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.
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.”
United State envoy says all in Pakistan on board
By Mohammad Malick
ISLAMABAD: ‘Oh! come on, that’s a ridiculous suggestion...’ was what her expression clearly stated, but what US ambassador Anne Patterson actually said, responding to a query, was that she felt rather “surprised” by some statements flowing out of the presidency and the prime minister’s office, suggesting neither had been taken into confidence during the preparation of the new regional strategy announced by President Obama. On the contrary, she insisted all power centres in Pakistan, including the president, the prime minister and the military had been constantly engaged by the top functionaries of the American power dispensation.
She pointed out to the visit of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and repeated visits by top American generals, including Mullen, McChrystal, the CIA director, national security adviser, etc. “Only a few days back Gen McChrystal had a six-hour session with Gen Kayani as well wherein he explained a lot of things in exhaustive detail,” she added.
The ambassador made these remarks over a breakfast meeting with a group of newspaper editors, ostensibly to discuss the much-awaited Obama speech made a couple of hours earlier but the candid exchange of views ended up being more of a Q&A session with the ambassador ably assisted by her Deputy Chief of Mission Gerald Feierstein and Brigadier General Nagata, while other key officials of the US embassy also enjoyed the typical American breakfast of hash browns, scrambled eggs and sausages (Halal of course).
Elaborating on these interactive parlays she insisted serious and exhaustive discussions had been held between Pakistani and American leadership during the strategy review process and that both sides “shared similar goals”. Ambassador Patterson reasoned that it was inconceivable that a process aimed at stabilising Pakistan and Afghanistan would be done without consulting the two. Why then would the presidency and the prime minister say that they weren’t involved, she was asked? She simply responded with a meaningful smile and a slight shrug of shoulders.
When asked about the feared destabilising effects of new troop deployment in the border areas of Afghan Helmand province in particular, Brig Nagata, claimed a couple of Pakistani generals had even been given a helicopter ride over possible new troop deployment areas to show that it did not pose the much-touted threat. The brigadier’s assertion was also a tacit implication of the US administration having shared the contours of the new strategy, Pakistani government’s denials notwithstanding, in fair detail with the Pakistani civil and military leadership.
When asked about the underlying reason for President Obama making a seemingly unwarranted reference to Pakistan’s nuclear assets with a couched reference to al-Qaeda eyeing them for its own usage, she hastened to add it would be incorrect to assume that Obama had indicated any dissatisfaction with the safety and security protocol of the nuclear programme. To paraphrase what she said, Pakistan’s nuclear assets were as safe as those of the United States and that Obama had only talked of al-Qaeda’s intent to get its hands on weapons of mass destruction.
She added, however, that she had herself viewed highly credible intelligence that claimed that a cell within the al-Qaeda was trying to get hold of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction. When asked if it were the same intelligence sources that had also wrongly claimed WMDs in Iraq, Feierstein chimed in by pointing out it would be wrong to draw a parallel between the two, as Pakistan had a declared nuclear programme and al-Qaeda was an established terrorist reality and, therefore, the feared scenario was a very real threat. When the ambassador was pressed on this issue of why Obama had to then flagged this issue if US did not have any real or perceived fears as claimed by her, Feierstein again interjected by arguing that hypothetically there was no security-fail proof system anywhere, including the US itself, and that all Obama wanted to highlight was a real threat by a real enemy which needed to be carefully guarded against and nothing more should be read into his remarks.
Ambassador Patterson stuck to her guns, insisting there was unquestionable intelligence about the presence of top al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan. The US envoy was at pains to convince that there would not be any ‘power vacuum’ in Afghanistan in view of the 18-month start of withdrawal window given in President Obama’s speech. When asked about any particular mechanism evolved by the US administration to engage good Taliban as per this revised strategy, she said the US was “very enthusiastic” about the Jirga process and fully favoured the strategy of notable Pashtuns engaging the “good Taliban” through the Jirga process and expressed that hope that the same would be taking place on both sides of the Pak-Afghan border. However, she along with Brig Nagata made it abundantly clear that it would not be a role taken on directly by the United States. Ambassador Paterson said in Afghanistan it would be up to the Karzai government to talk to the right Taliban and to the Pakistani govt on this side. When asked who gets to decide who are the good Taliban as in the past there have been clear differences of opinion on this precise issue between US authorities and Pakistani military establishment, the ambassador responded by saying she saw no such complications as according to her “there was now a convergence of views and priorities between the two”. Easier said than done ambassador, is all one can say.
According to Brig Nagata, the US commander in Afghanistan, Gen McChrystal was only directly involved to the extent of engaging low rank Taliban fighters, etc., who may have joined in due to poverty and joblessness. “individual, low-level Taliban fighters”, as he put it. He would also have us believe that McChrystal’s men would be able to identify, talk to and decommission such rankers while cutting their way around the influence of the power lords, binding tribal affinities, etc. The likely outcome is anybody’s guess.
On the matter of Indian involvement in fomenting trouble in Balochistan, she said so far the Pakistani government had not shared any specific evidence in this regards with the US and went on to state that if any credible evidence were to be shared then the US would definitely take action, without elaborating what that action could be.
Replying to the inevitable question of presence of operatives of defence contractor firms like Blackwater, etc., Ambassador Paterson termed Blackwater presence claim “utter nonsense”. She said the US had not employed services of any defence contractor firm for counterinsurgency and military operations within Pakistan. When asked about the possibility of her being kept out of the loop by her own government, she retorted, “No. This is not possible. I would not be left out of the loop in any such event.” She said the firm DynCorp was only being used as maintenance service providers in Quetta and elsewhere.
ISLAMABAD: ‘Oh! come on, that’s a ridiculous suggestion...’ was what her expression clearly stated, but what US ambassador Anne Patterson actually said, responding to a query, was that she felt rather “surprised” by some statements flowing out of the presidency and the prime minister’s office, suggesting neither had been taken into confidence during the preparation of the new regional strategy announced by President Obama. On the contrary, she insisted all power centres in Pakistan, including the president, the prime minister and the military had been constantly engaged by the top functionaries of the American power dispensation.
She pointed out to the visit of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and repeated visits by top American generals, including Mullen, McChrystal, the CIA director, national security adviser, etc. “Only a few days back Gen McChrystal had a six-hour session with Gen Kayani as well wherein he explained a lot of things in exhaustive detail,” she added.
The ambassador made these remarks over a breakfast meeting with a group of newspaper editors, ostensibly to discuss the much-awaited Obama speech made a couple of hours earlier but the candid exchange of views ended up being more of a Q&A session with the ambassador ably assisted by her Deputy Chief of Mission Gerald Feierstein and Brigadier General Nagata, while other key officials of the US embassy also enjoyed the typical American breakfast of hash browns, scrambled eggs and sausages (Halal of course).
Elaborating on these interactive parlays she insisted serious and exhaustive discussions had been held between Pakistani and American leadership during the strategy review process and that both sides “shared similar goals”. Ambassador Patterson reasoned that it was inconceivable that a process aimed at stabilising Pakistan and Afghanistan would be done without consulting the two. Why then would the presidency and the prime minister say that they weren’t involved, she was asked? She simply responded with a meaningful smile and a slight shrug of shoulders.
When asked about the feared destabilising effects of new troop deployment in the border areas of Afghan Helmand province in particular, Brig Nagata, claimed a couple of Pakistani generals had even been given a helicopter ride over possible new troop deployment areas to show that it did not pose the much-touted threat. The brigadier’s assertion was also a tacit implication of the US administration having shared the contours of the new strategy, Pakistani government’s denials notwithstanding, in fair detail with the Pakistani civil and military leadership.
When asked about the underlying reason for President Obama making a seemingly unwarranted reference to Pakistan’s nuclear assets with a couched reference to al-Qaeda eyeing them for its own usage, she hastened to add it would be incorrect to assume that Obama had indicated any dissatisfaction with the safety and security protocol of the nuclear programme. To paraphrase what she said, Pakistan’s nuclear assets were as safe as those of the United States and that Obama had only talked of al-Qaeda’s intent to get its hands on weapons of mass destruction.
She added, however, that she had herself viewed highly credible intelligence that claimed that a cell within the al-Qaeda was trying to get hold of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction. When asked if it were the same intelligence sources that had also wrongly claimed WMDs in Iraq, Feierstein chimed in by pointing out it would be wrong to draw a parallel between the two, as Pakistan had a declared nuclear programme and al-Qaeda was an established terrorist reality and, therefore, the feared scenario was a very real threat. When the ambassador was pressed on this issue of why Obama had to then flagged this issue if US did not have any real or perceived fears as claimed by her, Feierstein again interjected by arguing that hypothetically there was no security-fail proof system anywhere, including the US itself, and that all Obama wanted to highlight was a real threat by a real enemy which needed to be carefully guarded against and nothing more should be read into his remarks.
Ambassador Patterson stuck to her guns, insisting there was unquestionable intelligence about the presence of top al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan. The US envoy was at pains to convince that there would not be any ‘power vacuum’ in Afghanistan in view of the 18-month start of withdrawal window given in President Obama’s speech. When asked about any particular mechanism evolved by the US administration to engage good Taliban as per this revised strategy, she said the US was “very enthusiastic” about the Jirga process and fully favoured the strategy of notable Pashtuns engaging the “good Taliban” through the Jirga process and expressed that hope that the same would be taking place on both sides of the Pak-Afghan border. However, she along with Brig Nagata made it abundantly clear that it would not be a role taken on directly by the United States. Ambassador Paterson said in Afghanistan it would be up to the Karzai government to talk to the right Taliban and to the Pakistani govt on this side. When asked who gets to decide who are the good Taliban as in the past there have been clear differences of opinion on this precise issue between US authorities and Pakistani military establishment, the ambassador responded by saying she saw no such complications as according to her “there was now a convergence of views and priorities between the two”. Easier said than done ambassador, is all one can say.
According to Brig Nagata, the US commander in Afghanistan, Gen McChrystal was only directly involved to the extent of engaging low rank Taliban fighters, etc., who may have joined in due to poverty and joblessness. “individual, low-level Taliban fighters”, as he put it. He would also have us believe that McChrystal’s men would be able to identify, talk to and decommission such rankers while cutting their way around the influence of the power lords, binding tribal affinities, etc. The likely outcome is anybody’s guess.
On the matter of Indian involvement in fomenting trouble in Balochistan, she said so far the Pakistani government had not shared any specific evidence in this regards with the US and went on to state that if any credible evidence were to be shared then the US would definitely take action, without elaborating what that action could be.
Replying to the inevitable question of presence of operatives of defence contractor firms like Blackwater, etc., Ambassador Paterson termed Blackwater presence claim “utter nonsense”. She said the US had not employed services of any defence contractor firm for counterinsurgency and military operations within Pakistan. When asked about the possibility of her being kept out of the loop by her own government, she retorted, “No. This is not possible. I would not be left out of the loop in any such event.” She said the firm DynCorp was only being used as maintenance service providers in Quetta and elsewhere.
Was it an attempt on CJ’s life?
By Ansar Abbasi
ISLAMABAD: Was it an attempt on the life of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry or a mere goof-up by the Islamabad traffic police?
Supreme Court Registrar Dr Faqir Hussain says that what had happened to the chief justice and his family on Monday night was something “highly unusual” that needs to be thoroughly investigated.
However, lawyers’ leader and former spokesman for the chief justice during his days of unconstitutional depositions Athar Minallah smelled a rat. He believed that the people’s chief justice was making certain strong circles uncomfortable and added that the facts of the event did not lead to the conclusion that it was just an accident.
“The people’s chief justice obviously makes strong circles uncomfortable,” Athar Minallah said without explaining which “strong circles” he was referring to but added: “The facts (of the incident) do not lead to the conclusion that it was just an accident.”
Talking to The News, he said: “There seems to be more to it that ought to be investigated thoroughly.”
When approached, SSP Islamabad Tahir Alam said the incident is being thoroughly investigated and all the necessary details about the traffic police officials involved in the incident are being gathered. Without offering any comment whether it was a mere accident as a result of the police goof up or a conspiracy to target the chief justice, he said a joint investigation team has been constituted by the Interior Ministry on Tuesday to probe the matter.
Regional Police Officer Rawalpindi Muhammad Aslam Tareen, when contacted, said: “Nothing could be ruled out.” He was surprised that how a traffic police inspector could block the VIP route when already the Islamabad police were duly informed about the arrival of the chief justice.
Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and his family members narrowly escaped what could have been a serious accident when an Islamabad traffic police vehicle suddenly was found blocking the way of the VIP motorcade.
As a result, over six vehicles, including five those in the motorcade, collided with each other, some even overturned. A daughter of the chief justice got minor injury while Justice Iftikhar and other members of his family remained secure.
When the motorcade entered the capital from the toll plaza near the Golra interchange it found an Islamabad traffic police vehicle parked horizontally in the middle of the road. According to one version, after the pilot vehicle of the motorcade had passed, the interrupting police vehicle was parked horizontally. The other version is that the pilot vehicle had avoided collision and so did the CJ’s car while the other vehicles could not spot the police vehicle and smashed into it. However, the fact remains that the police vehicle was blocking the VIP route.
Supreme Court Registrar Dr Faqir Hussain, when contacted, sounded worried about the accident but he was cautious in his response. He said that the police need to tell if it was an accident apparently on account of the negligence of the traffic police or something else.
He, however, said: “This is something highly unusual.” Dr Faqir, who was not willing to pre-judge the event, said the matter has to be thoroughly investigated to get to the truth.
After his restoration and for the kind of cases he is taking up and judgment handing down, the life of Justice Iftikhar is believed to be under threat from certain powerful quarters. Iftikhar Chaudhry, who had made many enemies from amongst the powerful elite of the country before Nov 3, 2007 by siding with the poor and downtrodden of the country and got deposed by Musharraf, is still making more enemies from the powerful elite. The Supreme Court’s decision to knock down the NRO has shocked many, whereas he has also taken up innumerable cases of corruption, loot and plunder of state’s wealth by a selected few.
Besides taking up the Bank of Punjab issue that involved Rs9 billion and exposed several powerful, the chief justice also took suo moto notice of the sale of the state-land in Karachi and Sindh on throwaway prices. The present Supreme Court had also cleansed the superior judiciary from over 100 PCO judges and others appointed on Dogar’s recommendations after Nov 3, 2007.
Some “top” lawyers of the country, who had multiplied their fortunes during the Dogar tenure, are also upset because of the corruption allegations levelled against them by some accused or petitioners.
Our correspondent adds: The office of the Attorney General for Pakistan on Tuesday directed the Inspector General of Police (IGP) Islamabad to thoroughly investigate the accident of motorcade of the chief justice of Pakistan and submit a report in this regard.
The motorcade of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry met an accident near the Islamabad motorway the other day.
Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry was on his way to Islamabad from Lahore via motorway and the accident took place when his motorcade was hit by another vehicle coming from the opposite side immediately after leaving the Islamabad motorway, due to which vehicles of the caravan collided with each other - however fortunately, the chief justice and his family members did not sustain any injuries.
After the incident, Acting Attorney General for Pakistan Shah Khawar met Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and enquired about the whole incident.
“I have directed IGP Islamabad Syed Kaleem Imam to thoroughly investigate the matter, identifying the person whose negligence caused the incident to take place,” Shah Khawar told The News.
He said he has directed the IGP to evolve a new security plan after consultation with the chief justice of Pakistan and his office staff to avoid any untoward incident in future.
The acting attorney general directed the IGP to award stern punishment to the people held responsible for the incident and further directed to submit a progress report of the enquiry
Meanwhile, it was learnt that an investigation committee has been set up after the chief justice of Pakistan’s (CJP) motorcade met an accident. Two traffic policemen have reportedly been arrested, an in-charge inspector suspended and show-cause notice to the deputy superintendent of police (DSP) concerned has been issued. The injured were shifted to various hospitals and provided medical treatment.
Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry visited PIMS and Polyclinic hospitals and enquired after the health of his staff members injured in the accident.
ISLAMABAD: Was it an attempt on the life of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry or a mere goof-up by the Islamabad traffic police?
Supreme Court Registrar Dr Faqir Hussain says that what had happened to the chief justice and his family on Monday night was something “highly unusual” that needs to be thoroughly investigated.
However, lawyers’ leader and former spokesman for the chief justice during his days of unconstitutional depositions Athar Minallah smelled a rat. He believed that the people’s chief justice was making certain strong circles uncomfortable and added that the facts of the event did not lead to the conclusion that it was just an accident.
“The people’s chief justice obviously makes strong circles uncomfortable,” Athar Minallah said without explaining which “strong circles” he was referring to but added: “The facts (of the incident) do not lead to the conclusion that it was just an accident.”
Talking to The News, he said: “There seems to be more to it that ought to be investigated thoroughly.”
When approached, SSP Islamabad Tahir Alam said the incident is being thoroughly investigated and all the necessary details about the traffic police officials involved in the incident are being gathered. Without offering any comment whether it was a mere accident as a result of the police goof up or a conspiracy to target the chief justice, he said a joint investigation team has been constituted by the Interior Ministry on Tuesday to probe the matter.
Regional Police Officer Rawalpindi Muhammad Aslam Tareen, when contacted, said: “Nothing could be ruled out.” He was surprised that how a traffic police inspector could block the VIP route when already the Islamabad police were duly informed about the arrival of the chief justice.
Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and his family members narrowly escaped what could have been a serious accident when an Islamabad traffic police vehicle suddenly was found blocking the way of the VIP motorcade.
As a result, over six vehicles, including five those in the motorcade, collided with each other, some even overturned. A daughter of the chief justice got minor injury while Justice Iftikhar and other members of his family remained secure.
When the motorcade entered the capital from the toll plaza near the Golra interchange it found an Islamabad traffic police vehicle parked horizontally in the middle of the road. According to one version, after the pilot vehicle of the motorcade had passed, the interrupting police vehicle was parked horizontally. The other version is that the pilot vehicle had avoided collision and so did the CJ’s car while the other vehicles could not spot the police vehicle and smashed into it. However, the fact remains that the police vehicle was blocking the VIP route.
Supreme Court Registrar Dr Faqir Hussain, when contacted, sounded worried about the accident but he was cautious in his response. He said that the police need to tell if it was an accident apparently on account of the negligence of the traffic police or something else.
He, however, said: “This is something highly unusual.” Dr Faqir, who was not willing to pre-judge the event, said the matter has to be thoroughly investigated to get to the truth.
After his restoration and for the kind of cases he is taking up and judgment handing down, the life of Justice Iftikhar is believed to be under threat from certain powerful quarters. Iftikhar Chaudhry, who had made many enemies from amongst the powerful elite of the country before Nov 3, 2007 by siding with the poor and downtrodden of the country and got deposed by Musharraf, is still making more enemies from the powerful elite. The Supreme Court’s decision to knock down the NRO has shocked many, whereas he has also taken up innumerable cases of corruption, loot and plunder of state’s wealth by a selected few.
Besides taking up the Bank of Punjab issue that involved Rs9 billion and exposed several powerful, the chief justice also took suo moto notice of the sale of the state-land in Karachi and Sindh on throwaway prices. The present Supreme Court had also cleansed the superior judiciary from over 100 PCO judges and others appointed on Dogar’s recommendations after Nov 3, 2007.
Some “top” lawyers of the country, who had multiplied their fortunes during the Dogar tenure, are also upset because of the corruption allegations levelled against them by some accused or petitioners.
Our correspondent adds: The office of the Attorney General for Pakistan on Tuesday directed the Inspector General of Police (IGP) Islamabad to thoroughly investigate the accident of motorcade of the chief justice of Pakistan and submit a report in this regard.
The motorcade of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry met an accident near the Islamabad motorway the other day.
Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry was on his way to Islamabad from Lahore via motorway and the accident took place when his motorcade was hit by another vehicle coming from the opposite side immediately after leaving the Islamabad motorway, due to which vehicles of the caravan collided with each other - however fortunately, the chief justice and his family members did not sustain any injuries.
After the incident, Acting Attorney General for Pakistan Shah Khawar met Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and enquired about the whole incident.
“I have directed IGP Islamabad Syed Kaleem Imam to thoroughly investigate the matter, identifying the person whose negligence caused the incident to take place,” Shah Khawar told The News.
He said he has directed the IGP to evolve a new security plan after consultation with the chief justice of Pakistan and his office staff to avoid any untoward incident in future.
The acting attorney general directed the IGP to award stern punishment to the people held responsible for the incident and further directed to submit a progress report of the enquiry
Meanwhile, it was learnt that an investigation committee has been set up after the chief justice of Pakistan’s (CJP) motorcade met an accident. Two traffic policemen have reportedly been arrested, an in-charge inspector suspended and show-cause notice to the deputy superintendent of police (DSP) concerned has been issued. The injured were shifted to various hospitals and provided medical treatment.
Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry visited PIMS and Polyclinic hospitals and enquired after the health of his staff members injured in the accident.
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.
Most of Rs100bn loans written off in Musharraf era
By Rauf Klasra
ISLAMABAD: Industrialists, military men and politicians have got loans of over Rs100 billion written off from banks since 1985, the National Assembly Secretariat record has revealed.
A big chunk of loans was written off during the regime of former President Pervez Musharraf.
The beneficiaries also included politicians-cum-industrialists and a group of the print media that later joined the electronic media.
A few of those who got loans written off were genuine cases as they suffered from sick industries or bankruptcy. Their loans were written off according to rules and the prevalent law. Some of the beneficiaries, however, submitted bogus claims and the banks did not follow rules and regulations in writing off their loans.
The official record available with The News which was placed in the NA in the past showed that a mind-boggling sum of Rs30 billion in loans was written off between 1985-2002, benefiting the top politicians, military men and powerful industrial groups of the country. The list was compiled by the then caretaker government of Moin Qureshi in 1993.
In 2007, the auditor general of Pakistan had revealed in a report that during the period 2002-2007, loans worth Rs54 billion were written off by the Musharraf government. Thus, total figure had reached Rs85 billion. But, now the recent official report presented before the NA revealed that the total figure of written off loans had finally crossed Rs100 billion.
Parliamentary Affairs Minister Dr Babar Awan’s announcement about the loan write-off on Tuesday was followed by the demand of Nawaz Sharif and Shahbaz Sharif to recover the written off loans from politicians, might land many in big trouble.
The Supreme Court of Pakistan led by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry had also taken suo moto notice in October 2007 after this correspondent had published a story in The News quoting the auditor general of Pakistan report that loans worth Rs54 billion were written off during the last five years. The issue is still pending before the court.
Likewise, the NA Public Accounts Committee headed by Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan has also taken serious note of the loan write-off and its report is yet to be tabled for further deliberation.
As many as 1,000 influential businessmen and Army men had a total of Rs18 billion loans written off by the government-owned banks during the first three years of the military government. The list was submitted in the NA when Zafarullah Jamali was the prime minister and Shaukat Aziz his finance minister.
The loan write-off scam was partially reported in the media in the early days of Musharraf but was finjavascript:void(0)ally swept under the carpet.
It may be added that these loans were written off after declaring these industrial units as “sick industry or on the pretext of bankruptcy”. Many of the beneficiaries denied having their loans written-off.
ISLAMABAD: Industrialists, military men and politicians have got loans of over Rs100 billion written off from banks since 1985, the National Assembly Secretariat record has revealed.
A big chunk of loans was written off during the regime of former President Pervez Musharraf.
The beneficiaries also included politicians-cum-industrialists and a group of the print media that later joined the electronic media.
A few of those who got loans written off were genuine cases as they suffered from sick industries or bankruptcy. Their loans were written off according to rules and the prevalent law. Some of the beneficiaries, however, submitted bogus claims and the banks did not follow rules and regulations in writing off their loans.
The official record available with The News which was placed in the NA in the past showed that a mind-boggling sum of Rs30 billion in loans was written off between 1985-2002, benefiting the top politicians, military men and powerful industrial groups of the country. The list was compiled by the then caretaker government of Moin Qureshi in 1993.
In 2007, the auditor general of Pakistan had revealed in a report that during the period 2002-2007, loans worth Rs54 billion were written off by the Musharraf government. Thus, total figure had reached Rs85 billion. But, now the recent official report presented before the NA revealed that the total figure of written off loans had finally crossed Rs100 billion.
Parliamentary Affairs Minister Dr Babar Awan’s announcement about the loan write-off on Tuesday was followed by the demand of Nawaz Sharif and Shahbaz Sharif to recover the written off loans from politicians, might land many in big trouble.
The Supreme Court of Pakistan led by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry had also taken suo moto notice in October 2007 after this correspondent had published a story in The News quoting the auditor general of Pakistan report that loans worth Rs54 billion were written off during the last five years. The issue is still pending before the court.
Likewise, the NA Public Accounts Committee headed by Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan has also taken serious note of the loan write-off and its report is yet to be tabled for further deliberation.
As many as 1,000 influential businessmen and Army men had a total of Rs18 billion loans written off by the government-owned banks during the first three years of the military government. The list was submitted in the NA when Zafarullah Jamali was the prime minister and Shaukat Aziz his finance minister.
The loan write-off scam was partially reported in the media in the early days of Musharraf but was finjavascript:void(0)ally swept under the carpet.
It may be added that these loans were written off after declaring these industrial units as “sick industry or on the pretext of bankruptcy”. Many of the beneficiaries denied having their loans written-off.
No forward movement
By Ayesha Siddiqa:
On Wednesday, the Pakistan government formally charged the seven key suspects believed to be involved in last year’s Mumbai terror attacks.
This decision, which came on the eve of the first anniversary of the attacks, is a positive gesture from Islamabad and one which will probably help break the current logjam between India and Pakistan. The Indian government had linked the resumption of talks and the composite dialogue with forward movement in this regard.
The decision also comes in the wake of expanding allegations regarding Pakistan’s linkage with the Mumbai terror plot. Reportedly new evidence has been found in the David Headley case, in which a Chicago-based US citizen of Pakistani origin was found by the FBI to be involved in the planning of the Mumbai attacks. Headley and five other Pakistanis have been arrested abroad for their links with the attack and Lashkar-i-Taiba. There were two other Pakistanis resident in Italy who were also caught for providing funding for the Mumbai terror plot.
The discovery of new information and Islamabad’s decision might provide some temporary consolation to the relatives of the victims, but it would also make them highly suspicious of any peace initiative between the two neighbours. The indictment of the seven suspects could help move bilateral relations further but it may not necessarily put relations completely back on track. There are many in India who will probably continue to be suspicious of Pakistan’s intent to move forward in the case.
For Manmohan Singh’s government this is really a catch-22 situation because while the indictment breaks the logjam, New Delhi would also have to decide whether or not to support and have faith in the Pakistani judicial system, especially when the case is legally and politically complex. The hearings, which are being held in camera, could take a long time to conclude. The defence lawyers would probably also try to challenge the legality of the indictment on the grounds that the seven people were being charged for a crime that did not take place on Pakistani soil.
There is precedence regarding cases which were thrown out on this particular technicality. There is also probability of the proceedings slowing down due to the issue of the defence counsel’s physical access to the only surviving gunman — Ajmal Kasab. One is not sure if India will muster enough confidence in Pakistan to extradite this key witness.
But what is beyond doubt is the fact that the case will probably drag on for a while. The faith the two states may or may not develop in each other regarding the legal processing of this case will also determine the quality of bilateral relations. Not to forget that there are a sufficient number of actors on both sides of the divide who will target their own government for the perceived ‘giving in’ to the rival.
There is certainly a noticeable gap between what the Pakistani state is willing to do to appease New Delhi and how society perceives the cooperation in the case. A popular perception held and propagated by many in the media is that 26/11 is perhaps as much a conspiracy as 9/11. While there are many who continue to remind others of a supposed list of 3,000 Jews who they say had not turned up for work on the day of the attack on the World Trade Centre, similar suspicions are cast on the Mumbai tragedy.
The disappearance of the Kasab family from Faridkot soon after it was discovered by the media only helps support the argument that the Kasab family does not actually exist. What’s important is not that Islamabad’s lie was exposed but that the disappearance would help erase the memory of the discovery from the minds of ordinary Pakistanis.
However, as the two states engage in a battle of wits and patiently await the fate of the legal battle, it is important that they use the opportunity to explore the future of bilateral links, especially from the perspective of evaluating the capacity of the two states and societies to bear such acts of violence. The question that we must ask ourselves is what could happen if there was another attack of the scale of Mumbai. More importantly, could the region afford another tragic incident?
The average Indian is probably not impressed with the argument that Pakistan is itself a victim of terrorism. New Delhi has dealt with a series of attacks on its soil, especially the two significant attacks: the first on the Indian parliament in 2001 followed by Mumbai in 2008. Although the link with Pakistan is not conclusively proven and many in Pakistan would like to believe the argument that most of the evidence is not presentable in a court of law, the average Indian is not bothered about the legal status.
Therefore, political pressure on New Delhi to respond ‘in the same coin’ if such terror attacks are repeated in the future will mount. Surely the region was saved from a greater crisis due to the nuclear deterrent and American assistance or diplomatic intervention.
However, the aforementioned recipe might not work, or maybe it will. Unfortunately, due to a reduction in people-to-people contacts the general public in Pakistan does not appreciate the deep sense of hurt across the border. While both states choose to deal with this controversy with the help of the media — which means that what one has seen was more of jingoism than a real assessment of the situation — there is a need for a serious review by the media and opinion-makers to objectively assess the region’s ability to deal with a similar crisis in the future.
There are even suggestions that the two states must open additional channels of communication at the level of the heads of intelligence. After all, why beat about the bush and not have those talk who are accused of pursuing a proxy war as a continued option? In fact, the head of the ISI reportedly sent a signal to the Indian government for direct talks.
This is not to suggest that opening this channel is a recipe for setting things right in the short term. It is essentially another layer of CBMs meant to avoid an escalation of tension while proxies are maintained as an option. The more important issue, however, is regarding the transparency of this additional dialogue.
Needless to say, there is too much at stake for both states to continue with proxies or not find a permanent method to resolve dicey issues.
The writer is an independent strategic and political analyst.
ayesha.ibd@gmail.com
On Wednesday, the Pakistan government formally charged the seven key suspects believed to be involved in last year’s Mumbai terror attacks.
This decision, which came on the eve of the first anniversary of the attacks, is a positive gesture from Islamabad and one which will probably help break the current logjam between India and Pakistan. The Indian government had linked the resumption of talks and the composite dialogue with forward movement in this regard.
The decision also comes in the wake of expanding allegations regarding Pakistan’s linkage with the Mumbai terror plot. Reportedly new evidence has been found in the David Headley case, in which a Chicago-based US citizen of Pakistani origin was found by the FBI to be involved in the planning of the Mumbai attacks. Headley and five other Pakistanis have been arrested abroad for their links with the attack and Lashkar-i-Taiba. There were two other Pakistanis resident in Italy who were also caught for providing funding for the Mumbai terror plot.
The discovery of new information and Islamabad’s decision might provide some temporary consolation to the relatives of the victims, but it would also make them highly suspicious of any peace initiative between the two neighbours. The indictment of the seven suspects could help move bilateral relations further but it may not necessarily put relations completely back on track. There are many in India who will probably continue to be suspicious of Pakistan’s intent to move forward in the case.
For Manmohan Singh’s government this is really a catch-22 situation because while the indictment breaks the logjam, New Delhi would also have to decide whether or not to support and have faith in the Pakistani judicial system, especially when the case is legally and politically complex. The hearings, which are being held in camera, could take a long time to conclude. The defence lawyers would probably also try to challenge the legality of the indictment on the grounds that the seven people were being charged for a crime that did not take place on Pakistani soil.
There is precedence regarding cases which were thrown out on this particular technicality. There is also probability of the proceedings slowing down due to the issue of the defence counsel’s physical access to the only surviving gunman — Ajmal Kasab. One is not sure if India will muster enough confidence in Pakistan to extradite this key witness.
But what is beyond doubt is the fact that the case will probably drag on for a while. The faith the two states may or may not develop in each other regarding the legal processing of this case will also determine the quality of bilateral relations. Not to forget that there are a sufficient number of actors on both sides of the divide who will target their own government for the perceived ‘giving in’ to the rival.
There is certainly a noticeable gap between what the Pakistani state is willing to do to appease New Delhi and how society perceives the cooperation in the case. A popular perception held and propagated by many in the media is that 26/11 is perhaps as much a conspiracy as 9/11. While there are many who continue to remind others of a supposed list of 3,000 Jews who they say had not turned up for work on the day of the attack on the World Trade Centre, similar suspicions are cast on the Mumbai tragedy.
The disappearance of the Kasab family from Faridkot soon after it was discovered by the media only helps support the argument that the Kasab family does not actually exist. What’s important is not that Islamabad’s lie was exposed but that the disappearance would help erase the memory of the discovery from the minds of ordinary Pakistanis.
However, as the two states engage in a battle of wits and patiently await the fate of the legal battle, it is important that they use the opportunity to explore the future of bilateral links, especially from the perspective of evaluating the capacity of the two states and societies to bear such acts of violence. The question that we must ask ourselves is what could happen if there was another attack of the scale of Mumbai. More importantly, could the region afford another tragic incident?
The average Indian is probably not impressed with the argument that Pakistan is itself a victim of terrorism. New Delhi has dealt with a series of attacks on its soil, especially the two significant attacks: the first on the Indian parliament in 2001 followed by Mumbai in 2008. Although the link with Pakistan is not conclusively proven and many in Pakistan would like to believe the argument that most of the evidence is not presentable in a court of law, the average Indian is not bothered about the legal status.
Therefore, political pressure on New Delhi to respond ‘in the same coin’ if such terror attacks are repeated in the future will mount. Surely the region was saved from a greater crisis due to the nuclear deterrent and American assistance or diplomatic intervention.
However, the aforementioned recipe might not work, or maybe it will. Unfortunately, due to a reduction in people-to-people contacts the general public in Pakistan does not appreciate the deep sense of hurt across the border. While both states choose to deal with this controversy with the help of the media — which means that what one has seen was more of jingoism than a real assessment of the situation — there is a need for a serious review by the media and opinion-makers to objectively assess the region’s ability to deal with a similar crisis in the future.
There are even suggestions that the two states must open additional channels of communication at the level of the heads of intelligence. After all, why beat about the bush and not have those talk who are accused of pursuing a proxy war as a continued option? In fact, the head of the ISI reportedly sent a signal to the Indian government for direct talks.
This is not to suggest that opening this channel is a recipe for setting things right in the short term. It is essentially another layer of CBMs meant to avoid an escalation of tension while proxies are maintained as an option. The more important issue, however, is regarding the transparency of this additional dialogue.
Needless to say, there is too much at stake for both states to continue with proxies or not find a permanent method to resolve dicey issues.
The writer is an independent strategic and political analyst.
ayesha.ibd@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)