconstitutional from Oct 12, 1999, to Nov 3, 2007, and it was only the period of emergency — from Nov 3 to Dec 15 — which is worthy of judicial censure. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, he was a usurper not for eight and a half years — which most people in Pakistan believe — but for a mere 40-45 days.

As sins of this sort go in Pakistan, this doesn’t amount to much of a transgression. But even if it is considered serious (and there are people who will), its severity is mitigated by the fact that the malefactor (Musharraf) first took off his uniform on Nov 28, 2007 (thus doing the nation a favour it had long demanded) and lifted emergency on Dec 15, 2007, thus returning the country to constitutional rule (as per the implication of the Supreme Court verdict). Not only that but he went on to hold elections. This makes him look not a demonic but rather quite a benign figure.

His original sin, it can be argued, was no longer a sin in the eyes of the law because the PCO of 2000 and the oaths of the judges were validated later by parliament. Very true, but this is hair-splitting. Musharraf was a usurper as were Zia and Yahya and Ayub before him. The others too were validated by various judicial and constitutional instruments. But all these actions remain blots on our history and in the eyes of the people, and in the eyes of history, they are all usurpers who — although this is quite another story — brought great harm to the nation.

Musharraf deserves punishment, as did all military saviours before him. But if Article Six is to be invoked it should be for Oct 12, ‘99, rather than the secondary and much smaller sin of Nov 3, 2007. In that case it is not he alone who should be brought into the dock but all his collaborators — the generals who ordered troop movements on Oct 12, the judges who were effectively his collaborators later and all those who chose to serve under him in various capacities. Flogging Musharraf is easy because he is a dead horse. But if we are serious about retribution our canvas has to be broader.

But since it is not going to be broad, and bringing Musharraf to justice is likely to remain no more than a talking point — because who wants to stir this hornet’s nest? — the more seemly thing is to move on and confront the future and inculcate some humility in ourselves by remembering that in the sins of the Musharraf many now counted among the good and the great, and even the historic, were also complicit.

From such humility — or what the Chinese call self-criticism — will come the strength to face the future, and even fix it in our favour.

Surrendering to Taliban

2009-08-05T17:17:00.003+06:00

International media for last few weeks is ripe with the reports of dialogue with Taliban in Afghanistan. Indications suggest that the dialogue at least has the backing of US and UK if not their direct involvement. Saudi Arabia seems to be a direct broker in these talks because of its connections with Taliban and other radical Islamists.

From what appears in media, it seems likely that Americans and NATO are ready to give Taliban serious concessions and are willing to include them in the power structure of Afghanistan. What remains to be seen is whether this attempt is aimed at ensuring peaceful holding of coming presidential elections or it is aimed at preparing the ground for ultimate withdrawal of NATO and US troops for the region.

If it is former, this happened before last presidential elections as well and will only be limited to engaging some of the regional elements. If it is later, the question is how much are Americans willing to concede to Taliban.

Any settlement without ensuring disarmament of Taliban and a mechanism to ensure it in the future, establishment of an ethnically and politically representative security framework of Afghanistan, establishment of principle of democratically elected government as the norm of political system, and a firm commitment by Taliban to renounce their style of governance will be a quick fix and will worsen the matters in times to come. It will allow the Western forces to be pulled out from battlefield Afghanistan but will lead to more troubles globally. World must have realized by now that the fundamentalist Islamists have a regressive global agenda and any truces by them are an attempt on their part to gain time to march towards their ultimate objective.

Also, any permanent settlement in Afghanistan needs to incorporate the concerns of all neighbors bordering Afghanistan, of China, of Russia, of USA, and of NATO/EU bloc. Anything short of leading to troops withdrawal/reduction will be perceived as a surrender to Taliban. If Brits want to pull their troops from Afghanistan, the solution is not to surrender completely but look for some framework under the auspices of UN aimed at inducting troops from other nations.

Obama administration, listening to the advocates of post-American world doctrine, might take steps which will have serious repercussions for the region and global peace. The question is not whether the world will be living in a post-American age or an American-dominant age. For every citizen in this world, including American citizens and policymakers, the question ought to be whether we will live in a world that is fair and safe or not? And leaving a volatile region in the world at the mercy of unarmed and unchecked Taliban neither makes our world fair nor safe.

Washington needs to revise its strategy and needs to uphold the "American ideals" of democracy, human rights and liberalism globally. More so, if Americans surrender to Taliban, the dominant and populist liberal forces in the region will find it really hard to trust Americans ever again. Post American support for dictators against left-leaning populous movements in the region, the Taliban threat has provided Americans with an opportunity to bridge the differences with the masses of this most populated region in the world. No one invited Americans to Iraq or Afghanistan. Americans came in and stirred the balance of power and made regions extremely volatile. Now, with the regions suffering from volatility, if American decide to cut and run, it would be perceived as a big breech of trust by the citizens of this region.

More importantly, regional players should devise a combination of economic, political and military strategy to ensure the process of detalibanization of the region even if US and NATO decide to cut and run. Shanghai Cooperation Council might provide the ideal platform for such initiative.

Democratic, liberal government in Pakistan will be the first target of a Taliban dominance in Afghanistan. More importantly, based on blood bath of last 9 years generally and last 2 years specially, Taliban have developed an irreversible remorse for Pakistan Army. Talking to Taliban sympathizers in Pakistan it seems inevitable that it is impossible that Taliban will be willing to enter and honor a long-term truce with the state of Pakistan or Pakistan Army. China faces the threat of destabilization in the eastern provinces at the hand of these fanatic Islamist movements. Russia and Central Asian Republics face the same threat. Iran is a sectarian enemy of this brand of Islam. If Pakistan falls for Taliban, India too will face the repercussions. The interests of regional players on this issue could never have been more aligned. The threat for all is existential and so even if NATO and US decide to cut and run, the regional forces must be a step ahead in checking the spread of Taliban and Al Qaeeda ideology in the region. It is a mess that is going to effect the entire world but region will be the first to be effected. It might be high time for regional states to be prepared for it and devise a solution based on addressing mutual interests.

Justice Khawaja Sharif should resign!

2009-07-22T16:21:00.007+06:00

Express Report on Justice Sharif's speech.

Asia News Link

Above are links to press reports on speech of Lahore High Court Chief Justice Kh. Muhammad Sharif. One could argue about the entire content of this speech. On any account, the speech is inappropriate for the conduct of a judge. However, I will refrain from delving into the entire content of the speech and will focus only on one area which certainly makes him liable for being politically biased. He has indulged in a blame game with a political party openly and has criticized the party and its government for its record indulging in comments which are heavily politically loaded. Being a citizen of Pakistan, he is entitled to his opinions but his conduct as a judge demands him to be impartial. In the wake of such open display of Justice Sharif's views about a political party, he is no longer fit to hold the high office of Chief Justice of a High Court which demands complete impartiality and no display of opinions and comments except strictly through the judgments in the letter and the spirit of the constitution which is being acted upon in the nation-state.

For this, I demand Mr. Sharif to tender his resignation himself and in case he fails to do this, Chief Justice of Pakistan should take notice of this and request Justice Sharif to resign voluntarily; and in case of his refusal to do so bring the matter before Supreme Judicial Council to decide whether in light of his views, Justice. Sharif is eligible to hold the constitutional post which demands complete political impartiality. This to me is the test of CJP and his repeated pledges of restoring the dignity, decorum and impartiality of the higher courts.

PML-N MPA Charged with Theft

2009-07-14T08:14:00.002+06:00

I wonder from Pervaiz Khan (Who had someone else to appear for exams rather than himself) to Chaudhary Ghafoor (Customs fame trying to clear his friend's smuggled goods) to Chauhdary Ghafoor (Abusing a woman MPA inside Punjab Assembly) to DIG Zulfikar Cheema (Accused of corruption by Express reporter and then persecuting the same reporter - and by the same DIG who was praised by NS for his call to duty during Long March by Nawaz Sharif) to this latest incidence why all the mismanagement and abuse of power is attributed to PML-N (A party still perceived by urban classes and media as a cleaner party)?

Economy is too serious a business to be left to judges

2009-07-09T21:03:00.003+06:00

Supreme Court has suspended the imposition of Carbon tax on petroleum products. This move has been hailed by many sections of a society as a relief given to the ordinary man by country's apex court. To counter that the President has issued an ordinance reimposing tariff on petroleum products.

I am someone who will be benefiting from this relief directly. However, I think this is a very dangerous precedence and has far reaching impacts not only for country's economy but its stability as well.

In purely economic terms, the move is likely to increase the twin deficit of Pakistan. On one hand, it leaves a revenue gap of PKR 122 billion and thus increases the budget deficit by the same amount which will need to be filled through borrowing. Secondly, and even more so, oil imports are 25% of Pakistan's total imports. With lower prices, the demand is going to be higher, thus leading to more imports and thus greater trade imbalance which a country like Pakistan with weak export base and fragile currency cannot sustain. More so, because of heavy reliance on international aid (in US$s) and volatility surrounding US$, at this juncture country can hardly afford any increase in trade imbalance. The choice for us is simple. Either we suffer some now, or we suffer even greater later. Should we once again go for the shortcut route or should we do some sound planning for future? This is an issue for us to think about.

This decision also sets a dangerous precedence on another front. It violates the principle of separation of state institutions. People elect Parliament which elects the Government. Government makes policies for its term (in this case 5 years) and then goes back to people for approval/ disapproval of its policies. Govt. announced the budget and Parliament unanimously approved it. This Carbon surcharge was part of that budget which Parliament endorsed. Judiciary has not right to intervene in day to day policy making and through his action Justice Chaudhary has crossed that sacred line.

It seems Justice Chaudhary has learnt nothing from last 2 years. He is adamant on getting the headline coverage and personal projection through populace decisions rather than the ones based on strict interpretation of letter and spirit of the law. It is not a business of Supreme Court to meddle with financial policy issues and it should remain this way. In their love for Justice Chaudhary or their hatred for the present Government, coupled with cheap fuel to burn, urban educated classes of Pakistan are treading a road that is dangerous and can be disastrous for the country and its economy.

Myth Busters

2009-06-27T03:04:00.001+06:00

The Pakistani media controlled by fundos has been spreading conspiracy theories and is trying to salvage the extremist ideology and regressive thoughts when this ideology’s very foundations are shaking. It has woven a world around a series of myths and is sticking to it, to embrace an ideology that is losing and is outdated. Worst still, in the emotions and euphoria and the pretention of know-all, the educated urban class buys these myths without introspecting. How the media moulds the thought process of educated classes across the world, and more so in Pakistan, is an ideal manifestation of the fact that three worst illusions are; a) I know for I read it in the newspaper, b) I know for I heard it on the TV, and c) I know for I read it in a book.

With this extensive control of the news media by the fundos, it is imperative that their myths and claims be tested for their reasoning. So here is a counterpoint to six most popular myths, the fundo media lives by.

1. Mehsood and Taliban are US agents

This is funny stuff. No seriously. All these years, these Hamir Mirs and Ansar Abbasis and Irfan Siddiquis have been portraying Mehsood, Fazal Ullah and Taliban as the fighters against the Satan, US. These journalists claimed to have inroads into the Taliban network and were trying to convince us why Taliban are the great saviors we should fall behind. Then post-Swat flogging video, the public opinion started shifting. No matter how you like to twist the debate, the reality is that people of Pakistan, almost unanimously, gave a big shut-up call to the Mullah-described “Islamic Law”.

With Taliban myth being shattered in public view and Taliban’s ambitions about power and a bloody takeover of Pakistani society and government becoming clear, came the new twist – a new fairy tale. The saviors of Islam had been planted by Americans to take control of Pakistani nukes and disintegrate Pakistan.

The irony is that not only the fundo elements in the media but even the self-perceived liberal elements like Nazeer Naji also propagate the same theory. First and foremost, the Pakistan’s fragile federation was in near collapse during last couple of years of Musharraf rule and had it not been for US’s active efforts to save the federation from collapsing even by arm-twisting some of her Mid-Eastern allies, it could well have collapsed. US, of all the countries, cannot afford to let Pakistan fall for a number of reasons. First and foremost, if Pakistan or parts of it fall into the hands of fundos, it will shake the whole region from Indonesia to Morocco and no super power can afford this jitter. Second, in a region comprising Iran, Russia and China, Pakistan is US’s best bet to have influence in the region. And based on chaos theory, one might be able to create chaos but cannot control the outcome of it. So US cannot even think of destabilizing Pakistan for it will start a chain of unpredictable events no one will have control over. So it is not in US interest to break Pakistan.

As far as Pakistan’s nuclear program goes, even there, it has covert US node for decades. At some point in 90s, US realized that for her relationship with Pakistan, she needs to compromise on Pakistan’s nuclear program. If US and West want to stop someone from getting nukes, they go to the length they did with Iran or North Korea. Pakistan did not come anywhere close to it despite the proven record of nuclear technology smuggling and confession of Dr. A. Q. Khan. US also appreciates Pakistan’s concerns vis-à-vis India and her nuclear program, something manifested by President Clinton’s reaction to Pakistan’s nuclear explosions (you need to read/research and dig deep to form an opinion rather than relying on Talat Husain’s of the world). Pakistan, like India, is a nuclear program which US did not want to have in the first place but since it is there, it is willing to accept it for now and deal with it under some later global non-proliferation agreement. The only US and global concern regarding Pakistan’s nukes is their safety and in ensuring that they do not fall in the hands of Taliban.

So US do not want to break Pakistan. She is not interested in denuclearization for now. On the contrary, it is in US interest to have Pakistan to further its interest in the region of the Great Game. Something where our interests converge for now and something we both should benefit from.

Calling Mehsood and Taliban US planted agents is a deceptive ploy to take the focus away from the real issue. The real issue is that, in recent past, under the fundos in Pakistani establishment and in the name of doctrine of strategic depth, Pakistan created a monstrous fire power which is threatening her own existence and our way of living. This ideology of hate dominates our media and coupled with sensationalism and self-pity is trying to divert our attention from the core issue of combating the menace that we face - the menace of Islamization, theocracy and Jihad-brand Saudi Islam.

2. Benazir turned anti-US and so US killed her

If the first myth is funny, second one is sad. All these Hamid Mir’s and Ansar Abbasis and Irfan Siddiquis were up in arms against Benazir Bhutto when she landed in October. Read their pieces in newspapers or their talk on TV channels in months leading to her death and you will hear them labeling her as a US stooge, a corrupt leader who has landed through a US-brokered deal with a dictator to quench her thirst for power. So much so, that they even tried to justify the attack on her welcome by linking it to her support for Lal Masjid operation (needless to say these perverts always try to justify the terrorist attacks on one pretext or another). But then she was killed and the nation in mourning, sympathizing with Benazir Bhutto’s cause and awakening to her sacrifice for the noble principles and ideology she stood for, made it impossible for these fundos to oppose her. So what did they do? They played if you cannot beat them joined them. Benazir Bhutto, the stooge of West, over night became the rebel against US who has been killed by Americans for she was a roadblock in their interests. Now more than her own party and people, these fundos became the self-proclaimed saviors of her ideology. Hamid Gul (a man nominated by BB herself in the letter mentioning her killers), Ansar Abbasi and Hamid Mir were all out spreading theories of Benazir turning against West and thus being killed. They came up with their private talks with Benazir, in which BB confessed to them secretly of her displeasure of US policies and her intent to stand against US. Her opinions, of which neither her family, nor her political colleagues or political strategists were aware of, were shared by her with the journalists who stood on the other side of the political divide (am I the only one who finds it hard to digest?). More importantly, when Bait Ullah Mehsood was named in her assassination, these fundos were at the forefront of defending that “American Agent” and claiming he respected Benazir. Give me a break!

3. We face terrorist threat because we decided to side with US in War on Terror

This is simple. It has its roots in psychology of power. When an entity/movement becomes strong enough, it lays its claim to power. We have raised the Jihad Inc. for over three decades. With an estimated 1.2 Million trained militants (larger than Pakistan Army) and huge stakes in drugs, smuggling and arms business, the mafia was to lay claim to absolute power no matter what. 9/11 and US attack on Afghanistan just triggered the events a bit. 9/11 or not, sooner or later, the junior partners in strategic depth doctrine (Jihadis) had to lay claim to the senior partner status realizing their ever growing muscle. This is how power-play works in human societies. And if you need any more proof, Talibans behavior post-Swat deal, extending their influence to Buneer, should be enough to highlight their real motive – power and control. It is not about ideology. It is not about Islam. It is a power play and this is how it works in the real world, away from the utopia created by conspiracy theorists.

4. Suicide bombers are produced in retaliation to killings by Drone attacks

Not even once have I been given evidence that the suicide bomber was actually someone related to a person who died in a drone attack. If anyone has ever seen them establishing this link, please illuminate me. First, you have to establish this link which in their rhetoric these fundo journalists never bring. Then, even if it is a reaction to drone attacks, then the suicide bomber should go to Americans to blow himself or attack Pakistan Army or Govt. installations. It makes no sense to blow up markets or hotels in Pakistan. It is a ploy to ensue fear, an age old tactic in power politics. They want to demoralize us to make their takeover easy – but budge we would not.

5. Drone attacks are a violation of Pakistani sovereignty

This one is also funny. The attacks take place in areas a) where Pakistan government has lost her sovereignty and b) which host the elements which are trying to take over the Pakistani state. Last I knew, based on commonsense, if someone is bombing your enemy who has taken over your areas, it is not a violation of your sovereignty. If these Hamir Mirs and Irfan Siddiqui were in the 40s France, they would have been cursing the Allied Forces fighting Nazis to liberate France from German invasion. Isn’t it the most nonsensical argument? Also, we never hear directly from general public of those areas against these attacks. In private talks, some of the tribals have told me that they are happy that US is bombing the people who have taken their towns hostage. I am not saying that those people represent the public opinion there. All I say is that there is more to it then we hear on Geos and Aajs.

6. Israel-Palestine conflict is the biggest reason Muslims hate US

It is a sensitive subject. I believe most humans want a just and free world. On a personal note, I think that Palestinians have been wronged and they must get a fair deal. But blaming hatred among Muslims of US on this sole issue is untrue. In fact, to me it is not even the major cause of the hatred. The hatred stems from a multitude of reasons. First and foremost is the desire of elite in Muslim world to preserve their way of living with which they are comfortable and which ensures their hegemony. They think of modern world ideals of free speech, democracy, human rights, women rights etc to be directly in conflict with their interests and hegemony and since these elite controls the avenues of expressions (i.e. media) in the Muslim World, these avenues spills hate towards America and the West. Second, everyone hates the handsome guy in high school who scores As and dates all the pretty girls. For this reason, everyone is naturally envious and jealous of Americans, including Europe. Third, masses of Muslim world, mostly deprived of their fair share, are skeptical of US for her support for the dictatorship and tyrannies across the Muslim World. CIA staged coups in many Muslim countries (including Iran) and US’s shameless support to tyrannies and monarchies in crushing the popular movements has made masses skeptical of US. They hate the orders that exist in their countries and they see US support as a main cause of those orders survival. Through out the history, US has been reluctant in her support for democratic governments in Muslim World and third world, and has sided with establishments and tyrannies. This is the biggest cause of Anti-US sentiments in the Muslim World. And this is something which Americans need to address, if they want to build bridges with 1.6 billion Muslims of the world rather than a handful Sheikhs and Generals (who by the way will keep playing a double game to resist modernity that comes with US influence).

Pakistan Wins the T20 World Cup

2009-06-22T00:48:00.021+06:00

Speechless and in joy. Dancing and singing. Congrats to all Pakistanis. It's the beginning of our recovery from the dark days of extremism and tyranny. We are a nation which deserves a lot rather than being bogged down by hypocrisy, hate, and conspicuous mindset. We are a nation of champs and we can be part of the world and make our mark.

CONGRATULATIONS PAKISTAN AND OUR CRICKET TEAM. I wouldn't say more and will let the pictures speak for themselves.

Let us get rid of Asif Ali Zardari!

2009-06-11T18:49:00.002+06:00

In 2007, Pakistan faced a multitude of crisis. First and foremost was the internal insurgencies and halfhearted response of Musharraf regime to Taliban threat had put the country on the brink of oblivion. On top of it, Army's reputation as an institution was at an all time low which made it impossible for it to go after Taliban. Add to it the public opinion that was bitterly divided on fighting Taliban insurgency and the deep distrust that existed in world capitals because of Mush's double crossing. Amidst these circumstances, Benazir Bhutto risked her life to go back and help Army fight the battle that was to be fought. The Army, she came back to protect, could not save her life and she lay in blood on a dirt track in Rawalpindi.
After her demise, Asif Zardari was brought to the center stage and started working on fighting Taliban, resolving Balochistan crisis, and removing Pakistan's international isolation.
As things stand right now, Army's image as an institution has been miraculously restored, nation is united in fighting Taliban, Balochistan has a hope for peace, and international community is falling behind Pakistan's fight with material and moral support. And this precisely is why the power players in Pakistan should accelerate their attempts to get rid of Asif Ali Zardari.
It will be in line with our national character and history. In 1971, when the Army was defeated and India asserted its military superiority, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the man himself, came to the rescue. He got 90,000 armed personal free from prison camps in India, got thousands of miles of captured area back, took Pakistan out of international isolation, and to strengthen defense pioneered the nuclear program. When all was in place, we were quick to get rid of him dragging him to gallows and sending him to the graveyard of Garhi.
Again in late 80s and early 90s, when the days of reliance of American aid were coming to an end as a result of end of cold war, economy was stagnant and energy to run it non-existant, and India's advantage in conventional warfare was hard to breech, came Benazir Bhutto to the rescue. Energy was being produced in surplus, telecommunication and banking sectors were regularized, and more importantly the country got most sophisticated missile program which till today acts as a deterrence against external aggression. Once she did her part, we got rid of her and put her to a life of misery which ended with her killing in Liaquat Bagh.
So now we must do the same. We have been preparing for it for long. No one mentions corruption of Shaukat Aziz which was ascertained by the Supreme Court. No one mentions the wrong-doings of Nawaz Sharif from tax-evasion to illegal use of electricity. No one even bothers mentioning about his conviction in not one but two cases. All we focus on is Zardari's corruption, never proven in any court of law anywhere in the world. They say Nawaz's conviction doesn't matter because it was under the hostile courts of Musharraf (of which Iftikhar Chaudhary was a part of:)). What they ignore is that Zardari's cases were not registered in or tried under Zulfikar Ali Bhutto courts either. They were under 2 consecutive hostile regimes for 11 years without conviction. Media talks of NRO yet is so touchy over the Jeddah deal and media. NRO mind you was an ordinance for people against whom nothing had been proved for 11 years, Jeddah deal a pardon to convicted. Task of these Jiyalas leaders is to get us out of the ditch. They do their duty and we get rid of them (often physically). So it is time to accelerate our attempts to get rid of Asif Ali Zardari.
Bureaucracy showed on March 15th where it stands. Courts are controlled by Zardari's arch-rivals. Elements in military and intelligence services have been anti-Zardari. It's only the top-brass of Armed Forces which needs to be brought on board. They must realize that traditions are more important than showing gratitude for Zardari's service. As far as Americans are concerned, they can live with any "friendly" regime in Pakistan, even the one brought up as a result of a Khomeini style coup. Can Army stand this coup is a million dollar question? For now, let us focus on getting rid of the man.

Obama's Address to Muslims

2009-06-04T21:32:00.004+06:00

Above is the video of the full speech. A powerful speech by a good orator. Here are my two cents.

It’s hard to go against popular sentiments. And in the blogosphere communities of both West and Muslim World, Obama’s speech to the Muslim World and the reaction of those who heard it and cared is extremely positive. But I will say what I think nonetheless, not because I have a strong belief in perfection of my beliefs but because I think these are the points we need to seriously deliberate upon in both the Muslim World and the West.

I always knew behind all this talk of equality, pride etc amongst many in the Muslim world was a petty need for recognition. But I didn't think, this need was so shallow and so desperate. I mean a clap every time President Obama said Assalam u alaikum or recited a verse from Quran. Was that all that they needed to publically applaud an American President?

I believe this speech was an honest and sincere attempt on part of President Obama to bring Muslim World and West closer. The problem is, the main hypothesis of his philosophy is flawed.

Obama’s address to me sounded as a call for truce with status quo in the Muslim World. It was an address to the haves of the Muslim World. The haves who, in their sheer confusion, and quest for control over the resources of their region (more so by snatching them from have-nots in their own regions) have created Al Qaeeda and extremism. They created the monster which now endangers the whole world as well as frightens them. Every time you hear some smart analyst on CNN who is getting response from the Muslim World on the speech via Twitter, be mindful, it is not the response of the mainstream but of rich who could afford to twitter and blog there. The majorities of Muslim world are poor, mostly peaceful, struggling to get a living of their own when their resources get plundered by autocratic/dictatorial establishments, and are not bugged by the Anti-West cliché. Mr. Obama, like the local prevalent establishments, thinks that a solution can be found bypassing these have-nots. All I can say is, this solution will be devoid of any stability.

Realizing the debris of colonial past, all Mr. Obama offered was a clean chit to all the relics of that very colonial system. The monarchs and autocrats who were the direct descendants of the colonial era have been given a clean chit again and this time in public. If this is going to be the official American policy then the beacon of liberty and hope for the world has decided to make a truce with oppressor, back-stabbing the significant majorities of those societies in their struggle for democracy and human rights.

The biggest victims of his speech were the secular movements in the Muslim World. A liberal president has capped the flow of liberalism in the most reactionary region of the world by this speech. For those who wanted to have an open debate on the role of religion in state and society in the Muslim World, this speech has been a blow. The most liberal president of the Secular West recognizes religion, emphasizes on religion to great extent, and wants to work with in it. "God of clergy" is here to stay. God of Abraham will have to live with the unrest caused in his name.

Neither West nor Muslim world can afford to have this short-term approach. Excluding the forces of progression in Muslim World, being muted on the spread of democracy, and leaving autocracy and theocracy unchecked would not deliver the stability we long for. I agree US does not have the means to deliver democracies to the Muslim World, nor will an imposed democracy work. But at the same time, publically abandoning her commitment to democracy and human rights will be a severe blow to the causes of liberation and human rights.

As for the Muslim World, even when we have got the presidential node of a global president for the status quo, should we continue the same path which has thrown us into the abyss of non-existence (reality is we really don’t matter except for the ability of a handful amongst us to destroy) or do we need to build a more vibrant and more tolerant society. Can we live with the system that for its own protection created the monsters like Al Qaeeda, Taliban and Ikhwan or do we need to change the course? Do we need to have a dispassionate debate on what use of religion in society and polity has done to us over the years? And above all, can we build a stable society and system without giving the majority (have-nots) their due share? To me, we need to work for a renaissance of our own or the tide of time will impose it on us with us having no control over its dynamics.

Both America and Muslim World can opt for a short term solution of making a truce with the status quo. In my opinion, it would not work and will hit us harder later. We can also seek long term solutions in which both sides will need to change radically and drastically. Whether Obama becomes the first president of world shaped on American ideals (rather than the British Colonial ones) or he becomes the first president of post-America century? Whether Muslim World keeps falling into the pit of violence and decomposition or becomes a vibrant entity in human evolution? Both sides have to make their own choices.

Pakistan Got Talent

2009-05-13T22:22:00.002+06:00

I found this amazing video of a guy (I am trying to figure out who he is and from where he is) doing one man orchestra. It's just amazing. If you have heard the original songs, you will appreciate it even more. The performer is blind yet he is the most sensational talent I have seen in years.

Diversions by Opportunists

2009-05-12T08:42:00.001+06:00

I wonder why this sudden rush of blood? Nawaz Sharif who has not visited Balochistan once in last 10 years has suddenly become too concerned about Balochistan. Not only that, but the right wingers have again become obsessed with the agenda of “Speedy Justice”, just when the man at the helm of Justice System of Pakistan is their hero. And I wonder why now?

Just when our men in uniform are fighting the existential threat to not only our state but our society and way of living, these right wingers have started blowing the trumpets of other issues, Balochistan, Speedy Justice.

As far as Balochistan goes, it goes without saying that all that the rightwing in our country has done is talk. No leader of theirs has visited Balochistan in last year or so. They distanced themselves from the efforts of normalization being carried out by PPP-led government. The only mentioning of Balochistan is to hang Musharraf for killing of Akbar Bugti. Bugti Sahab, a great statesman, is just used as a pretext to settle the personal vendetta with moron named Musharraf.

I think Baloch leadership is very mature and they realize that this fight against Taliban is their fight too. We have all fought the Army’s tyranny and dictatorships in past, our Baloch brethren probably more than anyone else did. But for the first time in ages, our Army is fighting a fight that is our fight. For if Army fails, our way of living will be at stake in Punjab, in Sindh, in Pakhtunkhwah and in Balochistan. I have full faith in wisdom and judgment of our Baloch leadership. They realize that if Talibanization comes to Pashin or Chamun or Quetta, it will destroy the Baloch value system as well. And if a strong Pakistan Army cannot defeat Taliban chances of anyone else taking on them will be close to zero. So, in their wisdom I have trust in and they will not be a party to this.

As far as the speedy justice goes, logically instead of turning it into an issue, Iftikhar Chaudhary must be given time to deliver. A judge should speak through his decisions and actions and not words. Saying that Talibanization of Swat is a result of injustice is criminal. To these people, I always have one question. PPP is the largest party in Pakistan. Its founder was hanged in a trial that is labeled as a judicial murder. Yet a party representing 40% of Pakistanis, and majority of them diehard followers of ZAB, still shows faith in the justice system, and it is not only the party leadership but its supporters too. If injustice was the cause of chaos, Bhutto’s murder would have burnt Pakistan in a few months. It is an armed mob we are up against which has no values, is regressive by nature, and wants to impose upon us its barbaric ideology. The sooner we all become clear on this, the better it is. And if someone tries to dodge us with something else, we should refute.

Right-wingers control our media. This Taliban threat is growing since last decade at least and yet our media always tried to downplay it and tried to justify it. I fear that just like the public opinion (among urban educated classes) has been diverted in past from core issues to non-issues by a rightwing controlled media, this time too they will try to divert our attention by raising Balochistan and speedy justice just when our Army is fighting the battle for our survival and existence.

My Baloch brethren, if we survive, I make a pledge to stand by you for the demand of your rights and our rights. We can fight it all together but first we need to kill this monster that is threatening our existence.