Friday, February 29, 2008

Inside Pakistan Elections - By Caroline Wadhams of Centre for American Progress



Also See: Turning a Corner: Pakistan Elections Offer Promise

Oil for nukes – mostly a bad idea

Oil for nukes – mostly a bad idea
Bartering nuclear technology for oil is a path to the spread of nuclear weapons
By Matthew Fuhrmann, Christian Science Monitor, February 29, 2008

Cambridge, Mass.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy is on a nuclear power selling spree in the Middle East.

He has recently pledged to assist the civilian nuclear programs of three oil-producing countries in this conflict-prone region: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. These pledges were preceded by signed offers of nuclear aid to Algeria and Libya, two other oil exporters.

If history is any guide, two things seem probable. First, these nuclear power sales are an attempt to ensure a stable oil supply at a time when prices are approaching record highs. And second, this oil for nuclear technology swap is a deal that France will later regret.

As part of my research at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, I recently analyzed more than 2,000 nuclear agreements – like the ones France just signed – that countries have concluded since 1950. The findings confirmed that the common practice of trading nuclear technology for steady oil is a bad idea. The short-term gains for the nuclear supplier almost always result in adverse long-term repercussions – like the spread of nuclear weapons.

For example, in 1975, France signed an agreement with Iraq authorizing the export of a research reactor and highly enriched uranium. According to French officials at the time, their aim was to obtain a permanent and secure oil supply from a country that provided 20 percent of its oil.

It worked. But it also had tremendous consequences for international and regional security.

According to intelligence estimates, French assistance could have enabled Iraq to build nuclear weapons in a matter of years. Recognizing the severity of this threat, especially after Saddam Hussein became president, Israel used preemptive strikes to destroy the French-supplied reactor in 1981. Perhaps realizing its mistake, France terminated its nuclear relationship with Iraq shortly after.

History is rife with similar stories. The United States assisted Iran's civilian nuclear program between 1957 and 1979. This assistance included the construction of the Tehran Research Reactor and the supply of enriched uranium to fuel it. The US believed that the cooperation would persuade Iran to lower the price of oil, particularly in the 1970s when prices spiked following the 1973 Arab-Israeli war.

Of course, Washington regretted offering these exports after Iran switched from friend to foe following the 1979 Islamic Revolution. But it could not take back what it had already provided.

Today, the reactor in Tehran is used to provide advanced training to Iranian scientists – auspiciously aiding Iran's current nuclear program. This program continues to undermine stability in the Middle East and could trigger a nuclear arms race in the region.

Selling nuclear power technology for oil only comes back to take a bite out of world security. Nuclear exporters in general must be more cautious in choosing their trading partners. The link between the peaceful and military uses of the nuclear technology is stronger than many people realize. A statistical analysis of this relationship shows that countries receiving technology for "peaceful" purposes also eventually want nuclear weapons. Because distinguishing between "peaceful" and sinister uses of the atom is next to impossible, and civilian nuclear agreements ultimately enable proliferation, countries must resist the temptation to seek cheap oil to ease economic woes.

Suppliers should learn from the experience of the former Soviet Union. After inadvertently aiding the Chinese nuclear weapons program in the 1950s, Moscow rarely bartered nuclear technology for short-term political or economic gains and kept the most sensitive technologies away from even its closest allies. The success of the Soviet experience suggests that – with due diligence – the current trend can be reversed.

We are in the midst of a major nuclear renaissance. Countries in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and southeast Asia have all expressed a desire to begin or revive civilian nuclear programs. Bartering nuclear technology for oil is sure to lead to the further spread of nuclear weapons.

Instead of taking dangerous shortcuts to economic enhancement, countries such as France must look to more fulfilling solutions.

An oil-thirsty world is preferable to one full of nuclear bombs.

• Matthew Fuhrmann is a research fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. He is currently writing a book on why countries cooperate in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

Who Controls Afghanistan?

US: tribal leaders still in charge of Afghanistan
Jeremy Page South Asia Correspondent, From Times Online - February 28, 2008

President Karzai of Afghanistan controls less than a third of his country despite six years of international aid and billions of pounds of international aid, according to the top intelligence official.

Michael McConnell, Director of National Intelligence, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the resurgent Taleban controlled up to 11 per cent of the country, while Mr Karzai's government controlled up to 31 per cent.

But more than six years after a US-led invasion toppled the Taleban government, the majority of Afghanistan's 32 million people live under the authority of tribal leaders, Mr McConnell told a committee hearing on Wednesday.

His bleak assessment directly contradicted comments made last month by Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary.

“The Taleban occupy no territory in Afghanistan on a continuing basis,” Mr Gates said during a Pentagon briefing in January. Mr McConnell's analysis also backed up a series of damning reports about Afghanistan that have worsened tensions between Mr Karzai and the international community, especially Britain, in the past few months.

Since December, Mr Karzai has expelled two alleged Western spies, criticised the British military campaign in Helmand province, and blocked the candidacy of Lord Ashdown of Norton-Sub-Hamdon to be UN “super-envoy” for Afghanistan.

Yesterday, his Defence Ministry dismissed Mr McConnell's views as being “far from reality” and insisted that the Afghan Government was in control of all 34 provinces and most districts in the country.

However, some Western diplomats in Kabul fear that Mr Karzai's weakness and antipathy towards his Western backers could turn Afghanistan back into a failed state and sanctuary for al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

Mr McConnell said that the Taleban had suffered “significant degradation” in its leadership and was unable to take on Nato forces directly, resorting instead to suicide attacks and roadside bombs.

“They'll fill in an area when we withdraw, or they will influence a village or region if our presence is not there,” he said. He added that the Taleban was using safe havens over the border in the tribal areas of northern Pakistan to “train, recruit, rest and recuperate and then come back into Afghanistan to engage”.

Lieutenent-General Michael Maples, the Defence Intelligence Agency director, told the same committee hearing that Pakistan's Government was concentrating on the safe havens in the tribal areas. But he said that neither the Pakistani military nor the tribal Frontier Corps was properly trained or equipped and it would take three to five years to improve their ability to fight the militants.

“Pakistani military operations have not fundamentally damaged al-Qaeda's position in the region,” he said.

“The tribal areas remain largely ungovernable and, as such, they will continue to provide vital sanctuary to al-Qaeda, the Taleban and regional extremism more broadly.” US and British officials are also concerned that a new coalition government in Pakistan could impeach President Musharraf, removing their key Muslim ally in the War on Terror.

They are especially worried that the new government might renege on an agreement with Mr Musharraf to allow the CIA to intensify operations using pilotless Predator drones launched from inside Pakistan.

A suspected Predator attack destroyed an al-Qaeda and Taleban hideout in one of Pakistan's tribal areas yesterday, killing 13 alleged militants including several Arabs, according to Pakistani security officials.

Residents of Azam Warsak village, in South Waziristan, said that a house was blown up by a missile fired from a pilotless drone.

US drones have made several strikes on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, but neither Washington nor Islamabad ever confirms such attacks as they would violate Pakistan's sovereignty.

Missile Attack in Pakistan

Missile Attack, Possibly by NATO, Kills 8 in Pakistan
By ISMAIL KHAN, The New York Times, February 29, 2008

PESHAWAR, Pakistan — Eight suspected Islamic militants, including four men of Middle Eastern origin and two from Central Asia, were killed early Thursday in a triple missile attack on a house used as a training facility in Pakistan’s tribal areas, a security official and residents said.

The missiles appeared to have been launched from territory controlled by NATO forces across the border in Afghanistan, the second deadly aerial strike in a month. Residents said three other occupants of the house were wounded in the strike, in the village of Kalosha in South Waziristan, one of the most restive tribal regions.

The security official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the nature of his job, said the dead had belonged to a little-known group affiliated with Al Qaeda, working under the name Abu Hamza.

Local residents said they had heard three loud explosions about 2 a.m. that destroyed the house. They said the three wounded occupants were from Turkmenistan.

They also said the house had belonged to Shero Wazir, an Ahmadzai Wazir tribesman who had rented it to an unidentified man of Arab nationality. They said they thought the launching site might have been an American NATO base in Machi Dat, just across the border in Afghanistan.

NATO officials in Afghanistan said they had no information about the attack. But this would not be the first time American-led NATO forces had launched missiles aimed at Qaeda and Taliban targets on the Pakistan side.

A senior Qaeda commander, Abu Laith al-Libi, was reportedly killed by a Predator missile in Mirali, North Waziristan, on Jan. 29. The Pakistan government has yet to officially confirm his death.

An official of the political administration of the tribal areas confirmed eight deaths in the Thursday attack, but did not identify any victims by name. He said four Arabs, two Turkmens and two Pakistani militants from Punjab Province had been killed, but others said it was difficult to know precisely who died.

The security official said the bodies were charred beyond recognition. They were buried at a graveyard in Kalosha. He said the destroyed house had been used as a training facility.

A spokesman for Maulvi Nazir, a local militant commander, denied that Arabs or Turkmens were killed in the attack, asserting instead that Afghans had died.

“They were common Afghans and have been living in the area for the last few years,” the spokesman said.

Also See: ISPR rules out attack by foreign drone - The News

Redefining National Interest of Pakistan

Press Gallery: Zardari to redefine national interest
By Rana Qaisar, Daily Times, February 28, 2008

ISLAMABAD: The 41st session of the Senate was prorogued on Thursday without doing any significant business. The agenda for this opposition-requisitioned session, among other items, had included a resolution to oppose the curbs on media by the PEMRA ordinance. But no debate took place on this issue.

While the Senate discussed the political situation in the country, the message from Senator SM Zafar was loud and clear. A seasoned parliamentarian and constitutionalist, Senator Zafar knows many things and is fully conscious of what he says and implies. Participating in the debate on the political situation emerging after the February 18 elections, he said President Musharraf suffered because he had not fulfilled his promises and the message in his defeat was: “Enough is enough.” He advocated a strong role for politicians and asked the military to take a back seat and let the people’s representatives govern this country.

Mr Zardari, however, has a “very clear” agenda in mind. His goals are high and one hopes he, unlike the previous regime, will ensure that his party’s government stays on course to achieve the targets, which, he believes, will be in the national interest. In an interaction with him as part of media delegation, I felt that he meant business. He wants to bring about a change. It was heartening to hear him saying that the “so-called national interest” would be redefined so that it is clear to all and sundry and does not change with any change in regime.

Notwithstanding the composition of the coalition partners, there is no doubt that the PPP will form the government of which Asif Zardari, as he said, would not be a part because he has chosen the role of an “elder brother” for himself. While he wants to do away with the NAB-like institutions in the country, he wants strict monitoring of the ministers through “modern technology” to hold them accountable. He plans to install time-machines at the ministries to check what time the ministers come and at what time they go. His plan to wind up the NAB is based on personal experience and one believes that this is the first lesson he learnt through his suffering.

“The government will be open to accountability,” he said, promising to give media access to information by bringing changes in the existing laws but with the qualification that freedom does not mean “witch-hunt and malicious propaganda”. He also sets high moral standards for the media and referred to some plays telecast on TV channels, which, he observed, were below standard and did not match “our” moral code. “I am not a narrow-minded person but it should not be maader pider aazad morality,” he said, adding that he believed in responsibilty and not censorship.

Sherry Rehman sat on his right side and only engaged with the journalists while updating and advising the co-chairperson on media-related issues. A journalist-turned politician, she knows that the media-government relationship is very delicate and if not handled with care it can turn into enmity. Yousaf Raza Gillani, who sat on the left side of the co-chairperson, took notes diligently. Shah Mehmood Qureshi was also present and he sat next to Gillani. Qureshi is in the race for prime ministership. His body language suggested he was lost in some deep thoughts.

While the opposition did not take up the issue of the PEMRA ordinance in the Senate, Mr Zardari assured the delegation that its recommendation would be given serious thought and the role of PEMRA would be checked to ensure that this body only regulates the business and not the content which, if there are any complaints, would be taken up by the Press Council and the representative bodies of journalists. One hopes that Mr Zardari will minimize the role of the information ministry in media management and cut the bureaucrats to size because it’s the bureaucrat who defines the “national interest”. Journalists cannot help asking questions to get news and when they are interacting with the King maker it comes from the horse’s mouth. A journalist, however, lost patience and asked about the PPP’s contact with the MQM through a delegation. Mr Zardari listened to the question, which reflected the sentiments of the Sindhis against the MQM, and said: “MQM is a reality and I cannot undo it.” He is right. If the PPP can sit with the PML-N, it can sit with any other political party, which has representation in parliament and it is expected that in case the PML-N refuses to share power the PML-Q will be the PPP’s coalition partner.

Is US Distancing itself from Musharraf?

Negroponte signals US distancing itself from Musharraf
The News, February 28, 2008

WASHINGTON: The United States’ second-ranking diplomat on Thursday signalled that the Bush administration was distancing itself from President Pervez Musharraf after opposition victories in last week’s elections.

Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte told senators that the United States was supporting Pakistan’s people as they choose their leaders after the parliamentary elections. But he made scant mention of President Musharraf during his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Senior Bush administration officials, including Negroponte, have previously underlined their view that Musharraf has been “indispensable” to the US-led fight against extremists along Pakistan’s rugged border with Afghanistan.

Negroponte testified that “Pakistan has been indispensable” to that fight and said the US looked “forward to working with the leaders who emerge” from the formation of a new government.

When pressed by a lawmaker about whether the US would continue to back Musharraf, Negroponte acknowledged that “Musharraf is still the president of his country, and we look for to continuing to work with him.”

Republican Sen Dick Lugar said the United States should make it clear to Pakistan’s people that US interests “lay not in supporting a particular leader or party, but in democracy, pluralism, stability and the fight against violence.”

Negroponte said Pakistan’s recent elections were a “big step” toward civilian democracy and reflected the will of the voters, despite the deaths of more than 70 people on the election day. “The violence could have been worse,’’ Negroponte said, adding “The Pakistani people refused to be intimidated by a wave of murderous terrorist attacks prior to the election day.”

Democratic Sen Joe Biden also urged the administration to move from “a policy focused on a personality, Musharraf, to one based on an entire country.” Biden proposed that the United States triple non-military aid for schools, roads and clinics and demand accountability in the military aid the US was giving to Pakistan.

Politicians Versus Establishment

Politicians Versus Establishment
By Husain Haqqani, The Nation, February 27, 2008

The aftermath of Pakistan 's February 18 parliamentary election has created hope of ending Pakistan ’s political dysfunction. The voters overwhelmingly rejected supporters of General (retired) Pervez Musharraf at the polls and the leaders of the country’s major political parties have agreed to work together to build a democratic political order. Pakistan 's politicians have clearly scored a major victory against what is euphemistically called "the establishment" in Pakistan . But the battle between "the establishment" and the politicians is far from over.

Musharraf has yet to understand that his rejection by the people requires him either to step down or, at least, accept a diminution of his role. Soon after Election Day, he extended the tenure of the head of the Intelligence Bureau, a man accused by the late Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto of possibly plotting to kill her. It is as if Musharraf sees the election results as comparable to the victory of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) in the 1988 polls held immediately after the death of General Ziaul Haq. Then, Ziaul Haq’s successor Ghulam Ishaq Khan retained considerable influence as President even after Ms Bhutto became prime minister and eventually used Zia’s constitutional amendments to overthrow the elected government. But in 1988, Pakistan ’s establishment had not been as thoroughly discredited as it is now.

President Ghulam Ishaq Khan benefited from being different from Ziaul Haq, the hated dictator. The army remained politically engaged, the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) had little experience of the establishment’s maneuvers and the pro-Zia politicians retained considerable political strength. This time, the country’s major political parties have agreed on a common minimum platform that aims at restoring the Pakistani constitution, rehabilitating its judiciary and moving towards national reconciliation. The army appears to have decided to pull out of politics. The nation and the international community have little stomach for covert political manipulation at a time when Pakistan faces a serious threat from terrorists. If Musharraf is hoping to undermine the new political order with the help of the IB just as the establishment had chipped away at the politicians’ popularity in the 1990s, he should definitely think twice before dashing the nation’s hopes.

That said, "the establishment," made up of politicized generals, intelligence officials, and Pakistan 's managerial class --bankers, civil servants, some overseas businessmen, World Bank beneficiaries and former or current IMF employees --will not give up easily.

Soon there will be rumors of corruption and mismanagement to discredit the elected leadership and a concerted effort to create rifts among them. So far PPP Co-Chairman Asif Ali Zardari and the PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif have shown that the politicians have learnt from the experience of the 1990s. Mr. Zardari, in particular, has emerged as a statesman in contrast with the demonization to which he was subjected for being married to Mohtarma Bhutto , Pakistan ’s most popular anti-establishment politician.

It would be poetic justice indeed if the man most vilified over the years by “the establishment” is the one who leads Pakistan ’s political forces to success against manipulated governance. The military-led establishment has dominated Pakistan 's politics for most of its sixty-year existence as an independent country. In the past, coup-making generals, like Musharraf, have taken advantage of differences among politicians instead of allowing politicians with popular support to negotiate compromises and run the country according to its constitution. The priority of Pakistan 's establishment has been to create a centralized state, focused on the perceived threat from India with the help of the United States . American assistance is obtained by allying with Washington 's strategic concern of the day, which in turn has led to over-engagement by the military on several fronts.

Many of Pakistan 's problems, such as the influence of Jihadi extremists and difficult relations with Afghanistan and India can be traced to the ascendancy of strategic military doctrine at the expense of domestic stability and democratic decision-making. All that could now change if the army stays its new course of disengagement from politics and the politicians can work together rather than against each other.

A future government of national unity led by elected politicians should try and end the political role of intelligence services. For too long, an all powerful intelligence community has run -and most observers would agree, ruined - Pakistan by fixing elections, dividing parties and buying off politicians. If the politicians prevail, the war against terrorism would be fought to eliminate out of control Jihadi groups previously nurtured or tolerated by the Pakistani State , not to secure additional funding from the United States . An elected Pakistani government might be less amendable, say, to requests for rendition of Pakistani citizens. But it would almost certainly be interested in rooting out Al-Qaeda and stopping cross-border Taliban terrorism in Afghanistan . The civilians would also seek a clearer strategy against militant Talibanization within Pakistan , particularly because they have a clear popular mandate in the form of electoral rejection of Islamists.

The PPP leadership and the PML-N also seem to agree on normalization of relations with India and this time there is little likelihood that any side would paint the other as being “soft” on India . After initial confrontation, even Musharraf has come around to managing a relatively quiet relationship with Pakistan 's larger South Asian neighbor making it difficult for the establishment to play the India card to discredit popular politicians. During the run up to the recent elections, none of the major political parties highlighted Pakistan 's dispute with India over Kashmir . That raises expectations of a political consensus on developing normal relations with India without insisting on prior resolution of the Kashmir issue. In the past, any politician seeking friendly ties with India has faced criticism from rivals, prodded by the establishment, seeking to tap into anti-India sentiment within Pakistan .

The need of the hour in Pakistan is a "grand national compromise" that brings to an end the vilification and demonization of some politicians, restores the military's prestige and ends its political role, limits the intelligence agencies to external security functions and results in a government that unites the Pakistani nation against terrorism and disintegration. Pakistan 's foreign policy also needs to be re-oriented towards friendlier relations with Pakistan ’s immediate neighbors instead of being centered merely on scoring points in distant major world capitals. For this to happen, politicians and the permanent state apparatus must become partners, bringing to an end the subordinate relationship that Musharraf had created with handpicked politicians.

If the anti-Musharraf parties can work together, and the army's neutrality keeps Musharraf from rocking the boat by undermining the system again, Pakistan could now be run according to its constitution. An independent judiciary and a free media would then become the guardians against abuse of power by elected officials. Corruption would probably continue as it has for years but it would be dealt with by the courts and the voters, not by coups d'etat or allegations spread by intelligence agencies. Musharraf has a few days to decide whether he wants to become part of this Grand National Compromise that limits, if not immediately ends, the establishment’s disastrous dominance over Pakistan ’s political life.

Husain Haqqani, Director of Boston University's Center for International Relations, is Co-Chair of the Hudson Institute's Project on Islam and Democracy. He is the author of the Carnegie Endowment book ' Pakistan Between Mosque and Military' (2005) and served as an adviser to former prime ministers, Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto.

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

The State of Pakistan's Economy

Unstable growth & poverty
By Dr Akmal Hussain: Dawn, Feb 28, 2008

IN spite of the claims by the Musharraf regime that they had launched Pakistan’s economy on to a new trajectory of high growth, it has now begun to slow down. There are mounting pressures on the balance of payments, high inflation and severe shortages of energy and water. This clearly indicates that the brief spurt in GDP growth during the Musharraf period was unsustainable.

As the newly elected democratic government prepares to face the challenge of achieving sustained growth with rapid poverty reduction, it may be helpful to examine the roots of unstable GDP growth and endemic poverty in Pakistan.

The latest work of Nobel Prize winning economist, Douglass North, and his colleagues who have pioneered the New Institutional Economics may be relevant in addressing the challenge before the new government. North, et al have shown that in order for markets to function for sustained growth an underlying institutional structure in the polity and economy is necessary. These institutions provide equal access to all citizens on the basis of merit to compete in the economy and polity. The institutional structure embodies incentives for competition, hard work, efficiency and innovation through which GDP growth becomes sustainable.

In Pakistan unstable GDP growth and endemic poverty are located in an elite based structure of power which excludes the majority of the people from high quality education, health facilities, access to land and the high wage end of the labour market. Consequently most citizens of Pakistan are denied the opportunity of actualising their productive potential and thereby contributing to a growth process that is both sustainable and equitable. It is now widely recognised that inequality adversely affects both the sustainability of growth as well as its capacity for poverty reduction. Pakistan’s power structure and the inequality it engenders prevents most of the population from playing its full role in the economy. Those excluded are the poor, women, the illiterate, the inadequately educated, the semi-skilled and the unskilled. Therefore there is a constriction of the human potential through which entrepreneurship, investment, innovation and productivity growth can occur to sustain growth.

At the same time the poverty reduction capacity of growth is constrained by the institutional environment of the state and the economy: The poor face a structure of state power, markets and institutions, which discriminate against their access to resources, public services and government decision-making.

It can be argued that the failure to achieve sustained high growth in the past, as well as inequality, is located in the governance model itself. As I have suggested in my recent research work, within Pakistan’s governance model (originating in the Raj), power has been historically constituted by accessing state resources for arbitrary transfer as patronage to selected individuals. During the pre-independence period resource gratification within this governance model was conducted to win loyalty for the Raj.

After independence, whether in democratic or military regimes, state resources were granted within a structure of patronage to build individual domains of political power. Within this model an individual could become rich simply by entering into a patron-client relationship with the government for rent seeking. Therefore there was little incentive for enterprise, innovation, or savings, which drive growth in a modern economy. At the same time, since patronage could only be acquired by the few within this governance model, the majority were deprived of access to resources. Thus endemic poverty and the inability to sustain economic growth have become the hallmarks of Pakistan’s economy.

Let us now examine some of the structural constraints to equitable and sustainable growth emanating from Pakistan’s governance model indicated above. First, in many rural areas markets are asymmetric with respect to the rich and poor farmers respectively. My work for the UNDP, Pakistan National Human Development Report (NHDR) shows that the poor farmers pay a higher price on their inputs and get a lower price on their outputs compared to the large farmers. Consequently the poor peasants are losing as much as one third of their income due to such asymmetric markets.

The second structural factor is that the distribution of land ownership is highly unequal and there is widespread tenancy. The poor tenant suffers insecurity of tenure, loss of a large proportion of his income to the landlord and lacks access over credit. Consequently, the poor tenant has neither the incentive nor the ability to increase productivity. Thus the constriction of the productivity potential of the small farm sector constrains agriculture growth and generates inequality.

The third structural factor in endemic poverty is that in some landlord dominated areas where landlords control the local state apparatus as well as the credit market, the poor tenants are locked into a nexus of power and debt bondage to the landlord. The NHDR data shows that 51 per cent of the tenants get locked into debt dependence on the landlord, and out of these 57 per cent are obliged to work as wage labourers on the landlord’s farm without any wages while 14 per cent work for a wage below the market rate.

Thus, the structure of power and dependence systematically deprives the poor peasants of their actual and potential income. Consequently, poverty becomes endemic, inequality increases and agriculture growth is constrained. Fourth, a large proportion of the population lacks access to health, sanitation and safe drinking water. The NHDR survey data showed that due to inadequate diet and lack of access to safe drinking water and sanitation facilities, 65 per cent of the poor in the sample survey were suffering from ill health. Disease emerged as a major factor that pushes people into poverty, due to high medical costs combined with income loss due to absence from work. This constitutes a major structural factor that accentuates poverty, inequality and constrains GDP growth by constraining the productivity of the poor.

The fifth structural factor in endemic poverty is that the poor live in localities, which are inadequately policed. In case of theft or violence against their person, lack of access over the judicial system, accentuates the insecurity and economic deprivation of the poor.

Our analysis suggests that achieving a sustained high GDP growth and overcoming poverty will require the new democratic government to address the structural and institutional factors that perpetuate poverty and constrain growth. The challenge before the new government is to lay the institutional foundations of a democratic polity and economy that provides all citizens, not just a few, the opportunity to actualise their creative and productive potential. It is only then that our civilisation, economy and state can blossom and grow.

The writer is Distinguished Professor, Beaconhouse National University, and Senior Fellow, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics.

Up to 70% of US aid to Pakistan 'misspent' - The Timing of this disclosure is Insightful

Up to 70% of US aid to Pakistan 'misspent'
Declan Walsh in Islamabad guardian.co.uk, Wednesday February 27 2008

America's massive military aid package to Pakistan has come under scrutiny after allegations that as much as 70% of $5.4bn in assistance has been misspent.

Since 2002, the US has paid the operating costs of Pakistan's military operations in the tribal belt along the Afghan border, where Taliban and al-Qaida fighters are sheltering.

Pakistan provides over 100,000 troops and directs the fight; the US foots the bill for food, fuel, ammunition and maintenance. The cash payments — averaging $80m a month — have been a cornerstone of US support for President Pervez Musharraf.

But over the past 18 months, as militants seized vast swaths of the tribal belt and repelled a string of Pakistani offensives, the funding has come under the microscope.

American officials processing the payments at the US embassy in Islamabad have concluded that the Pakistani expense claims have been vastly inflated, two western military officials told the Guardian.

"My back of envelope guesstimate is that 30% of the money they requested to be reimbursed was legitimate costs they expended," said one, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The official said the US did not know what happened to the remaining 70% - approximately $3.8bn - but suspected that some may have been spent on F-16 fighter jets or a new house for an army general.

Other than that, he said, at least half the money was thought to have disappeared. "Who knows, the roads on Constitution Avenue [in Islamabad] may have been paved with part of this money."

The Pakistani military forcefully denied the accusations. "As far as the military is concerned, I can assure you we have full account of these things," said spokesman Major General Athar Abbas.

Gen Abbas admitted there had been some US complaints but denied serious irregularities.

"Yes there are minor issues they keep raising, but at no stage have we received any formal complaint from any official channel," he said.

The controversy highlights not only strains in the relationship between Washington and Islamabad but also the limits of President George Bush's "war on terror".

Pakistani officials say they have lost over 1,000 soldiers in the tribal areas since 2002 - twice as many as the US has lost in Afghanistan - and caught or killed over 1,000 "terrorists".

US officials, who have propped up Musharraf as militants rampaged across the tribal belt and beyond, feel they have received bad value for money.

Ordinary Pakistanis are angry with both sides. Anti-American sentiment has touched a new high while anger towards Musharraf contributed to the thrashing his party received in last week's election.

The scale of US military assistance was shrouded in secrecy for years. When it became public, so did its extraordinarily lax accounting procedures.

Every month the Pakistani military submits expense claims averaging $80m to the US embassy in Islamabad. No receipts are provided, and the money is paid directly into the Ministry of Finance.

Poorly accounted claims caused the US to suspend payments for several months last spring, a second official said. The Washington Post reported last week that a claim for "roads and tracks" from the Pakistani navy had been rejected.

Gen Abbas said the navy was "also involved in the war on terror because they have to guard against infiltration of arms and explosive from abroad."

The scale of the problem has led US officials to share their worries with other allies in Pakistan.

US politicians have used the payments to exert pressure on Musharraf. On the eve of last week's vote, Senator Joe Biden, head of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, warned that funding could be slashed if there was widespread rigging.

But analysts and officials say the US is unlikely to turn off the cash tap anytime soon, given Pakistan's importance in the hunt for Osama bin Laden and other foreign fugitives.

Democratic Show of Strength

171 MNAs-elect at Asif’s ‘show of strength’ party
By Amir Wasim, Dawn, February 28, 2008

ISLAMABAD, Feb 27: Three major parties — PPP, PML-N and ANP — brought together on Wednesday a total of 171 members-elect at a “show of strength” luncheon meeting to prove their majority in the National Assembly and called upon the government to convene the assembly session immediately.

The “grand jamboree” of newly-elected MNAs at a five-star hotel, at a stone’s throw from the Aiwan-i-Sadr, was described by many participants as the biggest anti-Musharraf show in Islamabad in recent years.

A couple of newly-elected legislators told Dawn the elections were a vote of no-confidence against the president and his policies.

The luncheon, hosted by PPP co-chairperson Asif Ali Zardari, attracted not only the newly-elected members of the three main parties, but also a host of political workers and diplomats.

“We are not prepared to wait for a single more day for the assembly to be convened,” PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif said, urging President Pervez Musharraf to call the assembly session as soon as the Election Commission announced official results.

“They must not wait a single moment to call the session. We are in a simple majority and we have showed it. We cannot wait for any Jamali or ISI or NAB for gathering support for formation of a government,” Mr Sharif said, alluding to the situation after the 2002 elections when the assembly was convened after more than one month. In the meantime, the establishment put together a one-vote majority for the PML-Q to form the government.

Only Mr Sharif mentioned the name of Pervez Musharraf in his speech, while Asif Zardari and Asfandyar Wali avoided referring to the president.

Mr Sharif said the people of Pakistan had sent a clear message to the president on election day. “It should be amply clear to him (President Musharraf) that the nation has given its verdict against dictatorship. The nation has given its verdict for democracy.

“Our numbers are very close to two-thirds (majority) and we will cross that number,” Mr Sharif added.

The PPP won 87 seats, PML-N 70 and ANP 10 seats in the Feb 18 election for 268 National Assembly seats. Two-thirds of 268 NA seats come to 179. However, after adding seats reserved for women and minorities and winning over some independents, the three-party coalition is expected to get a two-thirds majority in the 342-member house.

Mr Sharif said his party would extend full support to the PPP. “We must see that we have a long-lasting democracy in this country and abandon the role of the army and military in politics forever.”

He praised Benazir Bhutto for signing the Charter of Democracy with him in London in 2006.

Mr Sharif said the Charter of Democracy was the most important document after the 1973 Constitution, and if implemented in letter and spirit, it would change the destiny of the people of Pakistan.

He said by sitting together, the three parties had fulfilled Ms Bhutto’s dream. “We will make sure that we will stay united and defeat dictatorship,” he said.

Mr Zardari said the winning parties should now work together to end supremacy of the establishment. He said it was indeed a historical moment and all those present here had struggled for a common cause. He said the PPP had suffered the most at the hands of the establishment, adding that his party wanted to change the system.

ANP president Asfandyar Wali Khan said that people had paid a heavy price for democracy. “We will have to ensure that we reach the goal for which our forefathers made sacrifices.”

Without elaborating, he said that he had told Nawaz Sharif in 1997 and he would repeat the same now that there was very little difference between “expediency and shamelessness”.

Although the three parties have announced forming coalition governments at the centre and in the provinces, there are still some contentious issues which need to be resolved: restoration of the pre-Nov 3 judiciary, the PML-N’s decision of not joining the cabinet and the selection of a suitable candidate for premiership.

Later, top leaders of the three parties held formal talks on the future set-up. Constitutional expert Justice (retd) Fakharuddin G. Ibrahim briefed the heads of the three parties on options to resolve the judicial crisis.

Muslim leaders write 'harmony' letter to Jews

Muslim leaders write 'harmony' letter to Jews
By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent, Telegraph, February 26, 2008

An international group of Muslim leaders have sent a letter to the world's Jewish community appealing for better relationships between the faiths.

The unprecedented letter, which is being seen as a significant gesture of reconciliation, said: "Many Jews and Muslims today stand apart from each other due to feelings of anger, which in some parts of the world, translate into violence.

"It is our contention that we are faced today not with 'a clash of civilizations' but with 'a clash of ill-informed misunderstandings'."

advertisementSignatories of the letter include Professor Akbar Ahmed, a former High Commissioner of Pakistan to Great Britain, who also signed a similar statement earlier this year from Muslim scholars to Christian leaders around the world.

The new letter said: "Deep-seated stereotypes and prejudices have resulted in a distancing of the communities and even a dehumanizing of the 'Other'. We urgently need to address this situation. We must strive towards turning ignorance into knowledge, intolerance into understanding, and pain into courage and sensitivity for the 'Other'."

It added: "There is more in common between our religions and peoples than is known to each of us. It is precisely due to the urgent need to address such political problems as well as acknowledge our shared values that the establishment of an inter-religious dialogue between Jews and Muslims in our time is extremely important.

"Failure to do so will be a missed opportunity. Memories of positive historical encounters will dim and the current problems will lead to an increasing rift and more common misunderstandings between us."

One signatory, Sheikh Michael Mumisa, a Cambridge University lecturer, said the letter was the first in modern times sent to the Jewish community with the backing of scholars and Muslim leaders.

"The message in this letter conveys to the Jewish community a genuine desire for mutual respect, for dialogue and deeper understanding," he said.

It’s Democracy’s Turn By Walter Andersen

It’s democracy’s turn
Walter Andersen, February 21, 2008 - Indian Express

Democracy is always messy and Pakistan is in for a period of rather intense messiness as the various winning political parties in the February 18 polls move to establish a more permanent democratic system. Their chances of success are better now than at any time in the country’s past. Pakistan now has an aroused civil society, as witnessed by the huge crowds that turned out last year for the pro-democracy demonstrations led by the country’s lawyers. The overwhelming popular support for the parties opposed to President Musharraf gives them the legitimacy to make significant changes. The military is also committed to staying neutral as the politicians begin their work of reshaping the constitutional order. None of the major parties has challenged the outcome, not even the pro-Musharraf Pakistan Muslim League (Q), and Musharraf has stated he will honour the will of the people.
Pakistani voters braved threats of violence and fears of rigging to register a lack of confidence in the government of Pervez Musharraf. They turned out in unusually high numbers (over 50 per cent in the two largest provinces of Punjab and Sindh) that gave the late Benazir Bhutto’s Pakistan’s Peoples Party a plurality of the 268 elected seats followed by former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League (N), and leaving the pro-Musharraf PML(Q) far behind. The religious parties fared poorly everywhere, even losing power in the Northwest Frontier Province to the secular Awami National Party, likely to ally with the PPP to form the government there. The PPP and PML(N) won over half the seats in the key province of Punjab and, with the support of many independents and other regional parties in the National Assembly, are likely to get close to the two-thirds majority needed to clip Musharraf’s powers and possibly to impeach the president himself.

The international community has so far registered its approval of the results. The spokesperson of the US State Department, for example, issued a statement that the US is ‘pleased’ with the elections as a positive move on the path to democracy. China, India and Afghanistan — and the US — are also likely to view the results as positive because the winning parties are secular and support improved ties with Pakistan’s neighbours, which ultimately means cracking down on jihadi elements that support cross-border activity designed to wreak mayhem in neighbouring countries. The Musharraf government had an ambiguous record vis a vis such jihadi elements, which has been a source of growing concern in the US.

What follows next politically will be the formation of a coalition dedicated to reducing the powers of the president, if not removing him from power. Musharraf almost certainly hopes that he can exploit real divisions among the opposition to save his presidency, but the opposition anger with him and his government is likely to keep them together until they have achieved their objective. The first step is likely to be to restore the justices removed on November 3 by Musharraf and then support efforts to strip the president of powers he gave himself then and earlier after the start of his first presidency in 2002. There will be a struggle as Musharraf has already said he would not step down. Key in this struggle will be the role of the military. The chief of army staff, Ashfaq Kayani, is trying to keep the military out of politics and is not likely to back Musharraf if he tries to take any dramatic steps against the new government. In fact, General Kayani and the nine regional military corps commanders might collectively decide to put pressure on Musharraf to accommodate the opposition — or even to step down if they perceive him as a threat to the country’s security and to the military’s corporate interests.
Pakistan’s neighbours and the international community should support this process of democratisation as they will all benefit from it. This should initially take the form of economic assistance. The US in particular should also realise that it is counterproductive to support any single person, as it has done these past several years because of concern that only he could keep the nation committed to a secular anti-jihadi course. In fact, a democratic Pakistan is more likely to keep the country on this course because it would be based on a national consensus rather than the fiat of a single person.

The writer is Acting Director, South Asia Studies, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, Washington DC.

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Changing Political Landscape of Pakistan

Zardari or Nawaz can be the next President
By Shaheen Sehbai, The News, February 27, 2008

ISLAMABAD: Helpless victims of General Pervez Musharraf for years, Mian Nawaz Sharif and Asif Ali Zardari, who were in political wilderness until just a few months ago and who have suddenly become the virtual controllers of the country’s destiny, realise that they have to get even with the establishment through a systematic, comprehensive and calculated joint strategy, outlines of which have already been agreed between them.

In long meetings with both these leaders in Islamabad in the last two days, it became clear that none of them was interested in acquiring power, just for the sake of power, as they realise that the struggle is much too bigger and multi-dimensional.

Both want to make basic and long overdue corrections in the country’s Constitution, including balancing the powers between the president and the prime minister, making the judiciary independent in the real sense, giving maximum provincial autonomy to bring the angry and smaller provinces into the national mainstream, remove the sword of 58-2(B), neutralise the National Security Council, free the media as it should be and, if necessary, make use of Article 6 mandatory.

To achieve these fundamental goals, Mian Nawaz Sharif is seriously thinking of either electing Mr Asif Ali Zardari as the country’s president, or he could himself assume that position to remove the distortions in the Constitution which Gen Pervez Musharraf has introduced through his PCOs and numerous amendments and executive orders.

If both of them decline to assume that role, for whatever political reasons, Mr Sharif thinks they can find some respectable person who would not be interested in the presidential powers that Mr Musharraf has grabbed and make him the country’s president, if necessary for the interim period in which the constitutional distortions could be corrected.

Sharif believes that a new president will have to be elected as Mr Musharraf will be unable to keep fighting like a commando, without any support from any side. Sharif’s strategy and plans are all based on a post-Musharraf scene. When I met Mr Zardari on Saturday night at his Bilawal House in Islamabad, he too was not thinking of who would be the prime minister or which ministry or chief ministership would be given to whom. He has been thrown into the political arena after the Benazir’s killing but he sees it as a God-given opportunity. He is in a different frame of mind. He talks and thinks about things which have not been done for decades. He wants to bring Baloch back from the mountains and give autonomy to provinces, as demanded by smaller federating units. He wants permanent independence for judges, financial and administrative, so that they are no dictated by any adventurer who uses brute force to grab power.

And his timeframe is no different from that of Mian Nawaz Sharif who says changes that have long been ignored must begin within few days after the new National Assembly begins functioning. He has a timeframe of just about 10 days to resolve the complicated judges’ issue once the NA meets. He has 30 days in his mind to amend the Constitution, remove all the bad clauses and cleanse it up. He has a maximum of 90 days in mind to take all the complex decisions, not in the interest of his own party, but for the country and its institutions.

Sharif and Zardari have already set up a high-powered committee to work out the modalities of resolving the judges’ issue and by the time the NA meets, a blueprint would be in their hands.

“We want to use the honeymoon period for maximum use to sort out the basics as other problems facing the nation are too grave and too involving,” he told a group of media men in Murree.

For these lofty goals, Mian Nawaz Sharif and Asif Zardari look like men in a hurry. They are not interested in power. Mr Sharif says his party will support the PPP 110 per cent in all its decisions, without demanding or claiming any share in the government because the government is not his goal.

Likewise Mr Zardari says we will take everybody on board, for a genuine national consensus, even those who are not part of the parliament because they boycotted the elections.

Both are ready for major compromises as well to achieve their “national goals”. Mr Sharif, who had a few months back steered the All Parties Conference in London and had declared that his party would never sit with the MQM of Mr Altaf Hussain, now says he is ready to accept them in a PPP-PML-N coalition.

“We will do it for the larger cause of the corrections that we want in the Constitution and our system,” he told us at his Murree residence on Sunday morning at a typical Lahori breakfast meeting.

Both Mian Nawaz Sharif and Asif Ali Zardari agree, and are trying to convince other small political players, that the time has now come for a major overhauling of the Constitution and it should be done in one go, in one package, within days.

Likewise Mr Zardari has agreed to go along on the judges’ issue and to settle it as quickly as possible but through a proper process in the Parliament and not through agitation on the streets. Mr Sharif has conceded this point to the PPP and he is now convinced that the agitators, including the lawyers and the civil society, must allow the Parliament some time to settle this issue.

Sharif is not ready to give up the basic demand that the judges be restored but he thinks the process must be immediately taken up by the parliament and within 10 days a decision should be given so that everybody can breath easily with a fiercely independent and neutral judiciary in their seats overseeing the process of transition from an autocratic self-serving regime to a true democratic set up.

Sharif, in this context, narrated an interesting version of how he landed up in the middle of the lawyers rally before the Judges Enclave a couple of days after the elections. “I was proceeding to the Frontier House where I was putting up when suddenly I found myself in the middle of protesting lawyers as they were in the way to Frontier House. First the protestors thought that I was a government person because of the police and security vans protecting my motorcade. Some of them started hitting these vans and even my own jeep with sticks and stones and my jeep side glass was shattered. Then they realised that it was not a government man. They took me along and I had to make a speech.”

When asked about the March 9 deadline given by Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan, Mian Nawaz Sharif clearly indicated that he would like the date to be put off as in his view this is not the right time to create a street scene.

“I talked to Aitzaz Ahsan on the subject and even he agreed that the March 9 date was not sacrosanct and could be moved forward,” Sharif said, clearly hinting that at this point in time, he would prefer a peaceful and parliamentary approach to resolve the issue rather than a street solution.

This consultation between Nawaz and Aitzaz was reflected on Tuesday in a letter circulated by Aitzaz to all presidents of country’s bar associations in which he said: “Our purpose in giving that date is to give our political parties the required backing that they may need to resist pressure to give up on restoration of judiciary. We will, however, accommodate any genuine need to readjust to a different schedule.”

Repeatedly, both Asif Zardari and Mian Nawaz Sharif kept asking me and other friends to assure the other side that they were very sincere and serious about the major issues and any attempt to create doubts and differences by interested parties, specially supporters of President Pervez Musharraf, must be exposed and defeated through continuous mutual consultations in an atmosphere of trust and confidence on each other.

One of the journalist colleagues described this new found love between Nawaz and Zardari as “a fire burning intensely on both the sides”. When one of us suggested that the two coalition partners should show their parliamentary strength to the people and the media in what could be called a National Assembly session before the official one, probably in a private hotel, both the leaders jumped on the idea.

Mr Zardari immediately asked his party leaders to talk to Mian Sahib and in Murree. Mr Sharif himself called Khwaja Asif, who was on a plane, flying to Islamabad to meet Mr Zardari and gave the proposal for immediate consideration.

Both sides took the suggestion so seriously, a joint meeting of all the parliamentary parties has already been summoned for Feb 27 where the coalition will show its strength and claim a majority, pressurising President Musharraf to call the National Assembly session and ask them to form the government. The ANP, independents and everybody supporting them would be there.

Likewise when asked how they would tackle the persistent efforts by the pro-Musharraf parties to create a rift in the coalition, Mian Sharif immediately accepted a colleague’s suggestion that daily joint press briefings be held in Islamabad so that both sides could answer any media question and stop rumours floated by interested parties.

The two leaders are serious in taking along provincial parties and junior partners. Asfandyar Wali is thus their common darling and both are in constant touch with him. Even the three leaders will soon be appearing before the national media together in Islamabad to present their united face.

In the background serious negotiations are going on to satisfy the regional demands of the smaller parties and provinces to get them in the national coalition. Mr Asfandyar Wali has a list of what he wants for the NWFP and neither Zardari nor Mr Sharif are in opposition to any of these demands, including renaming the NWFP as Pukhtunkhwa or the sensitive issue of Kalabagh dam. But as political animals, all of them know that such contentious issues have to be put on the back burner for now, until the democratic institutions are restored and become effective.

Mr Sharif and Asif Zardari are very mindful of not creating a situation which embarrasses in the Pakistan Army vis-‡-vis Gen Musharraf but they both believe that sooner than later he will be on his way out as there are hardly any cards left in his hands to play, except to create rifts in the PPP-PML-N ranks and capitalise on them.

Thus, they are both moving slow and may even look compromising at times when they talk of working with Mr Musharraf as they realise that the US and western capitals are very nervous with the thought of Musharraf quitting the scene prematurely.

Once the first goal posts are crossed, the new parliament is sworn in and government formation is completed in an atmosphere of harmony and trust, political pressure will automatically force Musharraf to come down from his high pedestal and work with those very persons whom he described as rogues and villains, corrupt and incompetent.

In such a Ghulam Ishaq Khan-like situation, with no secret agency doing the dirty job for him, with all his good-for-nothing political allies vanquished from the scene, with his team of retired bureaucrats jumping ship like rats, it would be hard for Musharraf to keep going. He does not need to be pushed over the cliff. He will himself fall and accept the generous offer of a safe exit that his former constituency will always give him.

Top US experts urge greater trade access, aid increase for Pakistan

Top US experts urge greater trade access, aid increase for Pakistan
Associated Press, February 26, 2008

WASHINGTON, Feb 26 (APP): Seeing Pakistan’s parliamentary poll as an historic step towards democratic progress, top South Asian experts have urged the United States to bolster economic aid as well as trade access for the country so that the Pakistani people may genuinely feel that America wants their long-term development.

“We should try to help Pakistan in its economic development, we should try to do things which masses see as genuine gestures which should be seen as trying to help their interest, which we believe, are also in our long-term interest,” said Eric Bjornlund, cofounder of Democracy International that observed last week’s polls in Pakistan.
Speaking on “The Pakistani Election: What Next’ at a Washington think tank, Bjornlund described the Feb 18 polls as representing a landmark stride in the country’s democratic process. He said “there was general acceptance that the results reflected what people were trying to say” and added that it was a “remarkable” finding for Democracy International.

Robert M Hathaway, Director Asia Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars stressed that one of the best ways to send the message of enduring relationship with Pakistani people is through materializing a robust assistance package for socio-economic development of the country. Such assistance, he said, may target building hospitals, healthcare delivery, schools, roads and projects that create livelihoods and jobs and touch lives of the people.

The Pakistani nation, he said, deserves democracy dividend as “the Pakistani people, for their own reasons and not because the US wanted it, carried out an exercise in political freedom, which has clearly exonerated all of us.

“They clearly demonstrated that they believe in political pluralism, and I think it is entirely appropriate for the US to say that after this demonstration that our two people share the values it is all the more reason to build our relationship through economic aid.”

Hathaway also favoured the idea of establishing reconstruction opportunity zones and said these should serve both the local populace and the American taxpayers.

On boosting access for Pakistani products including textiles in the huge American market he said, “I think it is entirely appropriate for the United States to give Pakistanis greater access to the American market - it is difficult political issue - but clearly, and particularly after the election last week I think the US should revisit the entire issue as to what we can do to support Pakistani people. And one way to do that is to give them greater access to the market, including the textile market.”

Hassan Abbas, a research fellow at Harvard University underlined the importance of political stability for sustained economic progress and said in view of challenges facing the country, PPP co-chairman, Asif Ali Zardari should be credited with reaching out to political forces across the spectrum. He stated the leaders of largest winning party plan to move forward with a comprehensive economic strategy.

Marvin Weinbaum, a scholar associated the Middle East Institute, said the election was also about bread and butter issues and people want to see improvement in their lives. He emphasized that the Pakistani economic system must ensure that the people benefit from its success.

He said last week’s polls mark a unique occasion as they represent the “first truly democratic transfer of power” in the country.

Hasan Askari Rizvi, a scholar at Johhs Hopkins University, drew attention to some of the major economic and fiscal challenges facing the country and said the South Asian country needs external economic assistance to ease balance of payments and meet other economic goals.

For Detailed Comments made by Speakers, click here

The road to democracy: By Dr. Tariq Rahman

The road to democracy
By Dr Tariq Rahman, Dawn, February 26, 2008

ELECTIONS are an important means to achieve the end which is democracy. The people of Pakistan have always passed this test — that of casting votes for the right kind of political leadership — with commendable success.

In the 1970s elections they voted against Ayub Khan’s long years of dictatorship which had been unfair to the former East Pakistan and had increased the gap between the rich and the poor in the western wing. In 2008, as we have observed, the people have rejected General Musharraf’s policies and those figures of the PML-Q who were his most vociferous apologists.

One thing is common in both elections: the army and its intelligence agencies are said to have distanced themselves from the electoral process or, at least, have not indulged in anti-opposition rigging. This does not mean that there was no rigging — videos of such incidents are shown on TV — but it was not systematic and widespread as it used to be in the 1990s and so we have credible results.

The problem in 1971 was whether the establishment would accept the results of the poll? As it happened, it did not. All the major political parties of West Pakistan, and especially the Yahya Khan military government, did not want to accept the Six Points of Sheikh Mujeeb as that would have ended West Pakistan’s economic and political domination over the eastern wing of the country.

As the government was that of Yahya Khan it is he and his coterie of military officers who bear the major responsibility for alienating the East Pakistanis for ever and not the political parties.

The problem now is whether General Pervez Musharraf and his coterie of civilian hangers-on will really accept the message the election results have given. And this message is that General Musharraf’s policies should discontinue and that he should not hold any political office at present. There are indications that this has not sunk down into the collective mind of General Musharraf and his coterie. First, there are no signs of General Musharraf wanting to bow out while he may. Second, the restrictions on the deposed judges, and especially Aitzaz Ahsan, have not been eased. Third, there are covert threats to Asif Zardari and the Sharif brothers that various court cases may be taken up against them again. Fourth, the United States is still issuing statements in favour of the status quo.

Now if insanity prevails and the results of this election are not accepted in their true spirit, there will be another disastrous year like 2007 was. But 2007 was also a year which gave us the hope that the judges, the lawyers, the media and the students can defy martial rule in this country. Who knows what 2008 will be if the peoples’ voice is muffled again? If, however, they are accepted then we may see light at the end of the tunnel.

Some people, curiously enough, do not have faith in democracy even now. They predict that the PPP and the PML-N will split because they disagree on principles. Therefore, they imply, the present political set-up should continue in some form. However, the fear that a coalition will fall apart should never be sufficient reason to maintain a non-democratic setup in place. Coalitions are part of democratic governance and even if they do fall apart, the process continues. It is the process which is valuable not the continuity of one coalition or political party or the other.

Stability is necessary for economic progress but it should be stability which comes out of political maturity and the continuous change of faces which repeated elections ensure. It should never be the kind of apparent stability which Stalin or the Shah of Iran or Saddam Hussain provided. That is the stability and the peace of the graveyard in which free speech, free thought, original research, journalistic courage — everything withers away. We do not want that. Hence, all arguments to continue with the set-up which the people have rejected in the name of stability and continuity are wrong and must be opposed.

The problem is that the United States is giving arguments of this kind. Exactly what is at stake here? Obviously, the ‘war on terror’. General Musharraf’s mistake was to have made this war appear as a proxy war of the US and not something Pakistan had to do in its own self-interest. Firstly, the decision-makers never said that their past policies of supporting the Taliban in order to gain ‘strategic depth’ in Afghanistan were wrong. They never also acknowledged that the whole policy of using fighters in Kashmir, and even Afghanistan earlier, to fight in the name of Islam was deeply flawed.

Further, it was reported widely that some decision-makers at some level of the state machinery kept patronising the Pakistani religious militants somehow. Also, the action against the rebellion of the Lal Masjid and Swat was taken late and, when it was, it was unnecessarily brutal — at least in the Lal Masjid case.

All these disasters were never acknowledged, never accounted for and never rectified. That is why the ‘war on terror’ was associated with the US and with General Musharraf himself in the public mind. If it had been fought candidly, consistently and lawfully — that is without abducting people unlawfully at the behest of foreign powers or intelligence agencies — the people of Pakistan would have supported it in the interest of the country.

Even now, if the civilian government which is formed cares for the long-term interests of our own people, it will continue to fight those who challenge the writ of the state through violent means. But this should not be done to please Americans; it should be done to save our society from Talibanisation. Our people have never voted for the religious parties and may not do so unless non-democratic rulers force them to turn away from democracy.

In short, in the long-term interests of peace, tolerance and democracy it is necessary for the establishment to listen to the people for once. They want the judges to be restored; the president to resign; and the media to be free and if this is not done they will lose faith in the vote itself.

It is also necessary for foreign powers to do the same because, if they do so, a future government of Pakistan will be able to resist Islamic militancy otherwise the people will not let it do so. And, of course, it is necessary for the political parties to listen to the people even if their leaders have to suffer as individuals in the process and even if cooperation means strengthening traditional rivals.

Terror Attacks

Suicide bomber strikes at Pindi Mall, kills army surgeon-general
By Mohammad Asghar, Dawn, February 26, 2008

RAWALPINDI, Feb 25: A suicide bomber blew up an army staff car on The Mall here on Monday, killing the army’s surgeon-general, his guard, driver and three pedestrians.

Lt-Gen Mushtaq Baig, surgeon-general and director general of the army’s Medical Services, was the most senior army officer killed by the militants so far. It was also the first terrorist attack in Rawalpindi after the general election.

For complete report, click here

Four NGO workers die in attack on office
By Nisar Ahmad Khan, Dawn, Feb 26, 2008

MANSEHRA, Feb 25: Four staff members of a non-government organisation were killed and eight others were seriously injured when armed men attacked its office here with hand- grenades on Monday. The attack set the building ablaze and rescuers retrieved four charred bodies, one of a woman, from the debris.
Police and witnesses said six armed men entered the three-storey building of Plan International and opened fire on the staff. They hurled six hand-grenades.

Monday, February 25, 2008

Significant Development

Maj Gen Asif to be new DGMI
By Muhammad Saleh Zaafir, The News, February 26, 2008

ISLAMABAD: Major General Muhammad Asif is to be appointed new Director General Military Intelligence (DGMI) of the Pakistan Army in place of Major General Mian Nadeem Ijaz Ahmed who served as DGMI for more than three years, sources said.

The incumbent DGMI Major General Nadeem Ijaz, who belonged to the Armoured Corps, is proceeding for a command assignment, the sources added. The notification pertaining to the new postings is likely to be issued shortly. Major General Muhammad Asif belonged to Infantry and was previously in Moscow as Pakistan’s Defence Attache in Russia. He was concurrently accredited to Republic of Belarus and Ukraine. He served in Russian capital for about two years and five months, the sources said.

Major General Athar Abbas, Director General Inter-Services Public Relations, (DG ISPR) when contacted Monday late evening expressed his ignorance about the change. He said it is an internal posting and would be announced when it happens.

Sunday, February 24, 2008

Need for Security and Intelligence Reforms in Pakistan

Security and intelligence
Hassan Abbas, The News, February 25, 2008
Part 1

The gravest challenge that will stare the new government in the face is going to be in the realm of internal security, law enforcement and the safety of the state’s top functionaries. Indeed, establishing a stable national government, revival of independent judiciary, and restoring the spirit of the 1973 Constitution are critical for Pakistan, and the new political leadership of the country should pursue these laudable goals. However, simultaneously, and preferably within the first hundred days of its inauguration, the new government should focus on the reform of the intelligence agencies and law enforcement to equip the state of Pakistan with sufficient tools to secure its future and that of the people. Given the nature of crisis in Pakistan, effective internal security will drive political as well as economic stability.

The Pakistani Army positively contributed towards the holding of free elections on Feb 18, but it cannot be expected to do the job of law enforcement endlessly. Dependence on the military for such tasks ultimately persuades its leadership to increase the army’s involvement in the political domain, and in the process that follows such thinking, Pakistan loses many years. Generals like Waheed Kakar and Jahangir Karamat are rare, and given some recent developments it seems that Pakistan is lucky to have another of their kind in the form of the new chief, Ashfaq Pervez Kayani. This golden opportunity should not be lost (like before) to nurture and groom civilian institutions to stand on their own feet.

First and foremost, a new organisation on the pattern of the US Secret Service should be commissioned for managing the personal security of the president, the prime minister, the governors, the chief ministers and the chief justices of the Supreme Court and High Courts, besides former heads of government and other senior functionaries, if that is deemed necessary. In the US, all former presidents and even major presidential and vice presidential candidates and nominees are provided security cover by the secret service. No strong case needs to be built for such an organisation in Pakistan, as a mere glance at the history of Pakistan reminds us how many valuable leaders we have lost through assassinations and murders. In almost all high-profile murders — Liaquat Ali Khan, Zia-ul-Haq, (possibly) Asif Nawaz and Benazir Bhutto — we are still unclear who was behind the deaths. Though all national and provincial chief executives in Pakistan have designated chief security officers (CSOs) deputed to organise and plan for their safety, they are dependent on various law-enforcement and intelligence agencies to implement the security plans and assess the nature of threats. President Pervez Musharraf is an exception, being a former army chief who is still guarded by SSG commandos due to the nature of threats to his life. Ordinary mortals are not that lucky.

The US Secret Service, a part of the Department of Homeland Security, also has additional responsibilities (related to criminal investigations and financial crimes), but the proposed Pakistan Secret Service should be primarily focused on the security of VVIPs and completely independent of the Ministries of Interior or Defence. Additionally, it should be an autonomous body led by a person with a fixed tenure (and possibly with a constitutional cover). It should also have a separate training academy and related facilities, and, last but not least, its own analytical and intelligence wings to evaluate threat assessments to high-profile officials of the state. This organisation can also be made responsible for the safety of visiting heads of state, and for foreign missions and other buildings within Islamabad, and for plans and security designs for designated national events, such as the March 23 and Aug 14 programmes where hundreds of VVIPs are present.

The purpose of a specialised security force is to develop expertise for a task that has gained critical importance. Rather than deputing people from the police service of Pakistan or the military (who in many cases aspire to go back to their institutions or field jobs), a dedicated security organisation for the purpose is likely to perform much better and more responsibly. Any perceptions about loyalty to one’s parent department will also be discounted this way. Besides eliminating coordination failure risks, it will make available many resources and manpower to the local police and law enforcement which is often stretched to provide for the security and movements of VVIPs and foreign heads of state.

The highest functionaries of the state should be comfortable and confident that they and their families are safe and that they will continue to get security cover even when they retire (in case of the judiciary) or are out of office. Given the deteriorating law-and-order situation in the country and the threat of terrorism, such an institution is a necessity of the times. It will take at least two to three years for a professional service to be raised on these lines, and hence a quick decision by the new government is highly recommended. If such an institution is deemed viable, then the government should look for professionalism and competence in its search for people to build this institution. Establishing new institutions require vision, exposure and dedication. There is a lot of expertise available in the country to undertake such a project. And as for financial provision for the project, a chunk of what Pakistan annually receives as aid for anti-terror operations should suffice. Ideally, though, Pakistan should make provision for this plan from its defence budget, as securing its leadership is at the least as important as defending the borders.

(Next week’s article will be on police reforms).

The writer, a former government official, is a fellow at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and author of Pakistan’s Drift into Extremism: Allah, the Army and America’s War on Terror. He also runs a blog by the name of Watandost. Email: hassan_abbas@ksg.harvard.edu

CIA & FBI Network in Pakistan: Myth vs. Reality?

Is cooperation with CIA-FBI posing a threat to Pak strategic interests?
By By Ansar Abbasi, The News, 2/25/2008

ISLAMABAD: While Pakistan might have benefited from hardcore actionable intelligence provided by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the FBI in countering terrorism, one possible negative aspect has been the creation of a vast network of CIA and FBI agents – mostly Pakistanis.

Though intelligence cooperation between Pakistan and the US multiplied extensively after 9/11 and was aimed at the Taliban and al-Qaeda, many in Pakistan fear the network for these foreign agencies within Pakistan was also being used for other tasks, some probably falling into the definition of interference in our internal affairs.

Top authorities in Pakistan are said to be in knowledge of this phenomenal spread in the American spy agencies’ network as the country's intelligence agencies have already reported this matter and even identified a number of those on the payroll of the US agencies.

Besides others, a large number of retired Army officers, including ex-brigadiers, are presently working here as American spies. An official of an intelligence agency, however, explained that spy agencies of different countries had their worldwide networks and they handled spy matters according to their resources and needs because importance of spying had increased tremendously after 9/11.

Because of the alleged presence of al-Qaeda-Taliban in Pakistan, the interest of the foreign intelligence agencies here has gone up. The official added that the US had the largest intelligence network in the world and Pakistan was also benefiting from this because through this network the CIA and FBI shared intelligence with Pakistan and gave important information to nab terrorists.

Pakistan allowed concessions to the US as part of intelligence cooperation in the controversial war on terror but some official sources are of the view that these concessions and their parameters were not being adhered to within the agreed limits.

Foreign Office spokesman Muhammad Sadiq, when contacted, said he had no information of this sort. He said intelligence cooperation between Islamabad and Washington was a fact but doubted that the local agents could be hired. He, however, said if there was any interference in our matters by any foreign spying agencies, it was illegal and not allowed. Sadiq said the ISPR would be in a better position to respond to such questions.

Director General ISPR and military spokesman Major General Athar Abbas, when asked about the feared massive expansion of local CIA and FBI agents in Pakistan after 9/11, said, "I don't think so." He added that the government would never allow the CIA or FBI to expand their network in Pakistan. "I deny this," the military spokesman said.

A defence source, however, recently told this correspondent it was a routine operation of all agencies around the world to recruit agents for espionage in every country. He said CIA and FBI did not need to come to Pakistan and start recruiting their local agents here because they could do the same while sitting in Washington. "These things are neither cut and dried nor done in black and white but this always happens and cannot be denied," the source said

Caretaker Interior Minister Lt Gen (retd) Hamid Nawaz, when approached said the US influence was not only in Pakistan but also in almost every other country. He acknowledged that there was a feeling that the network of US intelligence agents had spread here but he had no proof with him to substantiate this. He, however, admitted that the US influence was there in all areas.

The retired general, who has also been secretary defence for some years and left the job much after 9/11, said there was a standard rule that no foreign intelligence agent could subvert against the state.

Elizabeth Colton, the Press Attache of the US embassy in Islamabad, told this correspondent, in response to a set of questions sent to her, that the Embassy could not discuss intelligence issues with the media.

She said the Embassy had no comment on the questions sent to her which included one asking whether the Embassy or its legal section had any role in recruiting Pakistanis for CIA and FBI.

The Embassy was also asked whether they shared the concerns of some Pakistani authorities that the US intelligence agencies, which were given some concessions in the tribal belt of Pakistan, were crossing their limits and hurting the strategic interests of Pakistan.

US National Intelligence Director Mike McConnel was quoted to have admitted recently that the US administration had already spent $50 billion during the current year on spying. A considerable chunk of this budget for spying is believed to have been spent on the US war on terror. Part of this money would have also travelled to Pakistan to pay off the CIA/FBI local agents, who are said to be paid well.

Parts of the US media have been reporting on this subject and the most significant report was in The Washington Post in 2002 when the influential newspaper claimed that the United States had organised its own espionage network in Pakistan due to lack of cooperation from the ISI in locating the al-Qaeda and Taliban fugitives.

"The FBI decided to set up a Spider Group, a band of former Pakistani Army officers and others, after it concluded that lack of cooperation from the ISI made it impossible to hunt down Taliban and al-Qaeda fugitives in the tribal areas of the country.”

Quoting a federal law-enforcement official in Washington, the newspaper reported that the US move marked an attempt by the FBI to develop "free flow of information" to US agents who previously had worked under some restriction with Pakistan's official Inter-Services Intelligence agency.

The Spider Group, the report said, was also asked to recruit locals in Pakistan's tribal areas, where hundreds of wanted "terrorists" are allegedly holed up under the patronage of tribal chiefs. Members of the Spider Group include a mix of Muslim and Christian retired Army and intelligence officers and have been trained and equipped by the FBI.

Background interviews reveal that today the CIA's intelligence local network is far more extensive than that of the FBI. The sources said that during the initial years of War on Terror, the Americans were not satisfied with the intelligence gathering of local agencies in the tribal areas of Pakistan, so they launched their own agencies that had now developed a vast network in the country.

A source quoted an incident in which the CIA officials once distributed awards amongst Pakistani intelligence people in the headquarters of the agency in Langley, Virginia. "This is perhaps unprecedented," the source said.

A spymaster of one of the country's intelligence agency reported to the Interior Ministry that a provincial head of a private security agency, besides others, was spying for the CIA. The security agency was contacted and the said official was removed. It was also reported that a large number of private security agencies personnel were doing espionage work.

A retired lieutenant general confided to this correspondent on condition of not being named that during his career he had gone to the US twice for military related training, where he was openly offered to work for the US. "I was praised and offered that why don't I join them," he said, adding that once an official encouraged him to inform the US about the problems of Pakistan's defence without even talking to his seniors.

He said the same intelligence officials asked him to settle his children in the US for better life and education. "I was openly told that I should not be worried about their expenses," the retired general said.

Meanwhile, a local journalist Azaz Syed told this correspondent that quite a few years back, he approached the legal section of the US embassy in Islamabad, after reading an advertisement in an international publication for recruitment of FBI agents for South Asia. For the purpose of doing an investigative story, he offered his services for FBI. He said he offered his services to spy on Taliban in exchange for information from the US embassy but the diplomat interviewing him was not interested in Taliban but wanted info about civil bureaucracy. He was not ready to give any information either.

"I was told that I would get assignments relating to civil bureaucracy and in return would be paid well," Syed said, adding that later he did a story for an Urdu newspaper with which he was associated at that point of time.

The US Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) – the spy military plane – are yet another source of concern for many here. The UAVs were allowed to do espionage in tribal areas of Pakistan for "specific jobs" only but since the UAVs were not caught by radars, these spy planes crossed their limits a number of times.

Initially, the Pakistan Air Force objected to such US surveillance but the government decided otherwise because of US insistence that it was inevitable to track down the so-called al-Qaeda targets.

The sources revealed that the murdered top tribal leader resisting the US war on terror, Nek Muhammad, became the target of a UAV despite the peace deal he had signed with the then corps commander Lt Gen Safdar Hussain.

Getting uncomfortable with the UAV activities, some Pakistani officials have expressed their concerns at the highest level. The Pakistan Army is trying to develop its own UAV but so far these planes are not up to the required international standards.

Pakistan has also been trying to buy these UAVs but some international forces are creating impediments in such deals. Once Pakistan contacted South Africa to purchase these small aircraft but the price demanded was $10 million, which was far higher than the price of the equipment.

The UAV intelligence capacity and its advantage of not being traced by radars, some believe, could pose serious threats to Pakistan's strategic interests.

India -US Intelligence Halt: Secrets Choked?


Secrets Choked
Indo-US intelligence sharing is a misnomer. It's a one-way street.
Saikat Datta, Outlook India, March 3 Issue

India vs US

Intelligence sharing between the US and India has hit a new low. Here's why:

1. Recent US attempts to penetrate Indian intelligence has made New Delhi suspicious

2. The quality and quantum of inputs from the American side have not been satisfactory

3. Washington's intelligence operations in Pakistan-Afghanistan is focused on Al Qaeda and Taliban and not sensitive to Indian needs

4. The US does not wish to upset Pakistan. As a result intelligence inputs on cross- border terrorism is near-zero.

5. The non-cooperation is now mutual. India is also reluctant to share information.

Four months ago, Vice Admiral Mike McConnell, director of US National Intelligence (DNI), called on India's national security advisor (NSA) M.K. Narayanan at his South Block office in New Delhi. McConnell, a key figure in the current reshaping of American intelligence, said he was keen to see greater cooperation between India and the US in the global war against terror.

But the NSA said there was a problem. According to senior officials familiar with what transpired at the meeting, Narayanan did some plainspeaking, telling McConnell that America's tacit support to Indian agents defecting to the US, like Rabinder Singh, a joint secretary in RAW, was straining the relationship. He then referred to recent cases of leakage of sensitive information from the National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS), allegedly engineered by US intelligence operative identified as Roseanne Minchew. The NSA also told the US DNI that the quality and quantum of intelligence being shared by the US with India was not substantive enough. Sources said McConnell claimed ignorance and assured Narayanan that he would "look into" the issues raised at the meeting.

While India has been apprehensive about suspected US attempts to penetrate Indian intelligence, there are equally serious concerns about intelligence sharing. With intelligence inflows from the US down to a trickle, India is no longer as cooperative as it once was. As a source put it, "The Americans seem to have little to share in the joint working group. On the other hand, other countries have proved to be more helpful." He was referring to the mutually beneficial intelligence-sharing mechanism with the UK, Israel, Germany and Canada.

One area where the Indians feel they have been shortchanged by the US is in the investigation into the hijacking of the IC-814 to Kandahar. While some of the accused in the case have been awarded a life sentence after the CBI investigation, the FBI is yet to conclude its probe. Admits CBI director Vijay Shanker: "The most intriguing aspect of the hijack case has been the stand of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which registered its own case after the Kandahar hijack due to the presence of a US citizen, Jeanne Moore, on board the aircraft. The FBI was extended all possible help by the CBI and yet its own role can only be described as a major disappointment for us." By help, Shanker is alluding to how India facilitated over half-a-dozen visits by FBI teams to the high-security jail in Patiala to directly interrogate the accused.

The FBI was also given free access to the CBI's investigation team, as well as all the evidence it had accumulated. Indian intelligence handed over communication intercepts, details of passports issued by Pakistani authorities to the hijackers and names of co-conspirators who are still present in Pakistan. But the Americans are yet to reciprocate to this quality of cooperation. Intelligence officials attribute this to American sensitivity to pressure from Pakistan. In short, a desire to avoid doing anything that could expose the ISI's hand in the hijacking.

India had hoped to access details of terrorist networks operating in Pakistan from the Americans. But little has been forthcoming. Most of the intelligence shared so far has been in the shape of communication intercepts which, officials say, India taps through other sources in any case. "Once in a while the CIA shares intercepts collected from their stations in Peshawar and other places, but these can be accessed by our own technical assets," a senior source told Outlook.

New Delhi is also unhappy with Washington's lack of cooperation in Afghanistan, a key area of interest.

However, to be fair to the US, RAW can also be blamed for ignoring Kabul. Right from the days of the IC-814 hijacking, when Indian intelligence had no assets in Afghanistan, India realised the need to build its network in the war-torn country. However, little was done and the RAW officials posted there were of suspect capabilities. That said, it is a fact that the US has a massive intelligence presence in Afghanistan, both in terms of technical and human intelligence. They also have several assets inside Pakistan, including in key regions such as Peshawar. But the US focus has been on the Al Qaeda and the Taliban rather than terrorism related to Kashmir. "Our contention has been that the networks of terrorists in Kashmir are the same as the Al Qaeda and Taliban. But the Americans seem to be conveniently ignoring this," a source said.

A key reason for US hesitation in sharing intelligence with India vis-a-vis cross-border terrorism has to do with its position on Pakistan.

An intelligence source explains: "The US views Pakistan as a major Muslim ally in its coalition against terrorism and therefore tends to shield it. It has quietly accepted Pakistan's position on the rogue nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan and his vast network that illegally supplied

atomic secrets to Iran and other countries. The Pakistan navy is playing a key role in the Coalition Maritime Campaign Plan (or CMCP, the naval arm of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq) and was even appointed leader of the coalition, with a Pakistani Rear Admiral heading it."

Islamabad annually receives $5.3 billion worth of military aid from the US for participating in the war against terror. According to the source, with such a lot invested in the ties, the US would not like to upset its ally. Which is perhaps why it is reluctant to part with information that would cause discomfiture in Pakistan. When contacted, a US embassy spokesperson in New Delhi told Outlook, "We never comment on matters pertaining to intelligence, but this aspect of the bilateral relationship is quite satisfactory."

Interestingly, the present lack of cooperation between the two nations is in stark contrast to the immediate post-9/11 period, when there was both intelligence sharing as well as training programmes. Indian intelligence inputs on threats to the life of President George W. Bush was appreciated by the US. Over the years, director-level officers from RAW have been trained in the US. America, say sources, was keen to expand the ambit of training programmes, provided RAW adopted a broader canvas to recruit intelligence officials on merit and aptitude. However, India is not ready to change its traditional recruitment policy of selecting candidates through the Union Public Service Commission route.

So, will there be an opening up of the currently clogged intelligence-sharing channels? The Indian side is optimistic, given that Washington has been highlighting the Indo-US nuclear deal as its commitment to growing bilateral ties.Also, according to the "500-day (reform) plan" scripted by McConnell, building fruitful partnerships will be the key aim of the US intelligence community.