Showing posts with label pakistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pakistan. Show all posts
Pakistan vs Afganistan - With the Eye of United States
Read Articles about Pakistan vs Afganistan - With the Eye of United States only on PKInside
Pakistan, US differ on strikes in Fata: Hillary
By Sami Abraham
WASHINGTON: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has admitted that there were differences between Pakistan and the United States over the use of force against some of what she called pro-al-Qaeda militant organisations in the Pak-Afghan border areas known as Fata.
In a testimony along with US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates and Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen, before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee here on Thursday, Secretary Clinton said, “We are making the argument before our Pakistani civil and military counterparts that success in Swat and Waziristan is not enough to achieve the objective of completely destroying al-Qaeda, “But,” she added, “the argument will take some time as Pakistan is a sovereign country, which believes that India is their real enemy.”
She was responding to a question if Pakistanis believed that al-Qaeda was useful in stopping the Indian influence in Afghanistan and if US was able to persuade Pakistanis to change this approach.
Secretary Clinton said that there was a great deal of mistrust between the United States and Pakistan because Pakistanis believed that the Americans betrayed and abandoned them in Eighties after Washington walked away when Russians withdrew from the region.
Secretary Clinton said that there was an opportunity for those who were willing to renounce al-Qaeda because it was her understanding that there were a lot of people within the Taliban who did not share the ideology of al-Qaeda.
In response to a question, she also hinted that in future the US might have to deal with some of the hardliner Taliban who might not be in agreement with the United States on a number of issues but willing to act peacefully within the law. Secretary Clinton said that the mission in Afghanistan was never provided with adequate resources because the US mission was shifted to Iraq and Afghan President Karzai had told her that he was confused about this war because the Bush Administration officials had talked about not killing Osama bin Laden and Mulla Omar.
US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates said that situation in Afghanistan was more dangerous than it was 18 months ago because now Pakistani Taliban were deeply involved with al-Qaeda and posing a clear threat to the Pakistani government.
Secretary Gates said that al-Qaeda was connected with Lashkar-e-Taiba and providing assistance to attack Indians to create instability in the region. He said, “All the terrorists who have been arrested from different parts of the world lead us to the border area of Pakistan and Afghanistan.” He said that July 2011 would be the beginning of the process of withdrawal of the US but cautioned that it would be gradual and conditions based. He said the US was trying to give a message to the friends, allies and Afghan people that President Obama was committed only to success and the US would not repeat the mistakes of the past by abandoning the region but, he added, at the same time the US military would not be there forever to protect the Afghan people.” Afghans should get ready to take the responsibility to protect themselves,” he added.
Admiral Mullen, on this occasion said that the United States needed to have a sustained partnership approach with Pakistan despite the complexities. He said a stable Afghanistan was also important for future of Pakistan.
He said, however, no amount of troops or no amount of resources would be able to win the war against terrorists if it was not coupled with the better governance.
WASHINGTON: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has admitted that there were differences between Pakistan and the United States over the use of force against some of what she called pro-al-Qaeda militant organisations in the Pak-Afghan border areas known as Fata.
In a testimony along with US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates and Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen, before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee here on Thursday, Secretary Clinton said, “We are making the argument before our Pakistani civil and military counterparts that success in Swat and Waziristan is not enough to achieve the objective of completely destroying al-Qaeda, “But,” she added, “the argument will take some time as Pakistan is a sovereign country, which believes that India is their real enemy.”
She was responding to a question if Pakistanis believed that al-Qaeda was useful in stopping the Indian influence in Afghanistan and if US was able to persuade Pakistanis to change this approach.
Secretary Clinton said that there was a great deal of mistrust between the United States and Pakistan because Pakistanis believed that the Americans betrayed and abandoned them in Eighties after Washington walked away when Russians withdrew from the region.
Secretary Clinton said that there was an opportunity for those who were willing to renounce al-Qaeda because it was her understanding that there were a lot of people within the Taliban who did not share the ideology of al-Qaeda.
In response to a question, she also hinted that in future the US might have to deal with some of the hardliner Taliban who might not be in agreement with the United States on a number of issues but willing to act peacefully within the law. Secretary Clinton said that the mission in Afghanistan was never provided with adequate resources because the US mission was shifted to Iraq and Afghan President Karzai had told her that he was confused about this war because the Bush Administration officials had talked about not killing Osama bin Laden and Mulla Omar.
US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates said that situation in Afghanistan was more dangerous than it was 18 months ago because now Pakistani Taliban were deeply involved with al-Qaeda and posing a clear threat to the Pakistani government.
Secretary Gates said that al-Qaeda was connected with Lashkar-e-Taiba and providing assistance to attack Indians to create instability in the region. He said, “All the terrorists who have been arrested from different parts of the world lead us to the border area of Pakistan and Afghanistan.” He said that July 2011 would be the beginning of the process of withdrawal of the US but cautioned that it would be gradual and conditions based. He said the US was trying to give a message to the friends, allies and Afghan people that President Obama was committed only to success and the US would not repeat the mistakes of the past by abandoning the region but, he added, at the same time the US military would not be there forever to protect the Afghan people.” Afghans should get ready to take the responsibility to protect themselves,” he added.
Admiral Mullen, on this occasion said that the United States needed to have a sustained partnership approach with Pakistan despite the complexities. He said a stable Afghanistan was also important for future of Pakistan.
He said, however, no amount of troops or no amount of resources would be able to win the war against terrorists if it was not coupled with the better governance.
Obama links Afghan success to Pakistan
By Shaheen Sehbai
WASHINGTON: US President Barack Obama on Tuesday night sent focussed messages to Islamabad as he announced the expected surge of 30,000 US troops into Afghanistan but also set a deadline of July 2011 for beginning a pullout, leaving Americans and the world more confused than ever before about US AfPak policy and goals.
Caught between a divided Democratic Party not ready to support more troops and a Republican majority not ready for a pullout strategy, Obama in his West Point, New York, speech tried to please every one but sent clear messages for Pakistan and Afghanistan that the days of “blank cheques” were over and US would multiply its covert presence and operations inside Pakistan, despite the Pakistani backlash and resentment.
Reaction to Obama’s speech was mixed and confused and many senators and congressmen, from both sides of the aisle, announced they will resist funding for the troops surge in Congress, which analysts said may force Obama to cross party lines to seek votes, ignoring his own party dissidents.
For Pakistan Obama was specific and almost threatening. “This is the epicentre of the violent extremism practised by al-Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat,” he said.
“In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region,” he continued making a direct accusation that Pakistan was failing to stop cross border terrorists from crossing over into Afghanistan.
In another direct and categorical statement about US concerns about Pakistan’s nuclear capacity, Obama said: “The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.”
He announced a three point strategy of which the third dealt with Pakistan. “We will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan,” he said. “We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That is why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.”
“In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who have argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani Army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.
Marking a shift from the old US policy he said: “In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistanís capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe-haven for terrorists whose location is known, and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistanís democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistani people must know: America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistanís security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.”
Shortly after his speech the influential New York Times reported that quietly, “Mr Obama has authorised an expansion of the war in Pakistan as well - if only he can get a weak, divided, suspicious Pakistani government to agree to the terms...But the Pakistanis, suspicious of Mr Obama’s intentions and his staying power, have not yet agreed.”
The newspaper said in recent months, in addition to providing White House officials with classified assessments about Afghanistan, the CIA delivered a plan for widening the campaign of strikes against militants by drone aircraft in Pakistan, sending additional spies there and securing a White House commitment to bulk up the CIA’s budget for operations inside the country.
The expanded operations could include drone strikes in the southern province of Balochistan, where senior Afghan Taliban leaders are believed to be hiding, officials said. It is from there that they direct many of the attacks on American troops, attacks that are likely to increase as more Americans pour into Afghanistan, it said.
“The president endorsed an intensification of the campaign against Al Qaeda and its violent allies, including even more operations targeting terrorismís safe havens,” said one American official. “More people, more places, more operations.” That was the message delivered in recent weeks to Pakistani officials by Gen James L Jones, the national security adviser,” the NYT reported.
It said what was making matters worse, was that the president, Asif Ali Zardari, is often at odds with the nation’s powerful military and intelligence establishment.
“The question about Mr Obama’s Pakistan strategy is whether the new commitment of troops and resources can ultimately make America safer at a time of an evolving terrorist threat. Mr Obama insisted that was his central focus.”
ìThis is the epicentre of the violent extremism practised by Al Qaeda,” he said to the cadets at West Point. Many times in the speech he returned to the Pakistani nuclear threat.
The newspaper observed that Obama’s decision to raise the nuclear spectre was notable because a succession of American officials has publicly stated recently that the Pakistani arsenal is secure. In private, however, they have commissioned new intelligence studies on how vulnerable Pakistani warheads and laboratories would be if insurgents made greater inroads, with one official saying recently, “It is the scenario we spend the most time thinking about.”
In other reaction countrywide, the opinion was clearly divided. The Washington Post, in a story hours after the speech, analysed it in these words: “Would you buy a used war from this man? Americans might be seeing their bright, young president in a dark, new light this morning after watching his televised speech Tuesday night centring on escalation of the war in Afghanistan.”
It said Obama adopted the risky approach of both calling for a sizable troop surge — bigger in terms of percentage than the Iraq surge ordered by then-president George W Bush — and outlining an exit strategy in the same speech. That was a clear acknowledgment of the fragile state of public opinion after eight years of conflict in Afghanistan, as well as the political divisions.
Obama’s political standing depends on the military’s ability to successfully implement the new strategy and on his own ability to maintain public confidence through what is likely to be a period of partisan debate and rising US casualties. Democrats worry privately that the escalation, even with talk of an endgame, will demoralise their liberal base and dampen turnout in next year’s elections.
On Capitol Hill, they will face a major fight over funding the war. In the House, as many as half of Democrats may oppose the administration’s request for money to support the surge, forcing Obama to rely on a big block of Republican votes to get the legislation through the House and Senate.
Reactions on Tuesday night illustrated the challenging environment for the president. Liberal Democrats expressed opposition to any escalation, while Democratic leaders signalled their reservations by saying they will take time to study the plan. Republicans applauded the troop increase but almost uniformly warned about sending mixed messages with talk of leaving.
Others in the US had sharper comments. A blogger, John Aravosis from Washington DC, said on America Blog: “I don’t think the speech really changes anything, as Chris Matthews just said on TV, the right is still going to hate him, and the left is still going to be ticked that we’re sending more troops. And the proof, in the end, will be whether things turn around in Afghanistan, or whether the next three years are a continuation of the bad news from a country that’s costing us good soldiers and good money.”
Peter Feaver, a political scientist at Duke University who worked in the Bush White House analysing public opinion on Iraq, said as Obama begins his effort to sell the new strategy, he is in a far stronger position politically than Bush was when he announced the surge policy in January 2007. But Feaver said mixed signals during the decision-making process forced Obama “to do a sharp pivot back” toward escalation, complicating his task of rallying public opinion.
Democrat congressman Ted Poe, from Humble, Texas, reacted: “No nation in history has ever told the enemy their battle plans, except tonight the United States has chosen to announce an arbitrary end to our commitment in defeating terrorism. Laying out our military tactics for our enemies is not only unwise, but poses a significant threat to the security of our country and the lives of the men and women on the battlefield. This new strategy contradicts our commitment to victory in Afghanistan and reaffirms our enemy’s belief that America will lose its will to win.”
On a liberal blog the comment was: “As expected, it was an admirable speech regardless of the questionable content, but, then, we’ve come to expect such lofty rhetorical flights from Obama. The tone was serious, which it had to be, and, on the whole, the president made his case effectively, I thought. But do we buy the case? I do not.”
ìI donít think he will have changed many minds,î said Rep Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, a vocal opponent of the Iraq war. Obama ìgives a great speech,î Woolsey said, but there was ìno news in it.î
Contending that there is no military solution to the Afghanistan situation, Woolsey said, ìWe need a surge of civilians, not combat troopsî to provide humanitarian and economic assistance to the impoverished and long-embattled nation.
The New York Times said making the Pakistan plan even more complex was Mr Obama’s effort to reconcile two seemingly contradictory messages on Tuesday evening. He had to convince the Pakistanis that he was not planning to leave the region — as the United States did 20 years ago, after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan — while reassuring American citizens that after an 18-month build-up, he would begin to head for the exits. The United States, he said, simply could not afford an open-ended war. Unlike President Bush, he suggested, he would not set “goals that are beyond what we can achieve at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests.”
Called upon afterward by CBS News anchor Katie Couric, veteran correspondent Bob Schieffer said the speech might prove to be “the defining moment of the Obama presidency” — all while a militaristic rallying cry may have seemed atypical and out of character. Schieffer also noted that Obama “always” makes a “very eloquent” presentation, so that was no surprise.
It was the night Obama “took command of the Afghan war,” Schieffer said. The correspondent added that even if the troop escalation is a smart move, announcing in advance an 18-month time frame — after which the servicemen and women will come home — could be folly. “I just don’t understand the logic of how that works,” Schieffer said.
On NBC, Sen John McCain made a similar point to anchor Brian Williams. “I do support it,” he said of the troop surge. But McCain also said that Obama is “sending the wrong signal” when announcing “that we are leaving on an arbitrary date.”
WASHINGTON: US President Barack Obama on Tuesday night sent focussed messages to Islamabad as he announced the expected surge of 30,000 US troops into Afghanistan but also set a deadline of July 2011 for beginning a pullout, leaving Americans and the world more confused than ever before about US AfPak policy and goals.
Caught between a divided Democratic Party not ready to support more troops and a Republican majority not ready for a pullout strategy, Obama in his West Point, New York, speech tried to please every one but sent clear messages for Pakistan and Afghanistan that the days of “blank cheques” were over and US would multiply its covert presence and operations inside Pakistan, despite the Pakistani backlash and resentment.
Reaction to Obama’s speech was mixed and confused and many senators and congressmen, from both sides of the aisle, announced they will resist funding for the troops surge in Congress, which analysts said may force Obama to cross party lines to seek votes, ignoring his own party dissidents.
For Pakistan Obama was specific and almost threatening. “This is the epicentre of the violent extremism practised by al-Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat,” he said.
“In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region,” he continued making a direct accusation that Pakistan was failing to stop cross border terrorists from crossing over into Afghanistan.
In another direct and categorical statement about US concerns about Pakistan’s nuclear capacity, Obama said: “The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.”
He announced a three point strategy of which the third dealt with Pakistan. “We will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan,” he said. “We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That is why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.”
“In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who have argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani Army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.
Marking a shift from the old US policy he said: “In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistanís capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe-haven for terrorists whose location is known, and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistanís democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistani people must know: America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistanís security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.”
Shortly after his speech the influential New York Times reported that quietly, “Mr Obama has authorised an expansion of the war in Pakistan as well - if only he can get a weak, divided, suspicious Pakistani government to agree to the terms...But the Pakistanis, suspicious of Mr Obama’s intentions and his staying power, have not yet agreed.”
The newspaper said in recent months, in addition to providing White House officials with classified assessments about Afghanistan, the CIA delivered a plan for widening the campaign of strikes against militants by drone aircraft in Pakistan, sending additional spies there and securing a White House commitment to bulk up the CIA’s budget for operations inside the country.
The expanded operations could include drone strikes in the southern province of Balochistan, where senior Afghan Taliban leaders are believed to be hiding, officials said. It is from there that they direct many of the attacks on American troops, attacks that are likely to increase as more Americans pour into Afghanistan, it said.
“The president endorsed an intensification of the campaign against Al Qaeda and its violent allies, including even more operations targeting terrorismís safe havens,” said one American official. “More people, more places, more operations.” That was the message delivered in recent weeks to Pakistani officials by Gen James L Jones, the national security adviser,” the NYT reported.
It said what was making matters worse, was that the president, Asif Ali Zardari, is often at odds with the nation’s powerful military and intelligence establishment.
“The question about Mr Obama’s Pakistan strategy is whether the new commitment of troops and resources can ultimately make America safer at a time of an evolving terrorist threat. Mr Obama insisted that was his central focus.”
ìThis is the epicentre of the violent extremism practised by Al Qaeda,” he said to the cadets at West Point. Many times in the speech he returned to the Pakistani nuclear threat.
The newspaper observed that Obama’s decision to raise the nuclear spectre was notable because a succession of American officials has publicly stated recently that the Pakistani arsenal is secure. In private, however, they have commissioned new intelligence studies on how vulnerable Pakistani warheads and laboratories would be if insurgents made greater inroads, with one official saying recently, “It is the scenario we spend the most time thinking about.”
In other reaction countrywide, the opinion was clearly divided. The Washington Post, in a story hours after the speech, analysed it in these words: “Would you buy a used war from this man? Americans might be seeing their bright, young president in a dark, new light this morning after watching his televised speech Tuesday night centring on escalation of the war in Afghanistan.”
It said Obama adopted the risky approach of both calling for a sizable troop surge — bigger in terms of percentage than the Iraq surge ordered by then-president George W Bush — and outlining an exit strategy in the same speech. That was a clear acknowledgment of the fragile state of public opinion after eight years of conflict in Afghanistan, as well as the political divisions.
Obama’s political standing depends on the military’s ability to successfully implement the new strategy and on his own ability to maintain public confidence through what is likely to be a period of partisan debate and rising US casualties. Democrats worry privately that the escalation, even with talk of an endgame, will demoralise their liberal base and dampen turnout in next year’s elections.
On Capitol Hill, they will face a major fight over funding the war. In the House, as many as half of Democrats may oppose the administration’s request for money to support the surge, forcing Obama to rely on a big block of Republican votes to get the legislation through the House and Senate.
Reactions on Tuesday night illustrated the challenging environment for the president. Liberal Democrats expressed opposition to any escalation, while Democratic leaders signalled their reservations by saying they will take time to study the plan. Republicans applauded the troop increase but almost uniformly warned about sending mixed messages with talk of leaving.
Others in the US had sharper comments. A blogger, John Aravosis from Washington DC, said on America Blog: “I don’t think the speech really changes anything, as Chris Matthews just said on TV, the right is still going to hate him, and the left is still going to be ticked that we’re sending more troops. And the proof, in the end, will be whether things turn around in Afghanistan, or whether the next three years are a continuation of the bad news from a country that’s costing us good soldiers and good money.”
Peter Feaver, a political scientist at Duke University who worked in the Bush White House analysing public opinion on Iraq, said as Obama begins his effort to sell the new strategy, he is in a far stronger position politically than Bush was when he announced the surge policy in January 2007. But Feaver said mixed signals during the decision-making process forced Obama “to do a sharp pivot back” toward escalation, complicating his task of rallying public opinion.
Democrat congressman Ted Poe, from Humble, Texas, reacted: “No nation in history has ever told the enemy their battle plans, except tonight the United States has chosen to announce an arbitrary end to our commitment in defeating terrorism. Laying out our military tactics for our enemies is not only unwise, but poses a significant threat to the security of our country and the lives of the men and women on the battlefield. This new strategy contradicts our commitment to victory in Afghanistan and reaffirms our enemy’s belief that America will lose its will to win.”
On a liberal blog the comment was: “As expected, it was an admirable speech regardless of the questionable content, but, then, we’ve come to expect such lofty rhetorical flights from Obama. The tone was serious, which it had to be, and, on the whole, the president made his case effectively, I thought. But do we buy the case? I do not.”
ìI donít think he will have changed many minds,î said Rep Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, a vocal opponent of the Iraq war. Obama ìgives a great speech,î Woolsey said, but there was ìno news in it.î
Contending that there is no military solution to the Afghanistan situation, Woolsey said, ìWe need a surge of civilians, not combat troopsî to provide humanitarian and economic assistance to the impoverished and long-embattled nation.
The New York Times said making the Pakistan plan even more complex was Mr Obama’s effort to reconcile two seemingly contradictory messages on Tuesday evening. He had to convince the Pakistanis that he was not planning to leave the region — as the United States did 20 years ago, after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan — while reassuring American citizens that after an 18-month build-up, he would begin to head for the exits. The United States, he said, simply could not afford an open-ended war. Unlike President Bush, he suggested, he would not set “goals that are beyond what we can achieve at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests.”
Called upon afterward by CBS News anchor Katie Couric, veteran correspondent Bob Schieffer said the speech might prove to be “the defining moment of the Obama presidency” — all while a militaristic rallying cry may have seemed atypical and out of character. Schieffer also noted that Obama “always” makes a “very eloquent” presentation, so that was no surprise.
It was the night Obama “took command of the Afghan war,” Schieffer said. The correspondent added that even if the troop escalation is a smart move, announcing in advance an 18-month time frame — after which the servicemen and women will come home — could be folly. “I just don’t understand the logic of how that works,” Schieffer said.
On NBC, Sen John McCain made a similar point to anchor Brian Williams. “I do support it,” he said of the troop surge. But McCain also said that Obama is “sending the wrong signal” when announcing “that we are leaving on an arbitrary date.”
Germany tells Pakistan
By Muhammad Saleh Zaafir & Asim Yasin
BERLIN: Germany has advised Pakistan to improve its governance for the sake of boosting its economy. The restoration of the superior judiciary has been helping in strengthening institutions in Pakistan.
The piece of advice came from the leading European nation here on Tuesday in a news conference jointly addressed by visiting Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani and German Chancellor Angela Merkel after their bilateral talks in the German Chancellery.
The advice by the chancellor to improve the governance and comments on Pakistan’s judiciary were conspicuous since Germany has been supporting Pakistan in different spheres for various endeavours.
Both Pakistan and Germany announced to maintain their strategic political dialogue for further cooperation in the economic, energy, investment and technology transfer.
“We will continue to support Pakistan in the war against terror and will do every thing for the development of Pakistan,” said German Chancellor Angela Merkel in the joint press conference after her meeting with Prime Minister Gilani.
“We have decided to upgrade and devise a roadmap for cooperation between the two countries,” said Prime Minister Gilani.
Gilani and Merkel discussed enhanced defence cooperation in areas of training, defence procurement and production during their meeting on Tuesday.
The defence cooperation between the two countries was put on a freeze following the nuclear tests by Pakistan and India in 1998.
In the press conference, Merkel said Germany had offered the assistance in the field of the education that will help to curtail the menace of terrorism. She said Germany was helping Pakistan in the framework of Friends of Democratic Pakistan (FoDP).
She said investment protection treaty between the two countries would lay the solid foundation for further cooperation between the two countries. She said under the FoDP, Germany has tried to stabilize economic situation of Pakistan, helping the IMF to support the country and hoped this is indeed in interest of Pakistan.
Gilani said Germany being one of the largest economies of the European Union can assist Pakistan for greater access to its goods to the European markets.
Asked about the German future policy regarding Afghanistan, Merkel said Germany would make its point on troops increase in Afghanistan following the Afghanistan conference on Afghanistan on Jan 28.
When asked about the trade facilities to Pakistan under the GSP for market access in European Union, she said: “The government will show constructive attitude and encourage the EU to promote these matters. The strategic importance of Pakistan is seen by all and other members of the EU are understood to have seen its importance.”
While in an opening statement, Gilani said, “In the battle for hearts and minds, in the quest to give our people, the hope of a better tomorrow, greater trade remains a strategic imperative.”
The prime minister appreciated the German chancellor for her country’s support to the FoDP with pledging $155 million at the Tokyo Donors Conference.
He informed the German chancellor about the success of the counter-terrorism operations in South Waziristan and said now the government’s priority was relief and rehabilitation of the returnees in affected areas and reconstruction of the damaged infrastructure and property.
He said Pakistan looks forward to German assistance to share the burden for the reconstruction of areas affected by terrorism, extremism and militancy.
Both leaders also exchanged views on overall security situation in this region, with particular reference to Afghanistan.
He said being Afghanistan’s immediate neighbour, Pakistan must be onboard to ensure sustainability of peace and stability in Afghanistan.
Merkel said because of Germany’s own interest in Afghanistan, it desires improvement in relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan. “We wish to strengthen relations between the two,” she added.
Meanwhile, the German government declined to give an outright undertaking to Pakistan regarding immediate removal of laws coming in the way of provision of defence equipment to Pakistan.
Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani had extensive talks with the German leaders including its president, chancellor, president of the German Parliament and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee here in the German capital and impressed upon the need to remove all restrictions on supplies for Pakistan’s defence requirements.
The German chancellor expressed her inability in the wake of the restrictions imposed by the successive administrations. She was sympathetic to Pakistan’s request in this regard.
In the meantime, Pakistan and Germany have agreed to set up strategic dialogue of the two countries. The dialogue would be on the echelon of the foreign ministers and it would cater various aspects of the bilateral ties.
BERLIN: Germany has advised Pakistan to improve its governance for the sake of boosting its economy. The restoration of the superior judiciary has been helping in strengthening institutions in Pakistan.
The piece of advice came from the leading European nation here on Tuesday in a news conference jointly addressed by visiting Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani and German Chancellor Angela Merkel after their bilateral talks in the German Chancellery.
The advice by the chancellor to improve the governance and comments on Pakistan’s judiciary were conspicuous since Germany has been supporting Pakistan in different spheres for various endeavours.
Both Pakistan and Germany announced to maintain their strategic political dialogue for further cooperation in the economic, energy, investment and technology transfer.
“We will continue to support Pakistan in the war against terror and will do every thing for the development of Pakistan,” said German Chancellor Angela Merkel in the joint press conference after her meeting with Prime Minister Gilani.
“We have decided to upgrade and devise a roadmap for cooperation between the two countries,” said Prime Minister Gilani.
Gilani and Merkel discussed enhanced defence cooperation in areas of training, defence procurement and production during their meeting on Tuesday.
The defence cooperation between the two countries was put on a freeze following the nuclear tests by Pakistan and India in 1998.
In the press conference, Merkel said Germany had offered the assistance in the field of the education that will help to curtail the menace of terrorism. She said Germany was helping Pakistan in the framework of Friends of Democratic Pakistan (FoDP).
She said investment protection treaty between the two countries would lay the solid foundation for further cooperation between the two countries. She said under the FoDP, Germany has tried to stabilize economic situation of Pakistan, helping the IMF to support the country and hoped this is indeed in interest of Pakistan.
Gilani said Germany being one of the largest economies of the European Union can assist Pakistan for greater access to its goods to the European markets.
Asked about the German future policy regarding Afghanistan, Merkel said Germany would make its point on troops increase in Afghanistan following the Afghanistan conference on Afghanistan on Jan 28.
When asked about the trade facilities to Pakistan under the GSP for market access in European Union, she said: “The government will show constructive attitude and encourage the EU to promote these matters. The strategic importance of Pakistan is seen by all and other members of the EU are understood to have seen its importance.”
While in an opening statement, Gilani said, “In the battle for hearts and minds, in the quest to give our people, the hope of a better tomorrow, greater trade remains a strategic imperative.”
The prime minister appreciated the German chancellor for her country’s support to the FoDP with pledging $155 million at the Tokyo Donors Conference.
He informed the German chancellor about the success of the counter-terrorism operations in South Waziristan and said now the government’s priority was relief and rehabilitation of the returnees in affected areas and reconstruction of the damaged infrastructure and property.
He said Pakistan looks forward to German assistance to share the burden for the reconstruction of areas affected by terrorism, extremism and militancy.
Both leaders also exchanged views on overall security situation in this region, with particular reference to Afghanistan.
He said being Afghanistan’s immediate neighbour, Pakistan must be onboard to ensure sustainability of peace and stability in Afghanistan.
Merkel said because of Germany’s own interest in Afghanistan, it desires improvement in relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan. “We wish to strengthen relations between the two,” she added.
Meanwhile, the German government declined to give an outright undertaking to Pakistan regarding immediate removal of laws coming in the way of provision of defence equipment to Pakistan.
Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani had extensive talks with the German leaders including its president, chancellor, president of the German Parliament and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee here in the German capital and impressed upon the need to remove all restrictions on supplies for Pakistan’s defence requirements.
The German chancellor expressed her inability in the wake of the restrictions imposed by the successive administrations. She was sympathetic to Pakistan’s request in this regard.
In the meantime, Pakistan and Germany have agreed to set up strategic dialogue of the two countries. The dialogue would be on the echelon of the foreign ministers and it would cater various aspects of the bilateral ties.
Have a heart, you are the president, Mr Zardari!
By Shaheen Sehbai
WASHINGTON: When an elected head of the state, who is also the head of the largest political party of the country, the Supreme Commander of the country’s armed forces and (at least on papers) the man with his finger on the country’s nuclear button, cannot venture out of his bunker in the presidency, a five-star prison of sorts, and attacks a TV channel, a newspaper editor or a talk show anchor, he must be seriously in trouble or scared to death with insecurity.
It was a great day in my professional career to get so much attention on live TV, nationally and throughout the world, with the country’s president talking about me (why did you not name me) in a furiously threatening tone, foaming and frothing as if he would shoot me if I had been somewhere close to him at the time. I have just landed in Washington to spend a few days with my family on Eid ul Azha and the first thing I hear on TV is my head of state calling me names. It was a unique welcome to the festival of sacrifices.
I heard Asif Ali Zardari’s speech, his first major political address in months, which dealt with no other burning issue of the country, many times wanting to find out what message he had for the country, other than saying that he was a brave man, he was ready to offer sacrifices and he would not be coweddown and would prefer to leave in an ambulance rather than walk out of the presidency under duress. The more I heard his rants, the more loudly I laughed, again and again.
Here is the strongest man in the country so rattled by a few reports and articles by me, or a few talk shows by Dr Shahid Masood, that he forgets to mention anything about the infamous NRO, the shame of the Kerry Lugar Bill, the gross charges of corruption, money laundering or misuse of power against him and his cronies. He did not mention the issues of sugar, atta, electricity and unemployment. He did not praise the soldiers and people fighting the deadly terrorists. He and his few people now sharing power were only worried about their own fate, with the loud spoken Zulfikar Mirza declaring to the world that he would use the Sindh Card, if worse comes to worst.
Zardari referred to me by frequently mentioning someone with “an American passport”. He also said I was not a Pakistani national. He has to get his facts right. But carrying an American passport is not something he would like to turn into a disqualification as bulk of his own cronies are exiles who have acquired foreign passports, including US passports, and they would be the ones to jump the ship first. I am a Pakistani and work in Pakistan and will continue to do so.
His biggest accusation against me was that I wanted him “to leave the presidency in an ambulance”. I think he knows better as he has been telling many who meet him in his bunker that he would not quit and people will have to take him out. This is what he reiterated in his speech on Wednesday night.
But he is wrong on this count as well. I had only quoted his own words on Nov 4 in my column: “The contours of a changed, unwritten script” in these words: “This assessment will purely be an analysis and conclusions drawn up by a journalist....So my analysis is that he will fight back. Some who still have access to him claim that he has expressed these defiant views many a time saying he would never resign and if someone wanted to remove him, he should send an ambulance because he would not walk out on his own two feet.” This is where ambulance was used. In his speech he confirmed what I had written that he would not go away.
In the same article, my opinion was: “All stakeholders agree, and this I can claim after meeting almost all of them in the last few days in Islamabad and Lahore, that President Asif Ali Zardari will have to either step down with dignity, hand over his presidential powers to the PM through a fast-track constitutional amendments process, or become a figurehead and stay within his bunker for as long as he does not create any nuisance.” I was seeing him as a figurehead as long as he behaves. This does not mean his murder, though it could mean a political suicide.
His party leaders have also been objecting to my use of the word ‘martyr’ for Zardari and one Minister, Dr Babar Awan, had the temerity to ask me in a TV show to name the people who would kill Zardari, as if I had been plotting his murder or martyrdom with these people. There has to be a limit to sycophancy and toadyism.
My words in my Nov 7 article were: “Zardari will have to make his decision very quickly on whether he wants to exit with dignity or become a martyr. The days, as they say, are in fact numbered.” It is clear for anyone who understands English what is meant here is a ‘political martyr’ and not dead in the physical sense. If someone cannot understand the language, a very handy Prof Husain Haqqani can help any time.
Other than these references in Zardari’s speech about me, what I can guess is that he is rattled because I have been criticising his style of governance, his failures in taking successful political decisions, his U-Turns at every critical time, his arrogance and stubbornness and lately his indecent manner of speech with his own prime minister.
Neither the president nor the PM have denied any of the contents of my article about Zardari using insulting words against Gilani. In fact, my sources say, when PM Gilani was asked about my article and whether there was a tiff between him and the president, Gilani’s very diplomatic reply was: “I am not angry with the president.” He decided not to comment on what he had heard from Zardari and in what tone.
It is the right of every writer and journalist to criticise the rulers on their policies, their decisions and their actions. This is exactly what I have been doing during my 42-year-long career. I have criticised every ruler, without fear or favour and whenever the political rulers were out of office and struggling to come back, I happened to be one of their most favorite journalists and had even developed personal friendships with them. This is also true in the case of Zardari.
When he was arrested in 1990 by Jam Sadiq Ali and thrown in the Landhi jail, I and my friends Nusrat Javeed, Mohammad Malick, Shakil Sheikh and a couple of others had confronted Jam Sadiq and forced him to allow us to visit him in the jail. That was the first move in his political comeback. Then I wrote a series of seven articles in which I had questioned Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Jam Sadiq. When in 1993 Benazir and Zardari again came to power, he offered me political jobs and only one journalist, Azhar Sohail, accepted his offer. Sadly he then paid for his life and his family’s ruination three years later.
Once again when Zardari was in power I wrote against his corruption in 1994-95 and then as well he had threatened me and others. I did what I had to do then and faced the consequences.
It was Zardari and Benazir Bhutto who became very friendly to me during their days of wilderness in the Nawaz Sharif/Musharraf eras. In his years in New York, Zardari was particularly friendly and even attended my son’s wedding in Washington. He should be ashamed of now pointing accusing fingers at me for holding a US passport. Can’t he come up with anything better to accuse me? What he was doing in US himself during all those years is also known to people who were in the knowledge. My fault is that I again refused his offer to join his government in 2008 although it is totally wrong that I was ever offered to become Pakistan Ambassador in Canada. Neither had I ever asked him for a political or diplomatic job.
I am totally satisfied that even despite such anger and frustration that the president has expressed against me publicly, without any reason, he has not been able to point any single small or big finger of accusation against me for misusing my professional position or getting any benefit from his or any other government. The charge of dubbing me and others as “political actors” is ridiculous and laughable because if this is all he can come up with, it is pathetic case against me with no legs to stand on. His speech was 90 per cent rhetoric, based on shallow looking claims of pursuing Bhuttoism and the rest 10 per cent was attacks on me, Geo TV and Dr Shahid Masood.
If his corruption, amassed wealth and grabbed lands are questioned, it is pure and simple journalism in the interest of the people and the country and no one can deny us that right. He says he will not listen to any criticism except from his political rivals. What a lame statement is that. Where does he place the others pillars of state, the judiciary, the media, the civil society, the ‘ghairat’ and ‘izzat’ brigades? His political colleagues are easy for him to handle because many of them are in the same boat of looted wealth and plundered resources. But he will have to listen to all of us and hiding in a bunker while claiming to be a brave man, will not wash away his sins or wish us away from the scene.
The real issue is that since the previous government I and my colleagues in the Jang group have been highlighting important issues concerning the constitution, governance, independence of judiciary, rampant corruption and ever-increasing prices. These issues have made miserable the life of common man in Pakistan. Neither the previous government nor the present government could tolerate the Jang Groups’ decision to highlight those issues that affect the lives of ordinary people.
WASHINGTON: When an elected head of the state, who is also the head of the largest political party of the country, the Supreme Commander of the country’s armed forces and (at least on papers) the man with his finger on the country’s nuclear button, cannot venture out of his bunker in the presidency, a five-star prison of sorts, and attacks a TV channel, a newspaper editor or a talk show anchor, he must be seriously in trouble or scared to death with insecurity.
It was a great day in my professional career to get so much attention on live TV, nationally and throughout the world, with the country’s president talking about me (why did you not name me) in a furiously threatening tone, foaming and frothing as if he would shoot me if I had been somewhere close to him at the time. I have just landed in Washington to spend a few days with my family on Eid ul Azha and the first thing I hear on TV is my head of state calling me names. It was a unique welcome to the festival of sacrifices.
I heard Asif Ali Zardari’s speech, his first major political address in months, which dealt with no other burning issue of the country, many times wanting to find out what message he had for the country, other than saying that he was a brave man, he was ready to offer sacrifices and he would not be coweddown and would prefer to leave in an ambulance rather than walk out of the presidency under duress. The more I heard his rants, the more loudly I laughed, again and again.
Here is the strongest man in the country so rattled by a few reports and articles by me, or a few talk shows by Dr Shahid Masood, that he forgets to mention anything about the infamous NRO, the shame of the Kerry Lugar Bill, the gross charges of corruption, money laundering or misuse of power against him and his cronies. He did not mention the issues of sugar, atta, electricity and unemployment. He did not praise the soldiers and people fighting the deadly terrorists. He and his few people now sharing power were only worried about their own fate, with the loud spoken Zulfikar Mirza declaring to the world that he would use the Sindh Card, if worse comes to worst.
Zardari referred to me by frequently mentioning someone with “an American passport”. He also said I was not a Pakistani national. He has to get his facts right. But carrying an American passport is not something he would like to turn into a disqualification as bulk of his own cronies are exiles who have acquired foreign passports, including US passports, and they would be the ones to jump the ship first. I am a Pakistani and work in Pakistan and will continue to do so.
His biggest accusation against me was that I wanted him “to leave the presidency in an ambulance”. I think he knows better as he has been telling many who meet him in his bunker that he would not quit and people will have to take him out. This is what he reiterated in his speech on Wednesday night.
But he is wrong on this count as well. I had only quoted his own words on Nov 4 in my column: “The contours of a changed, unwritten script” in these words: “This assessment will purely be an analysis and conclusions drawn up by a journalist....So my analysis is that he will fight back. Some who still have access to him claim that he has expressed these defiant views many a time saying he would never resign and if someone wanted to remove him, he should send an ambulance because he would not walk out on his own two feet.” This is where ambulance was used. In his speech he confirmed what I had written that he would not go away.
In the same article, my opinion was: “All stakeholders agree, and this I can claim after meeting almost all of them in the last few days in Islamabad and Lahore, that President Asif Ali Zardari will have to either step down with dignity, hand over his presidential powers to the PM through a fast-track constitutional amendments process, or become a figurehead and stay within his bunker for as long as he does not create any nuisance.” I was seeing him as a figurehead as long as he behaves. This does not mean his murder, though it could mean a political suicide.
His party leaders have also been objecting to my use of the word ‘martyr’ for Zardari and one Minister, Dr Babar Awan, had the temerity to ask me in a TV show to name the people who would kill Zardari, as if I had been plotting his murder or martyrdom with these people. There has to be a limit to sycophancy and toadyism.
My words in my Nov 7 article were: “Zardari will have to make his decision very quickly on whether he wants to exit with dignity or become a martyr. The days, as they say, are in fact numbered.” It is clear for anyone who understands English what is meant here is a ‘political martyr’ and not dead in the physical sense. If someone cannot understand the language, a very handy Prof Husain Haqqani can help any time.
Other than these references in Zardari’s speech about me, what I can guess is that he is rattled because I have been criticising his style of governance, his failures in taking successful political decisions, his U-Turns at every critical time, his arrogance and stubbornness and lately his indecent manner of speech with his own prime minister.
Neither the president nor the PM have denied any of the contents of my article about Zardari using insulting words against Gilani. In fact, my sources say, when PM Gilani was asked about my article and whether there was a tiff between him and the president, Gilani’s very diplomatic reply was: “I am not angry with the president.” He decided not to comment on what he had heard from Zardari and in what tone.
It is the right of every writer and journalist to criticise the rulers on their policies, their decisions and their actions. This is exactly what I have been doing during my 42-year-long career. I have criticised every ruler, without fear or favour and whenever the political rulers were out of office and struggling to come back, I happened to be one of their most favorite journalists and had even developed personal friendships with them. This is also true in the case of Zardari.
When he was arrested in 1990 by Jam Sadiq Ali and thrown in the Landhi jail, I and my friends Nusrat Javeed, Mohammad Malick, Shakil Sheikh and a couple of others had confronted Jam Sadiq and forced him to allow us to visit him in the jail. That was the first move in his political comeback. Then I wrote a series of seven articles in which I had questioned Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Jam Sadiq. When in 1993 Benazir and Zardari again came to power, he offered me political jobs and only one journalist, Azhar Sohail, accepted his offer. Sadly he then paid for his life and his family’s ruination three years later.
Once again when Zardari was in power I wrote against his corruption in 1994-95 and then as well he had threatened me and others. I did what I had to do then and faced the consequences.
It was Zardari and Benazir Bhutto who became very friendly to me during their days of wilderness in the Nawaz Sharif/Musharraf eras. In his years in New York, Zardari was particularly friendly and even attended my son’s wedding in Washington. He should be ashamed of now pointing accusing fingers at me for holding a US passport. Can’t he come up with anything better to accuse me? What he was doing in US himself during all those years is also known to people who were in the knowledge. My fault is that I again refused his offer to join his government in 2008 although it is totally wrong that I was ever offered to become Pakistan Ambassador in Canada. Neither had I ever asked him for a political or diplomatic job.
I am totally satisfied that even despite such anger and frustration that the president has expressed against me publicly, without any reason, he has not been able to point any single small or big finger of accusation against me for misusing my professional position or getting any benefit from his or any other government. The charge of dubbing me and others as “political actors” is ridiculous and laughable because if this is all he can come up with, it is pathetic case against me with no legs to stand on. His speech was 90 per cent rhetoric, based on shallow looking claims of pursuing Bhuttoism and the rest 10 per cent was attacks on me, Geo TV and Dr Shahid Masood.
If his corruption, amassed wealth and grabbed lands are questioned, it is pure and simple journalism in the interest of the people and the country and no one can deny us that right. He says he will not listen to any criticism except from his political rivals. What a lame statement is that. Where does he place the others pillars of state, the judiciary, the media, the civil society, the ‘ghairat’ and ‘izzat’ brigades? His political colleagues are easy for him to handle because many of them are in the same boat of looted wealth and plundered resources. But he will have to listen to all of us and hiding in a bunker while claiming to be a brave man, will not wash away his sins or wish us away from the scene.
The real issue is that since the previous government I and my colleagues in the Jang group have been highlighting important issues concerning the constitution, governance, independence of judiciary, rampant corruption and ever-increasing prices. These issues have made miserable the life of common man in Pakistan. Neither the previous government nor the present government could tolerate the Jang Groups’ decision to highlight those issues that affect the lives of ordinary people.
Hersh claims US nuke team already in Islamabad
By Muhammad Saleh Zaafir
ISLAMABAD: Pulitzer prize winning American journalist Seymour Hersh has claimed that an elite US special forces squad which operates covertly and includes terrorism and non-proliferation experts from the US intelligence community — the Pentagon, the FBI, and the DOE — is already present in Pakistan and could well be housed in the US embassy in Islamabad.
The startling disclosure was made in Hersh’s candid interview with Pakistan’s most popular TV channel Geo News’ widely viewed current affairs programme ‘Meray Mutabiq’, hosted by Dr Shahid Masood. The programme was aired on Saturday late evening.
Seymour Hersh said that the Americans had been constituting such crack teams for various purposes and the team in question here was to deal with any eventuality including any fear of takeover by Taliban or any other ‘development’ with regard to Pakistani nukes.
Group Editor of The News Shaheen Sehbai taking part in the programme expressed the view that Musharraf’s remarks about President Asif Zardari, as attributed by Hersh, could not be casually ignored. He said it must be investigated why Musharraf accused Zardari of not being a patriot, because, according to Sehbai, Hersh had some inside information given to him in interviews with Musharraf and Zardari which he did not reveal in his report. But Sehbai said journalists always attribute information given to them by responsible people to “reliable sources” if these people ask them to refrain from quoting them directly.
Former Director General, Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) of Pakistan, Lt Gen Hamid Gul also participating in the programme, verified the credentials of Hersh and gave a detailed account of US presence in the sensitive areas in Pakistan. He opined that the US wanted to delegate the role of proxy super power of the region to India and for that Pakistan had to be denuclearised.
Former Foreign Secretary Shamshad Ahmad Khan expressed his apprehensions about the alleged activities but he ruled out any possibility of the US team being in a position to gain access to Pakistan’s nuclear facilities.
The programme (to be telecast again at 2:05pm today - Sunday), host Dr Shahid Masood had raised the question about the action that the team/squad could take in any eventuality. He referred to previous reports of Hersh which appeared in New Yorker magazine last week in which Hersh disclosed that after the US authorities received a report by their embassy in Islamabad indicating that a Pakistani nuclear component had gone astray, a highly classified US military and civil-emergency response team was put on alert. The team which operates clandestinely is reportedly under standing orders to deploy from Andrews Air Force Base, in Maryland (Washington), within four hours of an alert.
When the report turned out to be a false alarm, the mission was aborted but by the time the team got the message, it was already in Dubai while on its way to Pakistan. Hersh quoted a consultant of the US Defence Department in his write-up and later he discussed the role of the US embassy in ‘Meray Mutabiq’ last week, which was hosted by Dr Shahid Masood and participated by Group Editor The News Shaheen Sehbai.
It was the maiden interview of the US investigative journalist in the wake of his thrilling write-up about the US plans towards Pakistan’s nuclear programme and the controversial observations of former President Musharraf regarding his successor. Seymour Hersh while standing by his report, pertaining to the comments offered by former President General (R) Pervez Musharraf about incumbent President Asif Zardari, has disclosed that the former president had given some harsher comments about his successor but in the ultimate scrutiny he allowed the remarks that he made part of his article.
General Hamid Gul disclosed in his talk with Dr Shahid Masood that former president General Pervez Musharraf allowed the US planes to land in Pakistan to pick Osama bin Laden about whom they had an inkling that he was present in a remote village of Balochistan. He said that when Hersh visited him to verify the veracity of the information, “I requested him to publish the story and he obliged. I was of the opinion that the Americans want to get in Pakistan under the pretext of the story that had yet to appear and it could open the way for future US incursions,” the General added.
ISLAMABAD: Pulitzer prize winning American journalist Seymour Hersh has claimed that an elite US special forces squad which operates covertly and includes terrorism and non-proliferation experts from the US intelligence community — the Pentagon, the FBI, and the DOE — is already present in Pakistan and could well be housed in the US embassy in Islamabad.
The startling disclosure was made in Hersh’s candid interview with Pakistan’s most popular TV channel Geo News’ widely viewed current affairs programme ‘Meray Mutabiq’, hosted by Dr Shahid Masood. The programme was aired on Saturday late evening.
Seymour Hersh said that the Americans had been constituting such crack teams for various purposes and the team in question here was to deal with any eventuality including any fear of takeover by Taliban or any other ‘development’ with regard to Pakistani nukes.
Group Editor of The News Shaheen Sehbai taking part in the programme expressed the view that Musharraf’s remarks about President Asif Zardari, as attributed by Hersh, could not be casually ignored. He said it must be investigated why Musharraf accused Zardari of not being a patriot, because, according to Sehbai, Hersh had some inside information given to him in interviews with Musharraf and Zardari which he did not reveal in his report. But Sehbai said journalists always attribute information given to them by responsible people to “reliable sources” if these people ask them to refrain from quoting them directly.
Former Director General, Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) of Pakistan, Lt Gen Hamid Gul also participating in the programme, verified the credentials of Hersh and gave a detailed account of US presence in the sensitive areas in Pakistan. He opined that the US wanted to delegate the role of proxy super power of the region to India and for that Pakistan had to be denuclearised.
Former Foreign Secretary Shamshad Ahmad Khan expressed his apprehensions about the alleged activities but he ruled out any possibility of the US team being in a position to gain access to Pakistan’s nuclear facilities.
The programme (to be telecast again at 2:05pm today - Sunday), host Dr Shahid Masood had raised the question about the action that the team/squad could take in any eventuality. He referred to previous reports of Hersh which appeared in New Yorker magazine last week in which Hersh disclosed that after the US authorities received a report by their embassy in Islamabad indicating that a Pakistani nuclear component had gone astray, a highly classified US military and civil-emergency response team was put on alert. The team which operates clandestinely is reportedly under standing orders to deploy from Andrews Air Force Base, in Maryland (Washington), within four hours of an alert.
When the report turned out to be a false alarm, the mission was aborted but by the time the team got the message, it was already in Dubai while on its way to Pakistan. Hersh quoted a consultant of the US Defence Department in his write-up and later he discussed the role of the US embassy in ‘Meray Mutabiq’ last week, which was hosted by Dr Shahid Masood and participated by Group Editor The News Shaheen Sehbai.
It was the maiden interview of the US investigative journalist in the wake of his thrilling write-up about the US plans towards Pakistan’s nuclear programme and the controversial observations of former President Musharraf regarding his successor. Seymour Hersh while standing by his report, pertaining to the comments offered by former President General (R) Pervez Musharraf about incumbent President Asif Zardari, has disclosed that the former president had given some harsher comments about his successor but in the ultimate scrutiny he allowed the remarks that he made part of his article.
General Hamid Gul disclosed in his talk with Dr Shahid Masood that former president General Pervez Musharraf allowed the US planes to land in Pakistan to pick Osama bin Laden about whom they had an inkling that he was present in a remote village of Balochistan. He said that when Hersh visited him to verify the veracity of the information, “I requested him to publish the story and he obliged. I was of the opinion that the Americans want to get in Pakistan under the pretext of the story that had yet to appear and it could open the way for future US incursions,” the General added.
Americans see a change in the air in Pakistan
By Dr Shahid Masood
WASHINGTON: Americans see a change fast, but smoothly, coming in Pakistan in the wake of loss of credibility of the man at the helm, following some domestic legal developments.
After meeting top political and defence decision-makers here in the US capital, where I was invited by the National Defence University (NDU) for a two-day seminar on the anniversary of 9/11, I was told in unambiguous terms that a change in Pakistan was inevitable for US policy interests, although Washington does not intend to disrupt the system.
Several important Pakistani political players have also been conveyed the same message by the US political and defence establishment, including the MQM and recently the ANP, whose chief is travelling with President Asif Zardari in New York.
The main problem being faced by the US administration, which it may never admit publicly, is that the present set-up with Asif Ali Zardari as the de facto ruler, has no credibility at home and no ability to deliver on the promises he makes, either on the military side or on the war on terror or on governance issues.
“Zardari has also abandoned the idea of political consensus which he had started to follow in the early days after the February elections,” one official said on background. “He appears to be non-serious in government and lives in perpetual fear and insecurity, preferring to stay out of the country.”
The US side thinks that they had made a sensible move by pushing an alliance between late Benazir Bhutto and General Pervez Musharraf as this team would have provided all the ingredients of a stable and cooperative Pakistan to Washington. She would have provided the political support while Musharraf would have used his military muscle against the terrorists and extremists in a stable environment.
They say Zardari has failed to provide that environment, rather he has involved himself in day-to-day business and administrative matters while his political coalition and parliament have been left looking like dumb and dummies.
Many officials say Zardari has been asking the US administration to bail him out on too many issues and too many occasions. He has sought the US help to tame the Army, keep his alliance partners, especially the opposition of Nawaz Sharif’s PML-N in check, directly or through the Saudis on sensitive issues like Musharraf’s or cutting his own constitutional powers.
All these demands are way beyond the capacity of any US administration to deliver while Zardari has almost left everything to us to handle, an agitated official said. “If we have to handle everything, his own credibility within the country will sink and has sunk to the lowest low.”
Other officials I met were even blunter. They say the US abhors corruption, kickbacks and commissions anywhere in the world as a matter of policy.
Another official said the US would keep track of the parties or persons involved and money transaction in the Pakistan’s rental power venture. There are still no roadmaps or any modality work sheets in Washington on how a change in Pakistan would occur, but the US capital is keeping its fingers crossed as to what comes out of the NRO case pending with the Supreme Court.
The impression gathered from the words of these top Americans is that the US would not intervene if the apex court starts hearing the case. The view is that if the NRO was discussed and details of who benefited, who made what deals and how serious crimes were committed and then whitewashed, start to be revealed in the SC, the moral authority of the NRO beneficiaries would erode fatally. In this scenario, the NRO beneficiaries may themselves throw in the towel seeking a safe exit.
In several informed US and Pakistani circles I moved in for several days in Washington, the same scenario was repeated, often exactly in the same tone and sequence.
A Pakistani, who knows a lot about developments in Pakistan and the US scene, said that apart from this purely legal and domestic scene, there were four possible ways through which Zardari could exit. These ways were repeated by others who had nothing to do at all with the previous source. They are: one, impeachment; two, voluntary resignation in the wake loss of credibility; three, ‘natural’ or man-made elimination of the president, and, four, an Army coup. The impeachment and coup scenarios are considered non-starter and impossibility.
US and some Pakistani circles said that a resignation after enough dirt is thrown in the public domain when the NRO case details begin to unfold is a favourite way out, as it would not, being an outcome of the legal process, disrupt the system.
I was asked many times whether a coup is a possibility in the current situation and I always said no, but the question kept surfacing again and again.
This is probably because there was some loose talk of a shuffle in the military hierarchy by President Zardari in which Army chief General Kayani was to be replaced by some other pliant general who could ensure continuity and stability for the Zardari regime.
This scenario was shot down in Washington instantly as an impossibility, since it had information that the Pakistan Army considered a coup or intervention as a total no-go area and could have brought back another October 12, 1999 type of situation. It is so also because of the fact that Gen Kayani has established, through words and deeds, that he is all for democracy.
With all these scenarios being discussed, the growing feeling is that not much time is left for the current status quo and it will lead to a period of political turmoil in Pakistan if President Zardari continues with his ways any longer.
The sudden emergence of a top MQM delegation in Washington for talks with the policy makers, officials and think tanks of Washington has also raised many questions as the official Pakistani diplomatic channels were totally cut off and I gather that this was done at the insistence of the US side more than the MQM leadership.
Not even a courtesy meeting between Governor Ishratul Ebad and Ambassador Husain Haqqani was held until four days after the arrival of the MQM delegation and meetings with top strategists, including Bruce Riedel, John Negroponte, Richard Boucher, and current State Department officials, including Richard Holbrooke.
A similar exercise has now been planned with the ANP chief while he will be here in the presidential entourage.
What happened in these meetings is known only to the MQM leaders and the US side but the tone and tenor of MQM in the coming weeks and days will give the first hints of whether the course of the PPP-MQM alliance is changing in stormy waters in the middle of the sea. How the ANP reacts is also to be seen but already Asfandyar Wali is said to be very happy with the praise for his party’s governance in the NWFP by US officials as well as the promises to give them direct financial aid. With the MQM and the ANP almost on board, I will be eagerly waiting for the first signs of the new US strategy unfolding in the days and weeks to come.
WASHINGTON: Americans see a change fast, but smoothly, coming in Pakistan in the wake of loss of credibility of the man at the helm, following some domestic legal developments.
After meeting top political and defence decision-makers here in the US capital, where I was invited by the National Defence University (NDU) for a two-day seminar on the anniversary of 9/11, I was told in unambiguous terms that a change in Pakistan was inevitable for US policy interests, although Washington does not intend to disrupt the system.
Several important Pakistani political players have also been conveyed the same message by the US political and defence establishment, including the MQM and recently the ANP, whose chief is travelling with President Asif Zardari in New York.
The main problem being faced by the US administration, which it may never admit publicly, is that the present set-up with Asif Ali Zardari as the de facto ruler, has no credibility at home and no ability to deliver on the promises he makes, either on the military side or on the war on terror or on governance issues.
“Zardari has also abandoned the idea of political consensus which he had started to follow in the early days after the February elections,” one official said on background. “He appears to be non-serious in government and lives in perpetual fear and insecurity, preferring to stay out of the country.”
The US side thinks that they had made a sensible move by pushing an alliance between late Benazir Bhutto and General Pervez Musharraf as this team would have provided all the ingredients of a stable and cooperative Pakistan to Washington. She would have provided the political support while Musharraf would have used his military muscle against the terrorists and extremists in a stable environment.
They say Zardari has failed to provide that environment, rather he has involved himself in day-to-day business and administrative matters while his political coalition and parliament have been left looking like dumb and dummies.
Many officials say Zardari has been asking the US administration to bail him out on too many issues and too many occasions. He has sought the US help to tame the Army, keep his alliance partners, especially the opposition of Nawaz Sharif’s PML-N in check, directly or through the Saudis on sensitive issues like Musharraf’s or cutting his own constitutional powers.
All these demands are way beyond the capacity of any US administration to deliver while Zardari has almost left everything to us to handle, an agitated official said. “If we have to handle everything, his own credibility within the country will sink and has sunk to the lowest low.”
Other officials I met were even blunter. They say the US abhors corruption, kickbacks and commissions anywhere in the world as a matter of policy.
Another official said the US would keep track of the parties or persons involved and money transaction in the Pakistan’s rental power venture. There are still no roadmaps or any modality work sheets in Washington on how a change in Pakistan would occur, but the US capital is keeping its fingers crossed as to what comes out of the NRO case pending with the Supreme Court.
The impression gathered from the words of these top Americans is that the US would not intervene if the apex court starts hearing the case. The view is that if the NRO was discussed and details of who benefited, who made what deals and how serious crimes were committed and then whitewashed, start to be revealed in the SC, the moral authority of the NRO beneficiaries would erode fatally. In this scenario, the NRO beneficiaries may themselves throw in the towel seeking a safe exit.
In several informed US and Pakistani circles I moved in for several days in Washington, the same scenario was repeated, often exactly in the same tone and sequence.
A Pakistani, who knows a lot about developments in Pakistan and the US scene, said that apart from this purely legal and domestic scene, there were four possible ways through which Zardari could exit. These ways were repeated by others who had nothing to do at all with the previous source. They are: one, impeachment; two, voluntary resignation in the wake loss of credibility; three, ‘natural’ or man-made elimination of the president, and, four, an Army coup. The impeachment and coup scenarios are considered non-starter and impossibility.
US and some Pakistani circles said that a resignation after enough dirt is thrown in the public domain when the NRO case details begin to unfold is a favourite way out, as it would not, being an outcome of the legal process, disrupt the system.
I was asked many times whether a coup is a possibility in the current situation and I always said no, but the question kept surfacing again and again.
This is probably because there was some loose talk of a shuffle in the military hierarchy by President Zardari in which Army chief General Kayani was to be replaced by some other pliant general who could ensure continuity and stability for the Zardari regime.
This scenario was shot down in Washington instantly as an impossibility, since it had information that the Pakistan Army considered a coup or intervention as a total no-go area and could have brought back another October 12, 1999 type of situation. It is so also because of the fact that Gen Kayani has established, through words and deeds, that he is all for democracy.
With all these scenarios being discussed, the growing feeling is that not much time is left for the current status quo and it will lead to a period of political turmoil in Pakistan if President Zardari continues with his ways any longer.
The sudden emergence of a top MQM delegation in Washington for talks with the policy makers, officials and think tanks of Washington has also raised many questions as the official Pakistani diplomatic channels were totally cut off and I gather that this was done at the insistence of the US side more than the MQM leadership.
Not even a courtesy meeting between Governor Ishratul Ebad and Ambassador Husain Haqqani was held until four days after the arrival of the MQM delegation and meetings with top strategists, including Bruce Riedel, John Negroponte, Richard Boucher, and current State Department officials, including Richard Holbrooke.
A similar exercise has now been planned with the ANP chief while he will be here in the presidential entourage.
What happened in these meetings is known only to the MQM leaders and the US side but the tone and tenor of MQM in the coming weeks and days will give the first hints of whether the course of the PPP-MQM alliance is changing in stormy waters in the middle of the sea. How the ANP reacts is also to be seen but already Asfandyar Wali is said to be very happy with the praise for his party’s governance in the NWFP by US officials as well as the promises to give them direct financial aid. With the MQM and the ANP almost on board, I will be eagerly waiting for the first signs of the new US strategy unfolding in the days and weeks to come.
Pakistan, Turkey vow to jointly combat terrorism, upgrade strategic cooperation
ISLAMABAD, Oct 25 (APP): Pakistan and Turkey on Sunday vowed to jointly combat the “menace” of terrorism and have an “intensified cooperation” on political, diplomatic, security and military fields.Addressing a joint press conference after an exclusive and delegation level talks here at the PM House, Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani and his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan said they had an “excellent” interaction.“Our discussions were marked by unanimity of views on all issues of mutual interests and concerns,” Gilani said.
“The two countries have also decided to comprehensively upgrade our strategic partnership and intensify political and economic cooperation,” he told the Pakistani and the Turkish media.
The Turkish prime minister is on a two-day official visit to Pakistan aimed at further strengthening relationship between the two countries.
Pakistan and Turkey also signed a Joint Declaration reiterating resolve to bolster relations in areas of economy, trade, investment, agriculture, industry, culture, education, defence and people-to-people contacts.
The prime minister announced setting up of a “High level cooperation council”, to be co-chaired by the two prime ministers “to oversee and steer the unique partnership to even greater heights” between the two countries.
The council to meet at least once a year will also invite ministers of energy, trade, investments and security to participate in the deliberations.
The Turkish prime minister noted that Pakistan was “passing through a rough patch” and hope it will be able to overcome its problems, while assuring Turkey’s full cooperation in all areas.
Responding to a question about infiltrations from the Afghan side and Turkey’s role, being a member of NATO, the Turkish prime minister said his country will assume the command of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan on November 1.
Prime Minister Erdogan termed it a “disturbing issue” and said Turkey will be in a better position. He said he will personally talk to the Secretary General of NATO and try to address these concerns.
He said in the talks the two sides also discussed joint ventures in military, besides expressing a commitment to create a platform to jointly combat terrorism.
“It is the biggest mistake to kill a person on the name of religion,” Erdogan said and pointed that terrorism recognizes no boundaries or religions. Urging flexibility and tolerance he said “No matter what ideology one has, he should try to come up to some middle ground.”
Under the “intensified cooperation” the two countries will take measures to “broaden an deepen” security cooperation and greater interaction between their intelligence agencies against terrorism, illicit arms trafficking, and such organizations.
The two countries also decided to re-energize trade relations by greater involvement of their private sectors.
“We have agreed to launch a Chief Executive Officers Forum,” Gilani said and announced that from now on the forum will be held on the sidelines of leadership level visits.
“We are confident that the Forum will help unleash potential of private sector entrepreneurship,” he added.
The CEO forum aims at enhancing cooperation in road and rail transportation, initiating negotiations on a maritime agreement”, encouraging private sectors for investment initiatives, strengthening links between the banks and partnerships on energy sectors.
Prime Minister Erdogan who is also heading a 80 member delegation of Turkish Chief Executive Officers to enable them interact with the Pakistani counterparts, said the trade volume between the two countries was very insignificant at only 741 million dollars.
He said there were many commodities the two can exchange besides cooperating in the construction sector, infrastructure development, housing, agriculture and several other areas.
“We have put forward an objective to raise it to US 2 billion dollars a year, but this too is not significant,” he said and added that the establishment of the Turkish Cooperation and Development Agency (TIKA) will provide services to boost trade.
Gilani when asked about relations with Afghanistan said Pakistan wants good brotherly relations and appreciated the role of Turkey to facilitate relations through the tripartite arrangement.
To a question by the Turkish media about future of democracy in Pakistan said “there is no threat to democracy” and added that all state institutions including the parliament, the judiciary and the media were working in the right direction.
He said in his discussions on Afghanistan the two countries focused on peace and stability as well as further coordinated efforts to promote trans-regional cooperation and joint projects.
He said Pakistan was appreciative of Turkey’s constructive role in Afghanistan.
“We look forward to our continued engagement for ensuring prosperity and development in the region.”
The Prime Minister said Pakistan greatly values its strategic partnership with Turkey which is rooted in shared interests, common concerns and perceptions on regional and global issues.
Prime Minister Erdogan who is also heading a 80 member delegation of Turkish Chief Executive Officers to enable them interact with the Pakistani counterparts, said the trade volume between the two countries was very insignificant at only 741 million dollars.
He said there were many commodities the two can exchange besides cooperating in the construction sector, infrastructure development, housing, agriculture and several other areas.
“We have put forward an objective to raise it to US 2 billion dollars a year, but this too is not significant,” he said and added that the establishment of the Turkish Cooperation and Development Agency (TIKA) will provide services to boost trade.
Gilani when asked about relations with Afghanistan said Pakistan wants good brotherly relations and appreciated the role of Turkey to facilitate relations through the tripartite arrangement.
To a question by the Turkish media about future of democracy in Pakistan said “there is no threat to democracy” and added that all state institutions including the parliament, the judiciary and the media were working in the right direction.
He said in his discussions on Afghanistan the two countries focused on peace and stability as well as further coordinated efforts to promote trans-regional cooperation and joint projects.
He said Pakistan was appreciative of Turkey’s constructive role in Afghanistan.
“We look forward to our continued engagement for ensuring prosperity and development in the region.”
The Prime Minister said Pakistan greatly values its strategic partnership with Turkey which is rooted in shared interests, common concerns and perceptions on regional and global issues.
Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi later talking to reporters said he will take up the reported removal of NATO and US checkposts from the Afghan side of the border, along the Waziristan agency, the Secretry Hillary Clinton.
He however said that he has yet to verify the news reports in this regard. He said if verified, he would take up the issue with Secretary Clinton when she visits Pakistan early next week.
Qureshi said Pakistan also discussed the issue of Common Asia strategy with Turkey and added that the two countries will continue to cooperate at multilateral forums.
About his meeting with the Iranian Interior minister he said Pakistan condemned the tragic incident and assured all cooperation. He said Pakistan has already handed over the brother of Abdulmalik Riggi. He said Pakistan has very good ties with Iran and wants to further improve these.
“The two countries have also decided to comprehensively upgrade our strategic partnership and intensify political and economic cooperation,” he told the Pakistani and the Turkish media.
The Turkish prime minister is on a two-day official visit to Pakistan aimed at further strengthening relationship between the two countries.
Pakistan and Turkey also signed a Joint Declaration reiterating resolve to bolster relations in areas of economy, trade, investment, agriculture, industry, culture, education, defence and people-to-people contacts.
The prime minister announced setting up of a “High level cooperation council”, to be co-chaired by the two prime ministers “to oversee and steer the unique partnership to even greater heights” between the two countries.
The council to meet at least once a year will also invite ministers of energy, trade, investments and security to participate in the deliberations.
The Turkish prime minister noted that Pakistan was “passing through a rough patch” and hope it will be able to overcome its problems, while assuring Turkey’s full cooperation in all areas.
Responding to a question about infiltrations from the Afghan side and Turkey’s role, being a member of NATO, the Turkish prime minister said his country will assume the command of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan on November 1.
Prime Minister Erdogan termed it a “disturbing issue” and said Turkey will be in a better position. He said he will personally talk to the Secretary General of NATO and try to address these concerns.
He said in the talks the two sides also discussed joint ventures in military, besides expressing a commitment to create a platform to jointly combat terrorism.
“It is the biggest mistake to kill a person on the name of religion,” Erdogan said and pointed that terrorism recognizes no boundaries or religions. Urging flexibility and tolerance he said “No matter what ideology one has, he should try to come up to some middle ground.”
Under the “intensified cooperation” the two countries will take measures to “broaden an deepen” security cooperation and greater interaction between their intelligence agencies against terrorism, illicit arms trafficking, and such organizations.
The two countries also decided to re-energize trade relations by greater involvement of their private sectors.
“We have agreed to launch a Chief Executive Officers Forum,” Gilani said and announced that from now on the forum will be held on the sidelines of leadership level visits.
“We are confident that the Forum will help unleash potential of private sector entrepreneurship,” he added.
The CEO forum aims at enhancing cooperation in road and rail transportation, initiating negotiations on a maritime agreement”, encouraging private sectors for investment initiatives, strengthening links between the banks and partnerships on energy sectors.
Prime Minister Erdogan who is also heading a 80 member delegation of Turkish Chief Executive Officers to enable them interact with the Pakistani counterparts, said the trade volume between the two countries was very insignificant at only 741 million dollars.
He said there were many commodities the two can exchange besides cooperating in the construction sector, infrastructure development, housing, agriculture and several other areas.
“We have put forward an objective to raise it to US 2 billion dollars a year, but this too is not significant,” he said and added that the establishment of the Turkish Cooperation and Development Agency (TIKA) will provide services to boost trade.
Gilani when asked about relations with Afghanistan said Pakistan wants good brotherly relations and appreciated the role of Turkey to facilitate relations through the tripartite arrangement.
To a question by the Turkish media about future of democracy in Pakistan said “there is no threat to democracy” and added that all state institutions including the parliament, the judiciary and the media were working in the right direction.
He said in his discussions on Afghanistan the two countries focused on peace and stability as well as further coordinated efforts to promote trans-regional cooperation and joint projects.
He said Pakistan was appreciative of Turkey’s constructive role in Afghanistan.
“We look forward to our continued engagement for ensuring prosperity and development in the region.”
The Prime Minister said Pakistan greatly values its strategic partnership with Turkey which is rooted in shared interests, common concerns and perceptions on regional and global issues.
Prime Minister Erdogan who is also heading a 80 member delegation of Turkish Chief Executive Officers to enable them interact with the Pakistani counterparts, said the trade volume between the two countries was very insignificant at only 741 million dollars.
He said there were many commodities the two can exchange besides cooperating in the construction sector, infrastructure development, housing, agriculture and several other areas.
“We have put forward an objective to raise it to US 2 billion dollars a year, but this too is not significant,” he said and added that the establishment of the Turkish Cooperation and Development Agency (TIKA) will provide services to boost trade.
Gilani when asked about relations with Afghanistan said Pakistan wants good brotherly relations and appreciated the role of Turkey to facilitate relations through the tripartite arrangement.
To a question by the Turkish media about future of democracy in Pakistan said “there is no threat to democracy” and added that all state institutions including the parliament, the judiciary and the media were working in the right direction.
He said in his discussions on Afghanistan the two countries focused on peace and stability as well as further coordinated efforts to promote trans-regional cooperation and joint projects.
He said Pakistan was appreciative of Turkey’s constructive role in Afghanistan.
“We look forward to our continued engagement for ensuring prosperity and development in the region.”
The Prime Minister said Pakistan greatly values its strategic partnership with Turkey which is rooted in shared interests, common concerns and perceptions on regional and global issues.
Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi later talking to reporters said he will take up the reported removal of NATO and US checkposts from the Afghan side of the border, along the Waziristan agency, the Secretry Hillary Clinton.
He however said that he has yet to verify the news reports in this regard. He said if verified, he would take up the issue with Secretary Clinton when she visits Pakistan early next week.
Qureshi said Pakistan also discussed the issue of Common Asia strategy with Turkey and added that the two countries will continue to cooperate at multilateral forums.
About his meeting with the Iranian Interior minister he said Pakistan condemned the tragic incident and assured all cooperation. He said Pakistan has already handed over the brother of Abdulmalik Riggi. He said Pakistan has very good ties with Iran and wants to further improve these.
Enemies of Iran, Pakistan did not want relations to flourish:Zardari
ISLAMABAD, Oct 25 (APP): President Asif Ali Zardari on Sunday said that those involved in the heinous terrorist attack in Sistan Province of Iran were the enemies of both the countries who did not want relations between them to flourish.He said that such incidents should not be allowed to cast their shadow on the friendly relations existing between Pakistan and Iran.The President said this while talking to Iranian Interior Minister Mostafa Muhammad Najjar and his delegation who called on him at the Presidency Sunday afternoon.
Those who attended the meeting included Interior Minister Senator Rehman Malik, Secretary General to the President M. Salman Faruqui, Secretary Foreign affairs, Secretary Interior and senior officials. The Iranian ambassador in Pakistan Mashallah Shakeri and members of the Iranian minister’s delegation were also present.
The President said that the whole region is facing the common enemy of militancy. He urged for a joint strategy and mutual cooperation to curb violent extremism.
The President while offering condolences and sympathies to the government and people of Iran for the loss of precious lives in the Sistan attack said that Pakistan will extend all possible cooperation to help track down and punish the terrorists behind the Sistan attack which is a crime against humanity.
The President stressed for more coordinated intelligence cooperation between the two sides to forestall the efforts of those elements that seek to create misgivings between the two countries.
He expressed the hope that bilateral cooperative projects between the two countries will continue as before and will not be impacted adversely by the incident.
The President while appreciating Iran’s contribution of US $330 million at the Friends of Democratic Pakistan Forum said that Pakistan highly values its close brotherly ties with Iran.
The Iranian Interior Minister thanked the President for Pakistan’s offer of cooperation to track down the terrorists.
Those who attended the meeting included Interior Minister Senator Rehman Malik, Secretary General to the President M. Salman Faruqui, Secretary Foreign affairs, Secretary Interior and senior officials. The Iranian ambassador in Pakistan Mashallah Shakeri and members of the Iranian minister’s delegation were also present.
The President said that the whole region is facing the common enemy of militancy. He urged for a joint strategy and mutual cooperation to curb violent extremism.
The President while offering condolences and sympathies to the government and people of Iran for the loss of precious lives in the Sistan attack said that Pakistan will extend all possible cooperation to help track down and punish the terrorists behind the Sistan attack which is a crime against humanity.
The President stressed for more coordinated intelligence cooperation between the two sides to forestall the efforts of those elements that seek to create misgivings between the two countries.
He expressed the hope that bilateral cooperative projects between the two countries will continue as before and will not be impacted adversely by the incident.
The President while appreciating Iran’s contribution of US $330 million at the Friends of Democratic Pakistan Forum said that Pakistan highly values its close brotherly ties with Iran.
The Iranian Interior Minister thanked the President for Pakistan’s offer of cooperation to track down the terrorists.
Annie, The Brand Ambassador of Telenor
She came, she swayed, she conquered. Annie is the latest teen sensation to hit the local music scene. Most songs aired these days are as easily forgotten as they are heard. However, when the hit single, ‘Mahiya’ began making its rounds on music channels some six months back, you just had to stop and take notice.
Noor–ul–Ain popularly known as Annie, is a Pakistani pop singer. Annie was born in 1985 in Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan. In 1986, her parents moved to London, that is where she has grown up.
Annie started her singing career at the age of fifteen. In 2000, during a summer vacation she was came to Pakistan, and performed first time in live concert for Abrarul Haq’s charity in Sargodha. After experiencing the intoxicating rush of performing live, this adamant 15–year old decided that singing was what she wanted. Her parents were very supportive and got her an ustaad with whom she started vocal exercises, with the harmonium.
Very few new artists are lucky to have their first single to be such a hit. Record companies have approached her, Indian record companies are calling her, asking for demos and she’s getting a lot of television and international shows.
Annie, with her bubbly personality and versatile singing ability has opened doors for more female Pakistani girls to come forth with their talent. And to top it all, Annie is now a proud part of the roster of stars for the Telenor Talkshawk team of brand ambassadors.
Noor–ul–Ain popularly known as Annie, is a Pakistani pop singer. Annie was born in 1985 in Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan. In 1986, her parents moved to London, that is where she has grown up.
Annie started her singing career at the age of fifteen. In 2000, during a summer vacation she was came to Pakistan, and performed first time in live concert for Abrarul Haq’s charity in Sargodha. After experiencing the intoxicating rush of performing live, this adamant 15–year old decided that singing was what she wanted. Her parents were very supportive and got her an ustaad with whom she started vocal exercises, with the harmonium.
Very few new artists are lucky to have their first single to be such a hit. Record companies have approached her, Indian record companies are calling her, asking for demos and she’s getting a lot of television and international shows.
Annie, with her bubbly personality and versatile singing ability has opened doors for more female Pakistani girls to come forth with their talent. And to top it all, Annie is now a proud part of the roster of stars for the Telenor Talkshawk team of brand ambassadors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)