Bismillah ar Rahman ar Rahim REALPakNationalists

December 16, 2009

The End of Jihadi Proxies

Filed under: Defense — Tags: , , , , , , — admin @ 12:36 pm

Dr Manzur Ejaz writes in today’s Daily Times that the time has come to end the use of jihadi proxies in the struggle for national security.

Pakistan and the US have put themselves in such a tight corner that both countries are not left with many choices. President Barack Obama made winning the Afghan war his priority even during his election campaign. Furthermore, his expected increase of troops in Afghanistan has put his credibility on line where he has to show, at least, as much success as George Bush achieved in the most unpopular Iraq war. On the other hand, the Pakistan military does not seem ready to go all the way against all kinds of jihadis because of its apprehensions, real or perceived, about India.

President Obama and most of the US policy circles are convinced that it is not only the Taliban of the tribal areas but all kinds of jihadis that are potential threats for the overall American interests in the area. For starters, improving Pak-Indian relations, a key component of US policy for South Asia, correlates directly to the elimination of anti-India jihadis is pertinent. In addition, the US cannot run different systems and departments without Indian help: practically, the Indians are managing everything from mail to communication systems in Afghanistan. A stable democratic system in Pakistan, taken to be part of the US strategy, is considered impossible if Islamisation is not reversed.

To achieve these goals, President Obama has taken a risk to alienate the Democrats and other important segments of his constituency by increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan. He won a vote in the Senate on increasing the troops because of the overwhelming Republican support: it seemed like a Republican rather than a left-liberal agenda that seated him in the White House.

President Obama and independent analysts know fully well that the US casualties are going to increase by increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan. It is anticipated that Pakistan is going to be blamed for increasing casualties. Therefore, President Obama will come under extreme pressure to take some kind of action against Pakistan or at least send troops to Pakistan’s tribal areas.

There is a section of historians and war analysts who believe that the Soviet Union made a big mistake by not going into the tribal belt. They believe that if the Soviets had made the tribal belt as part of the war theatre they may have avoided a humiliating retreat. Therefore, the US should not repeat the mistake and take direct action in Pakistan’s tribal belt if the Pakistan Army does not do its part. Probably, the US has communicated its intentions to Pakistan through its military leaders.

The Obama administration is also apprehensive about Pakistani military’s political ambitions. The feeling is that the military keeps calling the shots while it should be fully under civilian control. Unlike the Cold War era, the US did not get desired cooperation from Pakistan military in Afghanistan. Despite tall claims, extremism and Talibanisation kept on expanding during the Musharraf era. The trend was reversed only when the civilian government was installed in Islamabad. Therefore, for the first time, the US recognised that its interests are better served during civilian rule in Pakistan. The Kerry-Lugar Bill was recognition of this new approach that was resented by the Pakistan military, its supporters and proxies.

Pakistan’s military is apprehensive about the US-Indian nexus and American pressure to surrender its traditional supremacy over the civilian government. The military is obsessed that India poses a threat to country’s security and therefore, the proxy fighters, i.e. certain kind of jihadi groups, have to be supported. This is where the core of the Pak-US conflict lies and cannot be easily resolved.

The military is also accused of picking and choosing between good and bad Taliban in the tribal belt. The drone attacks and threat to send forces in Pakistan’s tribal areas are triggered by such a US perception. Pakistan military denies these allegations and claims that it is doing its utmost to eliminate jihadis. These ongoing conflicting perceptions are complicating the situation, to say the least.

However, it is clear that the US, run by President Obama or someone else, can hardly run away from Afghanistan. As a matter of fact, China and Russia cannot afford a Taliban-run Afghanistan either. Therefore, all the international powers, actively fighting or by-standing, are united against the Taliban rule. Therefore, Pakistan’s military cannot sustain its jihadi proxies by any means and should adopt alternative approaches by strengthening economy and democratic rule in the country.

November 16, 2009

Quraishi's Coup Would Destroy Pakistan

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , , , — admin @ 1:32 pm

In my recent post, Quraishi’s Coup: Who is he really working for?, I noted that the recent political unrest in Honduras clearly demonstrates that the Obama regime in the US will not allow a coup in Pakistan without serious consequences. Among these consequences, quite clearly, would be the cutting off of military supplies necessary for the defense of Pakistan.

On his blog this past Saturday, Ibrahim Sajid Malick further corroborates my analysis by noting that his own sources have confirmed that supporting a coup in Pakistan will mean the devastation of Pakistan’s ability to defend itself.

United States Central Command chief Gen David Petraeus and Chairman Senate Foreign Affairs committee Senator John Kerry on Monday October 19th held separate meetings with the Pakistan Chief of Army Staff Gen Ashraf Kayani and the outcome of those meetings were an immediate yanking of the anti-KLB campaign from Pakistani private TV channels. When Central Command chief Gen David Petraeus went to the GHQ he categorically told Gen Kayani to halt anti-KLB campaign. “Gen. Kayani was told in absolutely clear terms that the Obama administration will not tolerate another Honduras,” said a source very close to this conversation.

It is interesting that three of my sources mentioned Honduras while talking about the possible outcome of anti-KLB campaign in Pakistan.

On June 28th Honduran soldiers roused democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya from his bed at gunpoint and flew him to Costa Rica. The coup d’etat was the first in Central America in over a quarter century. The coup, led by the Honduran Gen. Romeo Vasquez, was condemned by the United States, the European Union, the United Nations, the Organization of American States and all of Honduras’ immediate national neighbors.

The Obama administration initially did not legally classify Zelaya’s ouster as a coup, which would automatically trigger a suspension of aid. However the administration subsequently suspended military cooperation with the country. Honduran controversy has been extremely embarrassing for the Obama administration which had come to power on the rhetoric that America should seize supporting tyrants and military dictators.

In Pakistan, Zardari administration was portrayed by the media as too deferential to the United States. Pakistani journalists who unconditionally support their Army started the campaign against KLB and coalesced anti-Western politicians, and Muslim fundamentalists — implausibly claiming that Pakistan’s sovereignty was undermined and the country could end up as a U.S. neo-colony. Some of it is untrue!

Mr. Malick’s sources go on to make my point exactly:

Gen. Kayani was assured that his military will get monies and equipment that he has asked for but if he pulled a fast one, the Obama administration would at once severe its ties with Pakistan army.

I kindly ask, once again, who it is that would benefit from such an outcome? Certainly not the US, who relies on Pakistan to help in the fight against Taliban. Certainly not Pakistan, who relies on the US to provide military funding, supplies, and training. Is there any other nation that would benefit from a Pakistan coup other than India? And by calling for such a coup, is Ahmed Quraishi acting as an Indian agent?

Who Does Ahmed Quraishi Work For?

Who Does Ahmed Quraishi Work For?

November 6, 2009

Sovereignty…or something like it.

Filed under: kerry-lugar — Tags: , , , , — admin @ 10:04 am

We have buzzwords in politics. Every few weeks or so, one word, concept, principle or idea dominates the news cycle and everyone with access to the media repeats it, as if hypnotized.

The Pakistani media recently outdid themselves with their devotion to the word “sovereignty.” This was, of course, regarding the controversial Kerry-Lugar bill. Most in the media felt the generous aid package was infringing upon their rights as a nation, infringing upon the sovereignty of the Pakistani state.

In his piece, “Sovereignty, whose?” Harris Khalique argues we have never actually been sovereign.

We are born free, he says. One can almost hear the words of Rousseau, “…but are forever in chains.”

We have families that dictate our lifestyle choices in an already oppressive, conservative society that almost disapproves of self-expression. For so many Pakistani citizens, their lives are made harder because of discriminatory laws and lack of respect by the general public.

But of course, the struggle and movements for progress continue. That is the most heartening news of all.

Khalique also points out that the terms of Pakistan’s agreements with the World Bank, IMF and ADB loans are full of conditions. Once someone reads any of THOSE, I would like them to then accuse Kerry-Lugar of tying Pakistan’s hands up.

If there are those that feel Pakistan needs to stand up on her own feet, let them know that the Zardari administration is fully supportive of that idea. But to accept the argument that Kerry-Lugar infringes upon sovereignty is to argue that none of the prior arrangements were tough, and it also greatly harms the efforts at a new, long-term friendship with the US.

November 3, 2009

If ignorance is bliss, Sumayya Chawla is the happiest woman on the planet.

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , , , , , , — admin @ 9:06 am

Another scorcher from Sana! If you’re not reading Sana’s blog, please you must add it to your list!

If ignorance is bliss, Sumayya Chawla is the happiest woman on the planet.

In her fantastically ridiculous piece, Is Pakistani Media Awake?, she is unflinchingly absurd, demonstrating to us all she has somehow escaped any character trait remotely resembling reasonableness.

It would be wrong to deride a work without citing the offensive statements, so here, dear Reader, is a small sampling of her rock-filled dish:

The ‘tough love’ response of Mrs Clinton to this was something along the lines of  ‘ well I am sorry you feel that way but it wasn’t our intention, you don’t have to take the money you know, if you don’t want to’. What exactly is going on here? Why isn’t anyone telling madam secretary that your country is killing innocent Pakistanis, killing babies rather, as she was so keen on pointing out in her address to university students in Lahore. Why didn’t any of our esteemed journalists ask her why the US is busy killing and bombing Pakistanis if we are such great friends and allies? Why wasn’t it politely suggested to her that she perhaps should not have come to Pakistan as she wasn’t very welcome here. Why don’t we see a revolt in the Pakistani media against the freak show that was Clinton’s visit to Pakistan? Why didn’t the big shot media anchors boycott the interview with Hillary Clinton while more than a 100 Pakistanis were being blown up in Peshawar and hundreds more were fighting for their lives? If Mr. Zardari and his government are not human enough to feel any empathy for his fellow Pakistanis who suffered terribly in this outrageous attack, where was the Pakistani media, why didn’t they refuse to cover her visit due to a national tragedy?  If they are such torchbearers of truth, then how dare they sat in their suits and ties and conducted an interview that amounted to nothing in terms of expressing the real sentiments of the majority of the Pakistani public? American Govt. has taken off its gloves and is now openly hostile to the Pakistani state and people, so why in God’s name are we still walking on eggshells.

As a lit major, the grammatical errors were enough to knock me down. However, I shall put forth a Herculean effort to ignore them all because we’re dealing with the bigger issue of her thought process mirroring that of a two-year old.

Within her bewildering rhetorical questions, I see her tripping over her own points.

I shall answer with my very own attempt at the Socratic method:

Is there anything wrong with a nation granting aid to another nation, especially one with which its aims are so closely aligned? Exactly what was wrong with Secretary Clinton pointing out Pakistan was under no obligation to take the aid? And exactly why are you viciously against the aid going to schools, police officers, health clinics, etc? Did you want to match the funds of Kerry-Lugar and supply the country with assistance? (That would be awfully generous of you!) Are you as upset with other international aid groups and private donors who donate to charitable causes within Pakistan? If not, I highly recommend you buy a dictionary and look up the word “consistency,” it’s a great word, one of my favorites. Ms. Chawla, do you have sympathy for any of the people killed by extremists or is your screeching reserved specifically for all things related to drones? Can you so easily ignore the suicide bombings and drive-by assassinations of brigadiers? If so, the Pakistani public envies you a good deal. Exactly why should the media have boycotted the interview with Secretary Clinton? How is closing our eyes and covering our ears going to solve problems? (See, this is where I see a vast wilderness of immaturity where your rationality should be, Miss Chawla.) Any notion of a “biased-in-favor-of-President-Zardari” media culture in Pakistan can be immediately dismissed, for even the President’s most outspoken detractors admit the media is staunchly anti-Zardari. In this way, do you realize you have outdone the Ahmed Quraishis of Pakistan? I advise you to be careful though, Mr. Quraishi tries his best to outdo everyone else in his nonsensical vitriol, he may not appreciate playing second fiddle to you. Also, please respect the office of the President and address him as such…he was voted in democratically, and if you must kick and scream, take that up with the public that voted overwhelmingly for the PPP. You wrote “American Govt. has taken off its gloves and is now openly hostile to the Pakistani state and people.” Did you consciously disregard the Secretary’s statements of friendship? I shall include one: “I am well aware that there is a trust deficit. My message is that’s not the way it should be. We cannot let a minority of people in both countries determine our relationship.” Miss Chawla, it appears you do a wonderful job on inducing amnesia and forget all the hard work both Americans and Pakistanis have done, currently do, and will continue doing to foster better relations.

You ask if the media is awake…I have to answer that no, the media — and you! — are fast asleep at the wheel.

Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. If you cannot or are not willing to learn, Miss Chawla, then the knowledgeable and well-versed in nuance among us have a task: to continuously point out the flaws in arguments like yours and offer a vision of a world not driven by hate or fear-mongering.

October 22, 2009

Are Pakistan’s Anti-US Hawks Indian Trojan Horses?

Filed under: india — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — admin @ 12:39 pm

Are Pakistan’s anti-American hawks – those constantly attacking the Americans and standing against close ties between Pakistan and the United States – Indian Trojan Horses? After all, at a time when India’s close relations with Washington are bringing it billions of dollars in investment and trade, sophisticated defence equipment and a civil nuclear deal, Pakistan’s anti-American turn can only benefit India.

The term “Trojan Horse” dates back to the Greek civilization and basically means “any trick that causes a target to invite a foe into a securely protected bastion or place.” We now know that even Baitullah Mehsud was an Indian agent as he received lots of funds from the Indian intelligence agencies. But for years Pakistan’s Jihadis and their media advocates built Mehsud up as an anti-American hero.

Indian support for Mehsud is no surprise. As we proved in the first part of this series, only India stands to gain from the destabilization of Pakistan’s government and from worsening Us-Pakistan relations. The question for this part of the series, then, is who are the Pakistani anti-US hawks that are intentionally or inadvertently acting as Indian Trojan Horses?

A daarhi does not a patriot make.

The meddling by Indian intelligence service RAW in Afghanistan and support for the destabilizing religious militants there is also no secret. Of course they do not want to see a strong and independent Islamic republic in Afghanistan that has normal relations with Pakistan, and they know the most effective way of ensuring that Afghanistan is unstable – and by that effect, sapping Pakistan’s resources – is to support militants.

Likewise, it has been well documented that Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan and Baitullah Mehsud received substantial funding and support from RAW. And this should come as no surprise, really – after all, should Mehsudis prevail, it will be India that gains the most.

This use of religion to confuse and manipulate the ummah is a most diabolical act, but there are just as many civilian Trojan Horses also. Let us take a look at all those people who in the last one year have been attacking the attempts by the elected Zardari government to build better ties with United States.

Hypernationalists, Anti-Americanism, and India’s Prospering

Hypernationalists are often specifically targeted by intelligence agents who manipulate their passionate loyalties. We must not forget that, despite his support for Musharraf, Ahmed Quraishi’s anti-American rants created problems between the Americans and the Musharraf administration. Could it be that he is manipulated by India as what in intelligence parlance is known as “an unwitting agent?”

An inadvertent agent is often more valuable to intelligence agencies than intentional ones because they can easily pass lie detection devices and do not give themselves away so easily. After all, if Ahmed Quraishi believes he is being a nationalist, he will be more believable.

Let us also look at people like Hamid Gul and Shahid Masood. Again these people are well known anti-Indians, but their pitch has always been more anti-American. Why does Shahid Masood live in Dubai? Whom does he meet in Dubai? There are lots of Indians in Dubai and do any of them finance or influence him? Should that not be the subject of some analysis or concern in Islamabad?

Trojan Horses in Parliament?

Jamaat-e-Islami’s founder Maulana Maududi was opposed to the creation of Pakistan from the beginning and since independence the JI’s chief goal has been to grab power in the name of Islam. The overall effect of the Jamaat-e-Islami’s policies –whether in erstwhile East Pakistan or in Pakistan today—has been to weaken the Pakistani state? The Jamaatis constantly divide Pakistanis along religious lines. They make us think of each other as Kafirs or bad Muslims or unpatriotic. There is no difficulty visualizing that RAW is creating Trojan Horses from Jamaatis with the objective of not letting Pakistan live in peace.

If we turn to the Pakistan Muslim League (Q) are there any persons there who could be Trojan Horses? During Musharraf’s era they wanted to normalize relations with India and were content with being US surrogates. Both Tariq Azeem and Khurshid Kasuri who these days are screaming at the top of their lungs about the Kerry-Lugar bill were championing the opening of ties with India.

Pakistan Muslim League (N) is no better. Its hostility to the Pakistan army resulted in the 1999 coup d’etat and the party has no lost no opportunity to control the army or to put down the army top brass. While in power PML (N) initiated the bus diplomacy with India and even invited Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee to Pakistan against the wishes of the military. It maintained good relations with the United States. But out of power it is happy to push the anti-India, anti-US button as if destablising Pakistan is its real objective.

So what have these Trojan Horses tried to do?

One, engineer a clash between the civilian government and the military to make Pakistan unstable and weak.

Two, tried to also create a clash between US and Pakistan to ensure that India is not whipped by the superpower and US interests in America continue to expand while Pakistan’s ability to lobby the US continue to weaken.

Three, launched an attack campaign to discredit the reputation of those in the government who are well liked by Americans like President Zardari, Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi and Ambassador Husain Haqqani and others to make Pakistan appear weak and childish in front of the world. If the hawks are the only Pakistani faces for Americans, the US will continue to turn against Pakistan thereby strengthening the Indo-US relationship.

Four, it is very interesting that this debate on Kerry-Lugar is the first debate in Pakistan where there is no mention of India, only anti-Americanism. Since when have we heard so little about the RAW involvement in such an issue?

Trojan Horses weaken Pakistan

Pakistan has been a nuclear power for over 20 years and yet doesn’t seem to have obtained the security it sought. Why? This is because the Indian lobby and RAW has worked nonstop to interfere with our relations with other world powers. It was India that helped create a clash between Nawaz Sharif and the United States over the nuclear weapons program while making sure that India obtained a nuclear deal as well as supply of nuclear fuel. Today, this interference with Pakistan’s security continues through the manipulation of Kerry-Lugar debate by these Indian Trojan Horses.

REAL Pak Nationalists

Pakistanis know that in order to stand up to the Indian threat they need support – military and economic – from the Americans and need American understanding to make sure India does not throw its weight around in South Asia. Causing a clash between Pakistan and its oldest ally, United States, cannot be the work of true Pakistani nationalists. It has to be the work of Indian Trojan Horses who claim to be acting in Pakistan’s interest while actually undermining it.

October 20, 2009

Is India pulling the strings behind Kerry-Lugar debate?

Filed under: india,kerry-lugar,Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , , , , — admin @ 8:57 am

Part 1 of a series

“So will I turn her virtue into pitch,
And out of her own goodness make the net
That shall enmesh them all.”

Othello, Act II Scene III

As the fight about the Kerry-Lugar bill continues, one question remains unanswered: Who is behind this bitter controversy? Accusations have been thrown from every direction, but little attention has been paid to the role of Indian manipulation. And so the question remains:

Are Indian agents manipulating the debate that threatens to tear our nation apart?

When considering a legal case, courts will ask ‘”Cui Bono?” – Latin for  “Who benefits?”. If we apply the same logic to the Kerry-Lugar fight, we might ask who would benefit most from Pakistan rejecting the Kerry-Lugar bill. The obvious beneficiary is India.

The loudest voices attacking the Kerry-Lugar bill have no problem with the unprecedented $1.5 billion in non-military aid to Pakistan every year for the next five years. That Pakistan needs the aid is not in question. The outcry was caused, rather, by the conditions on Pakistan’s military imposed by the bill.

As noted by the Wall Street Journal, however, these conditions were very irregular and they had the fingerprints of the Indian lobby all over them. Surely, India’s powerful lobby knew that by placing these conditions in the bill, they would incite the anger of Pakistan’s nationalists, preventing the aid from reaching Pakistan.

But there is another, more sinister, purpose behind India’s manipulation of Kerry-Lugar – driving a wedge between Washington and Islamabad so that Pakistan is cut-off from the world.

Certainly the Indians would be glad to see Pakistan bankrupt. But this is not their only end. Rather, their purpose seems to have been to drive a wedge of anger and distrust between Pakistan and the United States while cozying up to Washington, DC themselves to ensure that India gets both a nuclear deal and also billions of dollars in American investment.

India has spent decades courting the Americans, trying to embed themselves with Washington in the same was Israel has – proclaiming that they are they only modern nation in the region, the rest being backwards nations with no respect for the international community. India would like nothing better than for Pakistan to be as impotent as the Arab nations in their mid-east controversy, all but locked out of the halls of power despite their billions of dollars in oil wealth.

But India has yet to succeed in completing their plan to isolate Pakistan. Indeed, over the past several months, relations between Pakistan and the USA have grown warmer than they have ever been. This creates a serious risk for India’s plan to dominate South Asia. If Pakistan succeeds in building trust with the Americans, we will have access to the military hardware and access to markets that ensure our ability to defend ourselves and grow our economy.

Is it any wonder that the Indian lobby timed the Kerry-Lugar debate at the exact moment the US was delivering Pakistan’s first F-16 fighters with night-vision technology?

The fight over Kerry-Lugar caught the Americans completely off guard. Anyone who watched the press conference with Minister Qureshi and American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could see that Mrs. Clinton was clearly surprised by the uproar. The Wall Street Journal condemned the American Congress for being so diplomatically tone-deaf, but that is beside the point. It was clear that the Americans had been manipulated by the Indian lobbyists.

As a result, the American Senator John Kerry and his colleague House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Rep. Howard Berman issued a Joint Explanatory Statement to state very clearly that there are no conditions on Pakistan, and that the bill was intended as a gesture of friendship.

The Indian Embassy must have roared with laughter as they watched their drama unfolding.

Here are the Americans offering Pakistan more in aid and investment than India has ever received. After decades of Pakistani leaders like Nawaz Sharif, Pervez Musharraf coming to American with hat in hand and receiving crumbs, the Americans begin to open up their arms to Islamabad and treat Pakistan as a brother. Only through cunning manipulation could this result in the Americans and Pakistanis turning their backs in distrust.

There is no question that India has been behind this controversy.

It is quite clear who stands to benefit from a new era of suspicion and distrust between the Americans and Islamabad. Only India would gain from an isolated and increasingly instable Pakistan, cut off from military supplies and foreign markets. Their games are diabolical, and they must be stopped.

In the next part of the series, we’re going to look at the different players in the Kerry-Lugar debate. We will examine who is inadvertently or intentionally acting as an Indian agent.

October 19, 2009

How ironic is ironic?

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , — admin @ 11:37 am

Ahmed Quraishi’s article If fired, Haqqani threatens to unveil ‘reams’ of Pakistan’s secrets is a prime example of how this journalist is able to twist and manipulate facts in order to provoke hate and anger amongst the Pakistani community.  As the title of Quraishi’s article states, it seems that if Ambassador Haqqani were to be removed from his post, he would threaten to disclose Pakistan’s secrets.  Quraishi then tries to substantiate his argument by quoting the prestigious Foreign Policy magazine.

The article in the Foreign Policy magazine that Quraishi refers to, does not at all, state that Ambassador Haqqani will be opening up a Pandora’s Box.  It is highly unfortunate that Quraishi has yet again, through his writings, picked out sentences in order to sling mud on those he despises.  Ironically, in the same article Josh Rogin articulates

“Insiders point out that the aid conditions, which require the U.S. government to report on the Pakistani military’s efforts to combat terrorist groups in their midst, were available for all to see well in advance.  Moreover, they say, similar conditions were included in U.S. aid packages dating back to 2001, when President George W. Bush and President Pervez Musharraf were the respective leaders.  Ironically, it is Musharraf’s allies, now in the opposition, who are now harping on such conditions.”

It is rather “ironic” that Ahmed Quraishi who is an avid supporter of General Musharraf suddenly has a change of heart – from previously supporting such conditions – and is now cursing the very essence of the Kerry-Lugar Bill.  Why did Quraishi refuse to include the above excerpt in his article where he has written against the efforts of Ambassador Haqqani?

The sentence in Rogin’s article that Quraishi centered his editorial on is as follows

“sources also say that Haqqani has reams of documents that could embarrass the forces aligned against him and sacking him could open up a Pandora’s box of controversy that the government would not
appreciate, which he might do if forced to defend himself after being fired his article”

Firstly, any person holding an official government position has the ability to disclose state secrets.  It is rather obvious that over time, Ambassadors come across and read classified documents that may be harmful for the state, if shared with the public.  And secondly, to assume that Ambassador Haqqani would comprise Pakistan’s sovereignty by revealing “reams of documents” is a mere speculation that does not carry any weight.

Furthermore, Quraishi chose to not add a statement by the same source who stated, “most people don’t have the courage to tell the Pakistani people we need the United States”.  This clearly explains that strengthening Pak-US ties is essential not the opposite.  It is also regrettable that Quraishi failed to disclose that Rogin also articulated in his piece “his (Haqqani) U.S. ties are exactly what makes him an effective representative for Islamabad”.

Quraishi in his article also quotes a former US military officer who states “US officials do not know, that the problem is not the so-called ‘anti-American forces’ in Pakistan but the offensive language in the bill”.  If this is the case then Ahmed Quraishi, you as a journalist have failed to do your job correctly by not being able to clearly identify the problems associated with the Kerry-Lugar Bill.

By coming out in public and stating that the US is not aware of the situation in Pakistan in regards to the Kerry-Lugar Bill, Quraishi is only making a fool of himself.  The Foreign Minister of Pakistan is currently in Washington explaining the situation to none other than the Vice President of the United States and key members of the US Senate.  General Kayani has explained his reservations over the Kerry-Lugar Bill to the top US military commander Admiral Mike Mullen.  “US Ambassador to Pakistan Anne W Patterson and the US military leadership are playing important roles in sensitizing President Obama to the controversial clauses of the proposed US aid bill that has triggered a crisis-like situation in Pakistan”.  And yet Quraishi has the audacity to state that the US is not fully aware of the criticism and this is primarily due to Ambassador Haqqani misinforming the United States.

The main argument against the implementation of the Kerry-Lugar Bill in Pakistan is that the Bill threatens our national sovereignty. Today, Senator Kerry stated that the US Congress would “offer a new explanation and clarification” for those criticizing the Bill.  I fail to understand how Quraishi has the ability to write “the problem is that American policymakers have been badly misinformed” when the sponsor of the Kerry-Lugar Bill is coming out and addressing the issues arising out of the Bill.

Quraishi’s article is proof of the kind of deplorable and controversial style of journalism he has become accustomed to.  He has mastered the art of twisting facts around so brilliantly that many of us have lost sight of the truth and facts.  This article is not an attempt to defame Quraishi but rather a request to stop spreading rumours which play with the hearts and minds of Pakistanis.  My country has had enough of conspiracy theorists and it is time we enjoy the greatness of truth and accountability Quaid-e-Azam envisioned for us.

US Reviews Kerry-Lugar aftermath

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , — admin @ 11:36 am

The News
US reviews Kerry-Lugar aftermath
October 12, 2009
By Sami Abrahim

WASHINGTON: US officials have started reviewing the Pakistani reaction to the Kerry-Lugar Bill with a view “to addressing concerns expressed by our Pakistani partners” but are alarmed at how “falsehoods and
myths” determined the discussion over the bill in Pakistan.

“We want to build a multi-dimensional partnership with Pakistan and the Kerry-Lugar Bill is the centre piece of that effort. We are offering $7.5 billion in unconditional military aid over the next five years for schools, clinics and roads. We are promising continued military assistance. But still some people distort our motives and spread lies and that is hurtful,” said one American official.

He said that President Obama’s policy was to listen to allies, so we will listen to Pakistanis. According to the official, the US will do “what it takes” to satisfy the Pakistanis and bring down the temperature. “We trust that your foreign minister will tell Pakistan’s parliament what he told us and that critics will realise their concerns were based on distortions of language that was put in by our Congressmen to satisfy their own concerns,” he added.

Briefing this reporter, a senior US official pointed out, “Perhaps, the language of the Kerry-Lugar Bill could have been more sensitive to Pakistani concerns, but the current language reflects the will of our Congress. More than 500 members of the two houses of Congress sometimes use language about other countries that is intemperate. That is not different from the way your parliamentarians criticise the US and use harsh language. But our sovereignty is not impinged by your parliament, saying the US is doing this or that, and if our Congress has made a few observations about past Pakistani conduct and said our secretary of State should report to them about some developments, that is not an infringement of your sovereignty either.”

Other US officials were at pains to describe the American law-making process and said much of the reporting in the Pakistani media on the subject was erroneous and in some cases malicious. “We do not want to criticise your media and respect its freedom but with all due respect many commentators are confusing reporting requirement of Congress with conditions or interference.”

Congressional staffers echoed the sentiments expressed earlier by House Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Howard Berman that the opposition to the Kerry-Lugar Bill in Pakistan was “a created crisis, by people who either haven’t read the bill or don’t want to describe it accurately, and whose goal is either to destabilise the (Pakistani) government, or challenge some of the Pakistani military’s priorities.”

Several dozen congressional delegations have visited Pakistan since the Kerry-Berman Bill started being drafted and many have briefed civilian and military leaders at all levels. They met opposition leaders too and everyone should have known the concerns of Congress even if the exact language of the bill was not finalised until recently. “Knowing that all the issues they are now raising their voices about — Jihadi centres, nuclear proliferation, civilian oversight over the military — were going to be in the bill, why did they not pay closer attention to what was being written?” one hill staffer asked.

One staffer said some people had acted irresponsibly by risking the US- Pakistan relations, jeopardising civil-military relations in Pakistan and undermining the good the Kerry-Lugar Bill does only because they
hate President Zardari or some of his appointees. “They come to us to lobby for themselves, thinking wrongly that America makes or breaks governments in Pakistan. Why didn’t they come to us to discuss what language we were putting in the Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill,” she added.

“The whole debate over how far Pakistan’s government could have influenced the language of the bill, especially words that are supposed to have offended your military, ignores the fact that this bill is an American bill. There are members of Congress who will say it is an insult to the US to suggest that some Pakistani officials can or should dictate to us what words to use in our law,” said an irate
Senate staffer.

He pointed out that the Indian Caucus in Congress is thrice as large as the Pakistani one and that Senators Kerry and Lugar and Congressman Berman had to go out of their way to bring opponents of any aid to Pakistan to tone down their opposition. The Senate staffer also stressed that even President Obama at the peak of his popularity had not been able to get Congress to change its mind on his Healthcare bill, which is still stuck in Congress, and to think Pakistan could have done better with a different set of leaders, lobbyists or negotiators is “the height of lack of information”.

US experts blame the political opposition and some “reckless anti-American elements” in the Pakistani media for creating the crisis by presenting the bill’s language in a negative way. “These are the same
people who spread false rumours about Blackwater’s presence in Pakistan and falsely alleged that one thousand marines were coming to Islamabad. Many of them were cheerleaders for the Taliban in the
past”.

American officials believe that PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif stayed away from the debate and even kept in touch with US officials from London so that his party could attack the US over the Kerry-Lugar Bill, but
he would still keep his options open. “The opposition parties were simply cynical and showed no regard for US-Pakistan ties,” observed one diplomat. The government’s response was weak under the opposition attack and most ministers knew little on the subject to be able to stop the attack in its earliest stages.

Some Americans believe that the opposition and its media sympathizers manipulated public sentiment by distorting the bill’s contents. For example, many TV talk show hosts repeatedly said that the Kerry-Lugar
Bill requires US oversight on promotions and other internal operations of the Pakistani military. As pointed out in a US Senate fact sheet, “there is absolutely no such requirement or desire.”

This disinformation stems from an item to be included in one of the US monitoring reports, which could have existed even without the bill. It requires the secretary of state to describe the extent to which civilian authorities exercise control over the Pakistani military. It does not require such control, nor does it place any restriction whatsoever on Pakistan. This benchmark, like all benchmarks in the monitoring reports, is informational. It presents a data-point on which US policy-makers can base decisions.

“How is our Congress telling our government what information to share with it an infringement of Pakistani sovereignty?” a Senate staffer wondered, adding that those who put out the disinformation did so deliberately to drive a wedge between civilian and military leaders in Pakistan and to manipulate public sentiment.

Regarding what they described as the military’s “carefully worded” response issued by the ISPR, the Americans say they see it as “a response to furore generated by the media and politicians.”

“The Pakistani military cannot afford to be seen as being out of touch with public sentiment, and how the people feel affects the commanders,” is how a US official put it. The intent of the ISPR statement according to him was to dampen the debate by saying parliament should examine concerns, but it was exploited by some to exacerbate the crisis, he said.

“We have learnt a few lessons here about how to improve our public diplomacy and anticipate that anything, we do will be seen negatively in Pakistan so we should be prepared. But we hope the government, the opposition and the media have also learnt something. Created crises, motivated by hatred of some government leaders should not rock the boat and risk depriving your country of much-needed resources,” a
Senate staffer emphasised.

He pointed to the harsh words of usually anti-Pakistan Democratic Representative Gary Ackerman, who said he had no interest in a partnership characterised by “suspicion, resentment and political
manipulation.”

Even the head of the Pakistan Caucus in the House of Representatives, Sheila Jackson-Lee voiced surprise at the Pakistani reaction though she refrained from characterising it as manipulated or contrived. She
said, “My colleagues in Congress and I designed this legislation to help the people of Pakistan” and called upon Pakistan’s National Assembly to endorse the bill for its “altruistic” nature.

“Pakistan has consistently been a crucial ally in the fight against al- Qaeda, and I expect this assistance package to enhance our already strong bilateral relationship,” Sheila Jackson-Lee observed, adding, “I firmly believe that this assistance package will create important educational, democratic, and economic opportunities for the people of Pakistan.”

Powered by WordPress