Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Robert Fisk: Why did no imams plead for Akmal Shaikh's life to be spared?

Robert Fisk: Why did no imams plead for Akmal Shaikh's life to be spared?
How many Muslim clerics condemned the execution of Chinese Uighur Muslims?

The Independent, 30 December 2009

Akmal Shaikh got a raw deal from his co-religionists. Not from the West, mark you. From the Foreign Office down to the humblest humanitarian agency, the heirs of the Age of Enlightenment pleaded for the life of this 53-year-old mentally disturbed drug smuggler whom the Chinese authorities cruelly executed by lethal injection yesterday morning. But from the imams of Al-Azhar and the great teaching mosques of the world – from Cairo and from Mecca and from Qom and from Mashad – there came only silence. Well, did you really expect the Islamic experts in jurisprudence to speak up for a man caught with 4 kilos of heroin in Urumqi?

I can see how China's roaring economy would mute the voice of even the most courageous and humanitarian of clerics in the Islamic homeland. When China promises to oppose the US in the Middle East – albeit for its own self-interest – what Arab is going to take China to task for killing a Muslim drug-smuggler?

For complete article, click here

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Haqqani Network Challenges US-Pakistan Relations

Haqqani Network Challenges US-Pakistan Relations
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, New York Times, December 29, 2009

ISLAMABAD (AP) -- The bodies kept surfacing -- hanged, shot, beheaded -- and always with a note alleging the victims were anti-Taliban spies. ''Learn a lesson from the fate of this man,'' warned one message found on a corpse in Pakistan's North Waziristan tribal region.

A senior Pakistani intelligence official told The Associated Press that at least 30 of his agency's operatives have been killed over the past year in the region partly controlled by the al-Qaida-linked Haqqani network. The autonomous Afghan Taliban faction -- whose leader was once a U.S. ally -- is a serious threat to American and NATO troops in Afghanistan's east and operates on both sides of the border with Pakistan.

The U.S. wants Pakistan to expel the network from its North Waziristan sanctuary, especially as 30,000 more U.S. troops head to Afghanistan. But Pakistani officials say taking on the network now is too risky; the killings have helped turn North Waziristan into an intelligence black hole at a time when Pakistan's army is stretched thin fighting insurgents elsewhere.
Some critics suspect Pakistan is simply making excuses because it wants to use the Haqqanis as a future asset to influence Afghanistan and stay ahead of its bigger regional rival, India, after the Americans withdraw. Others say Pakistan is wise to avoid antagonizing a group whose primary focus remains Afghanistan.

The Haqqanis' story is one of shifting alliances in Afghanistan's long history of war and foreign occupation, and one that underscores the difficulty of sorting friend from foe in the current conflict.
The Haqqanis are tied to al-Qaida, technically pledge allegiance to Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar and have a history of links to Pakistani intelligence. But ultimately, they feel beholden to no one but themselves, said Kamran Bokhari, an analyst with Stratfor, a U.S-based global intelligence firm.

''Over the years, as Pakistan has been caught in a juggling act between dealing with its own insurgency and the U.S., people like the Haqqanis have become increasingly independent,'' Bokhari said. ''The Haqqanis' goal is to work with whoever is willing to work with them.''

For complete article, click here

Monday, December 28, 2009

Karachi: The Return of Yazid



The return of Yazid By Nadeem F. Paracha
Dawn, 28 Dec, 2009

After enjoying a little more than two years of relative peace, Karachi was rudely dragged back on the mutilated map of terror today. A single suicide bomber managed to slip his dynamite strapped body inside a large procession of Shia mourners on Karachi’s M A Jinnah Road and blow himself up, killing and injuring dozens of innocent people, including some security men who were patrolling the fringes of the procession.

The attack has come as a rude shock to the citizens of Karachi and the Sindh province who had been witnessing horrific scenes of similar carnage perpetrated by extremists in the mosques and markets of Punjab and NWFP, and had, for the last couple of years, been somewhat spared from the madness that the terrorists have been displaying in the country, especially ever since 2003. Although the Taliban have yet to claim responsibility for the attack – and given Karachi's history, the attacker may well hail from one of the banned sectarian outfits that have long been established in the city – many believe that there is no longer any point in making distinctions between different extremist groups. Citizens, meanwhile, are concerned that this attack marks the beginning of a wave of violence as witnessed in other parts of the country.

Karachi’s and Sindh’s case in this respect is a tad different where the government is being run by three of Pakistan’s leading ‘secular’ and openly anti-Taliban parties, the PPP, the MQM and the ANP.

Even though these three parties are also allies in the centre, the dynamics of this alliance in Sindh have been a lot more effective in building a consensus against the Taliban, something the federal government and the parliamentarian opposition parties have taken a lot more time and effort to do.

Karachi’s vastly diverse ethnic and sectarian make-up, and the Sufi shrine culture that dominates the rest of Sindh’s social polity have largely managed to repulse forces which, ever since General Ziaul Haq's dictatorship in the 1980s, have been trying to violently impose their brand of Islam in the country. There is however, still some disagreement between the allied parties as to what exactly constitutes ‘Talibanisation,’ especially in Karachi’s case.

So far, only the MQM has directly accused the Taliban for every major terrorist attack that has taken place in the country in the last five years, whereas their allied secular contemporaries, the PPP and the ANP, have largely been vague in their denunciations, usually coupling their condemnation of the Taliban with the now worn-out mantra of a ‘foreign hand.’

But with the unprecedented rise in terrorist attacks in the Frontier province, and with most of these attacks claimed by the Tehrik-e-Taliban-Pakistan (TTP), the ANP too has started to come down hard on directly blaming the Taliban.

And in spite of the fact that only a year ago both the PPP and the ANP in Sindh were downplaying MQM’s warnings of ‘Talibanisation’ taking place in Karachi, today right after the suicide attack in the city, senior ANP leader, Senator Haji Adeel, echoed MQM chief Altaf Hussain’s direct condemnation of the Taliban, also agreeing with Mr Hussain’s plea to boycott those political parties and personalities who are believed to be supporting the Taliban and their intransigent mentality.

To an outsider, and in fact, to many Karachittes as well, the whole idea of certain mainstream political parties and personnel actually mouthing both direct and indirect support for the Taliban is an intriguing phenomenon – especially in these hours of utter carnage and inhumanity being exhibited by the militant sections of extremist thought in the country.

For complete article, click here

Related:
Suicide attack on Ashura procession kills 30 in Karachi  - Dawn
Pakistan Blast Targets Shiite Ceremony - WSJ

Sayedah Zainab’s sermon


Sayedah Zainab’s sermon by Farhan Bokhari
The News, December 28, 2009

“It is quite sufficient that Allah is your Judge and Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon his progeny, is your opponent and Jibraeel as the supporter (of Muhammad). All those who instigated you to do what you did and all those who put you in charge due to which you are a playing havoc with the lives of Muslims will know for certain how evil the end of the oppressors is and which of you shall have the worst place and will be the least protected.”

(An excerpt from the sermon of Sayedah Zainab bint-e-Imam Ali, the fourth caliph of Islam.)

Almost 1,400 years after the epic battle in Karbala led to the martyrdom of Imam Hussain, the grandson of prophet Mohammad and son of Imam Ali and Sayedah Bibi Fatima, the daughter of Prophet Mohammad, the words spoken by Sayedah Zainab still hold true.

In a world which has seen mounting conflict for years, including that in Iraq — where Imam Hussain’s passionate followers will come together in one of the largest annual congregations anywhere, to mark the day of his martyrdom on the 10th day of Muharram-ul-Haram, “Ashura” — Sayedah Zainab’s sermon carries profound significance.

For Imam Ali’s daughter taken as prisoner along with other women and children, after the battle in Karbala, her sermon in the Damascus court of Yazeed ibn-e Muawiya, the self-proclaimed caliph of the Omayyad Dynasty, marked her towering moment.

Surrounded by the prisoners of Karbala, including her close family members along with the well-wishers of the household of Prophet Mohammad, Sayedah Zainab pulled together unprecedented courage, seldom seen before or after her moment of grief. Indeed, she turned her grief into triumph by her courage and skill of oratory, inherited from her father, her mother and her grandfather.

For Muslims of today, Sayedah Zainab’s sermon carries great significance as a personal example to be emulated, but more importantly as a guiding principle for their lives.

Across Pakistan, in the midst of the bloodletting of the past year and a fast growing practice of Muslims killing Muslims in the name of Islam, Sayedah Zainab’s words provide much food for thought. While some may seek to dominate others through their blatant violence, there must be acknowledgement of the futility of tyranny.

More broadly for the Islamic world, seeking inspiration from Sayedah Zainab’s eloquent words must be built upon at least three guiding principles.

First and foremost, tyranny can endure for a while, even a long while, but not indefinitely. Nowhere is there a clearer demonstration of this view than in the palace once occupied by Yazeed in Damascus, where pilgrims who visit it in large numbers seek not to remember the perpetrators of the crime in Karbala but, indeed, to pay homage and respect to Sayedah Zainab. Among the most widely practiced rituals inside that towering complex, the place where Sayedah Zainab delivered her sermon, is a must stop for visitors.
Sayedah Zainab’s place of burial in Damascus has itself become a frequent destination for pilgrims. Many use their pilgrimage to remind themselves of the endurance of Sayedah Zainab’s words for all time to come.

Second, there is an equally powerful reminder for Muslims in witnessing a real-life example of the fate that must be the final outcome of empires built on tyranny. In Damascus, there is simply no evidence of a final resting place for Yazeed, his close family members or, indeed, any of his followers.

For a king who ruled through the power of the sword and claimed to be the justified ruler of his time, Yazeed’s fate is indeed no different from the fate of those before and after him who ruled through the strength of their weapons, hoping to retain their legacy for times to come.
For Muslims in today’s world, be it for those fighting Israeli occupation of Palestine or elsewhere facing occupying forces, such as in Iraq, the underlying lesson is clear. Occupation through excessive military force is capable of bringing a military victory in the short term, but the long-term sustainability of such occupations must always remain in doubt.

Finally, events leading to the tragic battle of Karbala, carry an all-too-powerful message as well. The build-up to the epic battle began when Yazeed’s accession to the throne of the Muslim empire was quickly followed by demands for Imam Hussain to formally commit his loyalty, or “bayat,” to the new ruler.

For historians, a baffling question must remain: would the course of events have been different if Yazeed had abstained from formally seeking the loyalty of Imam Hussain?

Whatever the answer, Sayedah Zainab’s prediction of the fate of oppressors would have remained unchanged, underlining the fundamental principal that empires built upon tyranny will neither establish a living legacy nor last for long in historical terms.

The writer is an Islamabad-based journalist who writes on political and economic affairs. His email address is: bokhari62@yahoo.co.uk

Related:
10 Muharram - Ashura By Adil Najam - All Things Pakistan
Allama Iqbal and Ahlul-Bayt - LUBP
Iconography of Karbala - Dawn
Qa’ani’s elegy and Imam Hussein (AS) —Ammar Ali Qureshi - Daily Times
Sayings of Imam Hussain - AIM

Saturday, December 26, 2009

Significance of the Tragedy of Karbala



Is this the best use of remembrance?
From: Dawn, Jan 7, 2009

Abbas Husain is the Director of the Teachers’ Development Centre and has served as a Professor of Islamic Studies at the Aga Khan University for 19 years. He has completed an English tafseer (interpretation) of the Quran which relates the text to modern issues. Here he sits down with Dawn.com to discuss the Karbala tragedy’s relevance in today’s world.


What is the significance of the month of Muharram?

My understanding of the way Muharram works is that it is a counterpart to Ramazan. Both months serve as punctuation marks to the year. Ramazan is a filling in, Muharram is a speaking out. In Ramazan, one empties their day of activity so that they may receive grace. In Muharram, one articulates how they wish to spend the next (Islamic) year and to what values they wish to dedicate themselves.

As (Maulana Syed Mohammad) Zaki Baqri Sahib put it, Muharram is like an open university. (During the month) we gather to once again ‘remember the days of God’ - a command that appears twice in the Quran. This means we should remember the great events to do with God. The Prophet’s life was days of God, and so is the struggle of Imam Hussain. Sitting and remembering this sacred history is doing a religious work.

What lessons can people derive from the events of Ashura?

From the year 2008 to 2016 Pakistan is going to have the largest proportion of young people in the world – 63 per cent (of Pakistan’s population) will be between 10 and 24 years old. This group needs tremendous guidance; reaching out to them should be a priority.

Presently, the youth of Pakistan is, I believe, the most disserved by Pakistan’s education system. The education system, such as it is, does not serve the youth with the kind of vision and sparkle of creativity that it should provide.

If young people do not receive focus and direction, Pakistan will be in a big mess. Our way out of this mess into prosperity, peace and plenty is to give vision to our youth. In this religion too has a role to play, as a source of ideas.

(The Battle of) Karbala teaches us a way of deepening our engagement with the world. It shows us that truth prevails, justice prevails. How ever much it seems that these values are not winning – its proponents are being pulverised, defeated – in the end they will prevail. Today, Hussain’s sacrifice is more remembered than any other cause that people have given their lives to.

What can be done to counter negative stereotypes held about Ashura commemorations?

Everything comes down to culture. Our religion itself is very straighforward. (It is) culture (that) places a set of rituals around its observance. Some of those rituals have enormous elegance and beauty. Some rituals, sad to say, do not. Of course, the things that are inelegant not beautiful will arouse prejudice in others.

What we need to do is re-ask the opening question. Is this the best use of remembrance? Is this what we must do? I think we should be careful to not go overboard, not get obsessed.

Nowadays young people are looking for intelletual dynamism. If we claim that Hazrat Ali is the gate to the city of knowledge, then where is his intellectual legacy? We hear about his physical bravado – what he did at Gate of Khyber, how good he was as a swordsman. These stories are great, no argument; but his intellectual legacy is the theme that we need to re-discover and focus on... rather than some of the rituals that take time away from this.

Related:
Ashura - Misrepresentations and Distortions - Murtaza Muttahiri
What was the course of Imam Husain’s (a.s) revolution? - Muslim Unity

A Year of Turbulence in Pakistan

ANALYSIS: A year of turbulence —Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi
Daily Times, December 27, 2009

Pakistan needs institutional balance where different state institutions respect each other’s autonomy and avoid unnecessary encroachment in each other’s domain while recognising their inter-dependence

Pakistan’s troubled march on the road to democracy has survived another year. It is difficult to suggest at this stage if it will manage better in 2010. Too many things have happened too quickly in 2009. Some people have developed an aura of self-righteousness and a strong desire to apply puritanical justice on high visibility political personalities. Such a selective approach is always popular with the common people but it does not necessarily end corruption in a society where corruption manifests itself in so many forms and is deep-rooted.

In the past we experienced several efforts to cope with corrupt political leaders and other civilians. In 1949, the PRODA was enacted to take firm action against corrupt political leaders. Ayub Khan’s military government disqualified several hundred political leaders from public life for six years (1960-66) under a new law, the EBDO. Several hundred civil servants were removed from their jobs for corruption and other charges by the military governments of Ayub Khan and Yahya Khan and the civilian government of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.
These actions were very popular with the common people at that time because the ordinary people entertained the mistaken notion of punishing a few high profile people to deter others. These strategies did not produce the desired results and corruption and misuse of state resources continued to manifest themselves in different ways.

For complete article, click here
Related:
The Year of Decision in Pakistan - Shuja Nawaz, AfPak Channel
The establishment strikes back - Yusuf Nazar, Dawn

Friday, December 25, 2009

"Let India Help Afghanistan": An Indian Perspective

Let India help Afghanistan
Shashank Joshi, guardian.co.uk, Friday 25 December 2009

In the 19th century, Indian armies twice crossed the Hindu Kush, hoping to stitch together the patchwork political authority of the territory in the service of their British masters. Over a century later, the sovereign republic of India once more has a renewed presence in what was once its mountainous buffer from the Tsarist, and then Soviet, giant to the north.

A year ago, Indians completed the construction of Afghanistan's new parliament building and, to compound the symbolism, provided training to the legislators who would make the country's laws. Over a billion dollars in aid and investment, multiple consulates, and a little-reported thousand-strong troop presence all testify to the flourishing ties between the two democracies.

India is Afghanistan's fifth-largest donor, pledging $1.2bn since 2001 and providing aid that spans education, health and infrastructure. The most eye-catching project, a 215km road connecting the Iranian border to Afghanistan's arterial highway, will eventually allow India to transport goods by sea to an Iranian port it is developing, and thence to Afghanistan and beyond. This circumvents the overland route, blocked by Pakistan, but also gives a fillip to Indo-Afghan trade ($538m during 2007-8). Hamid Karzai, himself educated in India and the beneficiary of Indian military support during the 1990s, visited India four times in the first five years of his tenure. The Afghan national army, the linchpin of the new American strategy to pacify the country, receives training across India.

Not everyone is happy with the widening Indian footprint. Pakistan, long reliant on Afghanistan as a source of "strategic depth" has invoked fears of encirclement and Indian-sponsored separatism. This is in addition to the panoply of wild "conspiracy theorists who insist that every one of Pakistan's ills are there because of interference by the US, India, Israel and Afghanistan", says Ahmed Rashid, a noted Pakistani journalist.

For complete article, click here
 
Related:
India-Afghanistan Relations - Jayshree Bajoria, CFR
Let India Prove her Sincerity before Talking of any Alliance - Naveed Tajammal

Pause, sirs, and ponder By I.A. Rehman

Pause, sirs, and ponder By I.A. Rehman
Dawn, 24 Dec, 2009

The fact that in its response to the Supreme Court judgment of Dec 16 the nation is divided cannot be denied, and prudence demands that the causes of this division should not be brushed aside without careful scrutiny.

A large section of society believes that Pakistan has become a corruption-free entity and a judicially controlled democracy while a none-too-small section feels deeply hurt. Much can be said for and against both sides.

The hailers are largely guided by their desire to wipe off the shame of becoming one of the most corrupt states in the world. They appear full of zeal for righteousness. However, they will do their cause enormous harm if they fall for the universally repudiated view that the ends always justify the means. The people of Pakistan paid a heavy price for taking this route when they welcomed the usurpation of power by Ayub Khan, Ziaul Haq and Pervez Musharraf.

The wailers are largely moved by the apparent setback to their group. They think the law has been used for a political purpose. They have strong memories of the Tamizuddin and Nusrat Bhutto cases and the judgment against Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. They could be wrong. However, they will do themselves enormous harm if they appear to be defending corrupt persons or practices.

Somewhere between the two extremes stand those who wish to make sure that good intentions do not lead to the dreaded hell. Some of them have a longer record of denouncing corrupt rulers and condemning the NRO than the born-yesterday anti-vice squad. They believe the NRO was a bad law, that it should not have been made, that no one claiming public support should have sought to benefit from it and that those who made this obnoxious law as well as its beneficiaries should pay for their lapses.

For complete article, click here

Related:
Editorial: US view of NRO crisis - DT
Linear thinking - Ayesha Siddiqa, Dawn
Path of defiance or political suicide? - The News

Thursday, December 24, 2009

Army and Zardari: A handshake, not a Fistfight!

VIEW: A handshake, not a fistfight —Syed Talat Hussain
Daily Times, December 24, 2009

Pakistan’s security establishment should have no problem in coexisting with a president who co-chairs the country's largest political party. They must admit that losing political calm in these crucial years is not an option

‘Coup’ is the most popular four-letter word in Pakistan these days. It is on everyone’s lips. An outright military takeover, a sudden political change, ouster of President Asif Ali Zardari, formation of a national government – all sorts of scenarios are being debated in all four corners of Pakistan. It is almost as if a military-backed change has become an inevitable, imagined reality. The only question that remains is its shape and form.

Seemingly what has triggered this flight of analytical imagination is the Supreme Court’s verdict against the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO). But at a deeper level, the issue is not about 17 judges’ judicial slant against a sitting government – the allegation that is so rife in the PPP’s inner circles. It is about a complete breakdown of trust between Pakistan’s powerful military and intelligence establishment and President Asif Ali Zardari.
The history of this mistrust is well known. It is born of the peculiar circumstances that threw up Mr Zardari as an accidental choice for the highest office in Pakistan. While the election of the president was beyond reproach and procedurally correct, concerns were common in the military establishment about Mr Zardari’s competence and qualification for the job. These in part related to his inglorious record, and in part his exceptional closeness to the American power brokers – something he did not hide, and in fact wore on his chest as a badge of honour.

For complete article, click here
Related:
‘Major political drama’ unfolding in Pakistan, says Holbrooke - Daily Times
PML-N won’t demand Zardari’s resignation: Nisar - Daily Times
Obama, Pakistan and Mullah Omar - Wall Street Journal

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Prospects of an Arab-Iran Deal?

Will America's Arab Allies Strike Their Own Deal with Iran?
by Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, MR Zine, December 22, 2009

On Sunday, the Speaker of the Iranian majlis (parliament), Ali Larijani, met for two hours with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Cairo. Ostensibly, Larijani was in Egypt to attend a meeting of the Parliamentary Union of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which includes Turkey, Kuwait, Niger, Azerbaijan, and Uganda in addition to Egypt and Iran. Larijani publicly described his meeting with Mubarak as "very good and constructive," and official Egyptian and Iranian media reported that the two men discussed bilateral relations and regional issues of mutual concern. After meeting with Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit, Larijani declared Iran's support for Palestinian unity and, following a meeting with Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman, noted that "relations between the two countries could be a great help for creation of peace and security in the region."

For the complete article, click here

Plight of Pakistani Prisoners in Indian Jails: Dawn Editorial

Editorial Dawn
Plight of Prisoners
December 23, 2009

THE plight of Pakistanis in Indian prisons is appalling. Many were picked up for no serious violation of the law — although overstaying or straying across the border inadvertently is a major crime in New Delhi’s legal lexicon. There are some prisoners — reportedly 32 in number — who have completed their jail terms but still remain behind bars. Cases of prisoners falling victim to torture have also come to light. What does one make of all this? Considering the fact that Indian prisoners in Pakistani jails suffer an identical fate, this is fast becoming a tit-for-tat game between New Delhi and Islamabad. This should not be the case, and the Pakistan High Commission in New Delhi should be playing its due role in seeking to arrange the repatriation of prisoners who have served out their sentence as demanded by their relatives. It was recommended by the India-Pakistan Judicial Committee on Prisoners, formed in 2007, that such prisoners should be repatriated without delay. There are said to be about 740 Pakistani prisoners in Indian jails and 585 Indians in our prisons. While the two governments continue to be locked in a meaningless confrontation on issues not always of a crucial nature, they pay scant regard to the human cost of their deadlock.

The Indian and Pakistan prisoners are among the biggest sufferers of the stalemate in India-Pakistan ties. Their problems — and there are quite a few — which could have been sorted out on the sidelines of the composite dialogue have now been pushed into oblivion. Last year an agreement on consular access was signed. Under this accord the two countries are expected to exchange lists of each other’s prisoners that they hold. While Pakistan sent its list in July it is not known if India’s list has been received by Islamabad. At least positive trends should be allowed to continue.

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

A case of unchecked terrorists - By Ishtiaq Ahmed

view: A case of unchecked terrorists —Ishtiaq Ahmed
Daily Times, December 22, 2009.

Interior Minister Rehman Malik has ruled out the presence of any US terrorists in Pakistan. “There is no presence of Blackwater in Pakistan...Unfortunately, all the terrorists in the country are Pakistani nationals.” He further informed that so far 74 terrorists had been apprehended (Daily Times, December 11, 2009). Now, if there is no US terrorist in Pakistan and all the terrorists in the country are Pakistani nationals, it does not mean that there is no Blackwater presence in Pakistan. I am not sure if the honourable minister was quoted fully and properly.


However, the reference to Blackwater is a bit of a diversion from the real object of writing this essay. For several months now Mr Malik had been insisting on his having conclusive and incontrovertible proof of Indian involvement in terrorism as well as secessionism in Balochistan. He challenged India’s Defence Minister, AK Antony, to come to Pakistan to see for himself the evidence he had. Mr Antony ignored his standing invitation and rejected his accusations. Apparently the proof was sent by the Interior Ministry to the Pakistan Foreign Ministry. Initially the Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi expressed his doubts about the material he had received. He presented his position with diplomatic finesse: “The possibility that there are elements who want to destabilise the country cannot be ruled out. But information received by us in this regard is insufficient. We need more information and material to plausibly argue our case” (Daily Times, December 10, 2009). A few days later, Mr Qureshi changed his position and said that there was solid proof linking India to terrorism in Pakistan (Daily Times, December 14, 2009).

To concerned observers and analysts, such vacillation does not convey the impression that the Pakistan government has a coherent stand on this matter. In sharp contrast, soon after the terrorist attacks in Mumbai on November 26, 2008, India quickly produced Ajmal Kasab on television and showed footage of the attack in Mumbai. His family was also seen on television screens and his father owned his son. Some such dramatic steps are needed if the accusations against India are to be considered serious. It makes me wonder if the problem with the evidence, if not wholly but significantly, is its controversial nature; in other words, is it a case of unchecked terrorists?
 
For complete article, click here

Sunday, December 20, 2009

Tom Friedman on Muslims and Terrorism: Getting it Wrong Again

Tom Friedman on Muslims and Terrorism: Getting it Wrong Again
John Esposito and John Voll, The Huffington Post, December 20, 2009

Thomas Friedman, in his Dec. 15 column "www.jihad.com" repeats and reinforces the same tired, totally incorrect, but commonly-made generalization preached in his July 9, 2005 column, "If it's a Muslim Problem, It Needs a Muslim Solution," that "no major Muslim cleric or religious body has ever issued a fatwa condemning Osama bin Laden." In his most recent column, Friedman continues to assert, despite readily available information to the contrary, that " a "violent, jihadist minority seems to enjoy the most 'legitimacy' in the Muslim world today" and that "Few political and religious leaders dare to speak out against them in public"....."How many fatwas -- religious edicts -- have been issued by the leading bodies of Islam against Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda?" Friedman asks and then answers his own question with "Very few."

The real truth is that Muslim religious leaders have indeed spoken out strongly and often to condemn terrorism and violence, but mainstream media like the NY Times and columnists like Friedman have chosen to ignore them. For example, Muslim scholars' and organizations' condemnations (including fatwas) of the 9/11 attacks, given from Saudi Arabia to Malaysia to the US, can be seen here. As reported by the BBC, already on September 14, 2001, statements condemning terrorism in general and Bin Laden in particular were made by a significant, influential and diverse group of religious leaders, ranging from Shaykh Mohamed Sayed Tantawi, the Grand Shaykh of al-Azhar University in Cairo (viewed by many as one of the highest authorities in Sunni Islam) to Ayatollah Kashani in Iran. In addition, the North America Fiqh Council joined with other internationally prominent Islamic scholars in issuing a formal fatwa on 27 September 2001 condemning bin Laden's actions of 9/11 and also sanctioning Muslim participation in the United States' military response in Afghanistan. For a more comprehensive list of statements made by individual leaders and organizations pre and post- 9/11, attacks in Europe and elsewhere, click here.

It is inconceivable that a knowledgeable reporter could be so unaware of major polls on Muslim attitudes towards religious extremism and terrorism and the many statements made by important Islamic leaders and organizations around the world denouncing acts of terrorism. Given Friedman's knowledge of the area and best selling book on the Middle East, we are dismayed by what can only be willful ignorance. The Gallup World Poll and the recent PEW Center poll of American Muslims provide hard evidence that refutes Friedman's views of the Muslim majority. Gallup data from 35 Muslim countries from North Africa to Southeast Asia, (see Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think) found that Muslims and Americans are equally likely to reject attacks on civilians as morally unjustified. The PEW study American Muslim attitudes concluded:

"Recent events such as the Fort Hood shootings and the arrest of five Muslim American students in Pakistan have raised questions about the threat of homegrown terrorism in the United States. However, the Pew Research Center's comprehensive portrait of the Muslim American population suggests it is less likely to be a fertile breeding ground for terrorism than Muslim minority communities in other countries. Violent jihad is discordant with the values, outlook and attitudes of the vast majority of Muslim Americans, most of whom reject extremism."

Friedman says "a corrosive mind-set" has developed that "says that Arabs and Muslims are only objects, never responsible for anything in their world, and we are the only subjects, responsible for everything that happens in their world." If he is so concerned about encouraging Arab and Muslim responsibility and building more resistance against the terrorists, then a positive response from him and the New York Times would be to promulgate and support rather than ignore or deny statements from Muslim leaders and the mainstream majority of Muslims who are speaking out against terrorism in the name of Islam. For Friedman and the Times not to recognize this is more than simply irresponsible journalism; it borders on a polemical advocacy that alienates our most valuable partners, mainstream Muslims, and US-Muslim world relations.
 
This post was co-written by John L. Esposito and John O. Voll, both from the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding.

How We Dealt With Pakistan: A Former Envoy’s View - NYT

How We Dealt With Pakistan: A Former Envoy’s View
New York Times, December 20, 2009

To the Editor:
Re “How to Mend Fences With Pakistan,” by Asif Ali Zardari (Op-Ed, Dec. 10):

I was serving as American ambassador in the early 1980s when the United States first worked with Pakistan in supplying support to the anti-Soviet fighters in Afghanistan. President Zardari implies that we exploited Pakistan during this time, but the Pakistanis were wholeheartedly in favor of the program, and their suspicion of Soviet intentions seemed genuine.

American participation in this effort was managed out of the hip pocket of William Casey, the C.I.A. chief, and on-the-ground liaison was handled by our station chief. I was present whenever a clandestine Casey visit reviewed the program with President Muhammad Zia ul-Haq and his intelligence chief.

The American team occasionally raised doubts about help to more extremist elements of the mujahedeen (some of whom are still around), but the answer was usually that they were the most effective.

Also, it is unfair to imply that we supported President Zia’s “iron rule.” Although no democrat, he was far from the Saddam Hussein image of a brutal dictator. Although we tried to dissuade President Zia from pursuit of a nuclear capability, it was clear to me that it would be unavailing as long as India was on the same path.

President Zardari’s statement that “there cannot be permanent regional peace in South Asia without addressing Kashmir” is correct. This seems now to be on the back burner, but it should not be forgotten. I also agree that there has been a sorry history of inconstancy in our relations with Pakistan; this continues to cast a shadow.

Ronald I. Spiers
South Londonderry, Vt., Dec. 16, 2009

Saturday, December 19, 2009

A Profile of Babar Ali by Sabrina Tavernise in New York Times



One Pakistani Institution Places His Faith in Another
By SABRINA TAVERNISE, New York Times, December 18, 2009

LAHORE, Pakistan
SYED BABAR ALI, a businessman and philanthropist, is two decades older than his country, Pakistan. He has witnessed every turn in its tumultuous history. Now, at 83, he feels he has earned the right to give it a bit of advice.

Mr. Ali is an institution in Pakistan. He has started some of the country’s most successful companies. But perhaps his most important contribution has been his role in creating the Lahore University of Management and Science, or L.U.M.S., begun as a business school but now evolved into the approximate equivalent of Harvard University in Pakistan.

Pakistan’s biggest problem, he believes, is one of leadership. A corrosive system of privilege and patronage has eaten away at merit, degrading the fabric of society and making it more difficult for poor people to rise. The growing tendency to see government positions as chances to profit, together with the explosion in the country’s population, has led to a sharp decline in the services that Pakistan’s government offers its people.

“Nobody is bothered about the masses,” Mr. Ali said.

It did not start that way, he says. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Pakistan’s visionary founder, criticized Pakistan’s system of feudal power, in which rich landowners reaped profits from land worked by impoverished peasants, calling the system “vicious” and saying it made the rich “so selfish that it is difficult to reason with them.”

Pakistan was created as a haven for the Muslim minority of the Indian subcontinent, but Mr. Jinnah was adamant that the country should protect all faiths and be a fair society, where the poor, through hard work, could advance themselves.

But 62 years later, many of those ideals seem just as distant. Attempts at dismantling the feudal system were halfhearted, and decades later it is still more or less intact and landowners still form the bulk of the political elite. Other powerful groups that have governed, the military and wealthy industrialists, fared no better.

“You can’t build a country if you’re not thinking beyond your own lifetime,” Mr. Ali said.

Pakistan’s education system has been one of the casualties. Good public education can create opportunity in societies, but in Pakistan it has been underfinanced and ignored, in part because the political class that runs the country does not consume its services. Fewer than 40 percent of children are enrolled in school here, far below the South Asian average of 58 percent. As a result, Pakistan’s literacy rate is a grim 54 percent.

For Mr. Ali, education was the country’s most urgent need, and in 1986 he helped create L.U.M.S. Founded as a business school, it later added a rigorous liberal arts program, one of the strongest in Pakistan. Breaking with the tradition of rote learning, the school encourages its professors, many recruited from abroad, to foster debate in classes, and its graduates tend to be critical thinkers with open minds.

These days the university attracts many offspring of wealthy Pakistanis, who would otherwise have gone to the United States or the United Kingdom for their undergraduate studies.

THAT was the case for Mr. Ali, who was studying at the University of Michigan in 1947, the year Pakistan became a state. He returned to Pakistan in December of that year, ultimately earning his bachelor’s degree from Punjab University in Pakistan, but he kept his ties with the United States. His brother later became Pakistan’s ambassador in Washington, and Mr. Ali’s wedding was held in the embassy there — benefits bestowed by a system he now criticizes. The ceremony was attended by Richard M. Nixon, then the vice president, and was photographed for Life magazine.

Back in Pakistan, he began to set up joint ventures with multinational companies, including Tetra Pak of Sweden, Coca-Cola of the United States, NestlƩ of Switzerland and Mitsubishi of Japan.

Meanwhile, the country was growing, though its politics remained volatile. A charismatic politician, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, became president in 1971, appealing to the masses with the slogan “food, clothing and shelter for the poor,” and nationalizing private companies, including four belonging to Mr. Ali’s family. A flawed leader, Mr. Bhutto was deeply threatening to Pakistan’s elite, and was executed in 1979.

For complete article, click here

Related:
For more details about Babar Ali, click herehere, and here

Reversal of Amnesty Law Roils Pakistani Politics

Reversal of Amnesty Law Roils Pakistani Politics
By: Larisa Epatko, PBS NEwshour, December 17, 2009

A day after Pakistan's Supreme Court overturned an amnesty law for thousands of politicians, including President Asif Ali Zardari, opposition groups renewed pressure on the president to resign.

The National Reconciliation Ordinance -- implemented by former President Pervez Musharraf in 2007 -- was aimed at letting former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto back into the country without facing legal problems when establishing a possible coalition government with Musharraf. But Bhutto was killed while campaigning for office weeks after her return.

Bhutto's husband Zardari took the helm of the Pakistan People's Party and with other politicians, created enough pressure on Musharraf to force him to resign. Zardari later became president, though he continued to be shadowed by allegations of corruption.

Zardari has spent a total of 11 years in jail on charges ranging from corruption to murder, although he was never convicted of any crimes. He is still protected from prosecution under presidential immunity, but Wednesday's court decision allows his opponents to challenge his eligibility as president.

"After the Supreme Court verdict, all the cases against the NRO beneficiaries all over Pakistan have been reopened," Salar Ghazni Khan, spokesman for the National Accountability Bureau, told the Agence France-Presse.

"He should quit this office in his own interest as well as in the interest of his party and the system. He can get any member of his party elected to the post," said Khawaja Mohammad Asif of the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) party. "He will achieve the high moral ground," he said, quoted Reuters.

The NRO had shielded about 8,000 politicians as well, who now face the possibility of renewed charges, including Interior Minister Rehman Malik, Defense Minister Ahmad Mukhtar, and Zardari's chief of staff, Salman Farooki, lawyer and amnesty expert Babar Sattar told The New York Times.

The court ruling comes as the United States is increasing pressure on Pakistan to crack down on Taliban sanctuaries in its tribal areas and in Balochistan, along with conducting its own missile strikes on al-Qaida and Taliban strongholds, while sending billions more in non-military aid to the country.

Hassan Abbas of the Asia Society and Harvard's Kennedy School of Government said if Wednesday's decision leads to confrontations between the executive and judiciary power centers, it could complicate U.S. policies on counter-terrorism and development assistance.

"But at a different level, if this works out well, that would mean Pakistan is maturing as a country where there is a legal system in place and where internal political confrontations or political and legal issues are settled in an amicable manner," he said.

Hear more of Abbas' description of potential impacts here.[audio link from PBS page]

Related:
Editorial: Judicial peevishness - Daily Times
Revelling in Justice - Babar Sattar, The News

Another aspect of the judgment By Asma Jahangir

Another aspect of the judgment By Asma Jahangir
Dawn, 19 Dec, 2009
The NRO case, Dr Mubashar Hasan and others versus the federation, has once again stirred a hornet’s nest.

There is thunderous applause for bringing the accused plunderers and criminals to justice and widespread speculation on the resignation of the president. Very little analysis is being done on the overall effect of the judgment itself.

While, the NRO can never be defended even on the plea of keeping the system intact, the Supreme Court judgment has wider political implications. It may not, in the long run, uproot corruption from Pakistan but will make the apex court highly controversial.

Witch-hunts, rather than the impartial administration of justice, will keep the public amused. The norms of justice will be judged by the level of humiliation meted out to the wrongdoers, rather than strengthening institutions capable of protecting the rights of the people.

There is no doubt that impunity for corruption and violence under the cover of politics and religion has demoralised the people, fragmented society and taken several lives. It needs to be addressed but through consistency, without applying different standards, and by scrupulously respecting the dichotomy of powers within statecraft. In this respect the fine lines of the judgment do not bode well.

The lawyers’ movement and indeed the judiciary itself has often lamented that the theory of separation of powers between the judiciary, the legislature and the executive has not been respected. The NRO judgment has disturbed the equilibrium by creating an imbalance in favour of the judiciary.

The judgment has also sanctified the constitutional provisions of a dictator that placed a sword over the heads of the parliamentarians. Moreover, it has used the principle of 'closed and past transactions' selectively.

It is not easy to comprehend the logic of the Supreme Court that in a previous judgment it went beyond its jurisdiction to grant life to ordinances — including the NRO — protected by Musharraf’s emergency to give an opportunity to parliament to enact them into law.

If the NRO was violative of fundamental rights and illegal ab initio, then whether the parliament enacted it or not it would have eventually been struck down. By affording parliament an opportunity to own up to the NRO appears to be a jeering gesture unbecoming of judicial propriety.

The NRO judgment has struck down the law also for being violative of Article 62(f), which requires a member of parliament to be, 'Sagacious, righteous and non-profligate and honest and ameen'.

Hence, the bench will now judge the moral standing of parliamentarians on these stringent standards set by the notorious Zia regime. This article of the constitution has always been considered undemocratic and a tool to keep members of parliament insecure.

If parliamentarians, who also go through the rigorous test of contesting elections in the public domain, are to be subjected to such exacting moral standards then the scrutiny of judges should be higher still.

After all, judges are selected purely on the value of their integrity and skills. Judges who erred in the past seek understanding on the plea that they subsequently suffered and have made amends. Should others also not be given the same opportunity to turn over a new leaf? How will sagacity and non-profligate behaviour be judged?

Apart from Dr Mubashar Hasan, not even the petitioners of the NRO case are likely to pass the strenuous test laid down in Article 62 of the constitution. This could well beg the question whether it is wise for those in glass houses to be pelting stones.The judgment goes much further. It has assumed a monitoring rather than a supervisory role over NAB cases. In India, the supreme court directly interfered in the Gujarat massacre but it did not make monitoring cells within the superior courts.

Is it the function of the superior courts to sanctify the infamous NAB ordinance, the mechanism itself and to restructure it with people of their liking? It is true that the public has greater trust in the judiciary than in any other institution of the state, but that neither justifies encroachment on the powers of the executive or legislature nor does it assist in keeping an impartial image of the judiciary.

The long-term effects of the judgment could also be counter-productive; perpetrators are often viewed as victims if justice is not applied in an even-handed manner and if administered in undue haste with overwhelming zeal. It is therefore best to let the various intuitions of state take up their respective responsibilities because eventually it is the people who are the final arbiters of everyone’s performance.

The writer is chairperson of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan.

Related:
Pakistan travel bans spark fears of coup - The Australian
Pakistan: Supreme court chaos - Guardian
On the slippery slope again - Irfan Hussain, Dawn

Friday, December 18, 2009

Little Support for Terrorism Among Muslim Americans: Pew Global


Little Support for Terrorism Among Muslim Americans

by Richard Wike, Pew Global Attitudes Project, Greg Smith, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life; December 17, 2009

Recent events such as the Fort Hood shootings and the arrest of five Muslim American students in Pakistan have raised questions about the threat of homegrown terrorism in the United States. However, the Pew Research Center's comprehensive portrait of the Muslim American population suggests it is less likely to be a fertile breeding ground for terrorism than Muslim minority communities in other countries. Violent jihad is discordant with the values, outlook and attitudes of the vast majority of Muslim Americans, most of whom reject extremism.

A Middle Class, Mainstream Minority Group
 
As the title of Pew Research's 2007 study suggests, Muslim Americans are "middle class and mostly mainstream." Compared with their co-religionists in other Western societies, they are relatively well integrated into mainstream society. Unlike Western Europe's Muslim populations, Muslims in the U.S. are generally as well-educated and financially well-off as the general population. Most (72%) say their communities are good or excellent places to live, and most believe in the American dream -- 71% say that in the U.S., most people who want to get ahead can make it if they are willing to work hard.


When asked whether they think of themselves first as an American or as a Muslim, 47% of Muslims in the U.S. think of themselves first in terms of their religion, while 28% identify themselves first as Americans and 18% volunteer that they identify as both. At 46%, French Muslims are about equally as likely as those in the U.S. to think of themselves first as Muslim. However, Muslim Americans are less likely to identify primarily with their religion than are Muslims living in Britain, Germany, and Spain.

Primary identification with religious affiliation is not unique to Muslims. Religious identity is almost equally as high among American Christians, 42% of whom say they think of themselves first as Christian. About half (48%) of Christians in the U.S. identify first as Americans, while 7% volunteer that they identify both with their nationality and their religion.1

Roughly six-in-ten Muslim Americans (62%) say that the quality of life for Muslim women in the U.S. is better than the quality of life for women in most Muslim countries, while 7% say it is worse, and 23% believe it is about the same. French Muslims are equally likely to think that life is better for Muslim women in their country, while in Britain, Germany and Spain, Muslims are somewhat less likely to hold this view.

Many Muslim Americans share the concerns of the broader population about Islamic extremism. Roughly three-quarters (76%) are very or somewhat concerned about the rise of Islamic extremism around the world, compared with 81% of the U.S. general population.2 About six-in-ten Muslim Americans (61%) are also worried about the potential rise of Islamic extremism in the U.S., although this is lower than the level of concern among the general public (78%).

For complete article, click here

Coming up Short on Pakistan: Ahmed Rashid, Hassan Abbas, Maleeha Lodhi, Hasan Askari Rizvi and Shuja Nawaz

Coming up Short on Pakistan
Interviewer: Jayshree Bajoria, Staff Writer, CFR.org : December 14, 2009

President Barack Obama's strategy approving a U.S. troop surge in Afghanistan called success there "inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan." But the U.S.-Pakistan relationship is riddled with problems. U.S. officials are concerned about terrorist safe havens in Pakistan's border areas, and there are reports that the United States may expand its covert airstrikes in the border region. In Pakistan, there are concerns about U.S. plans to withdraw from the region starting in 2011. Five independent Pakistani experts assess Obama's strategy, explore the largely negative response in Pakistan, and discuss the military and political pitfalls of the plan.

For journalist and author Ahmed Rashid and Asia Society fellow Hassan Abbas, Obama's plan fails to address the question of India, Pakistan's biggest security concern. Former Pakistani ambassador to the United States Maleeha Lodhi warns that military escalation--particularly the expansion of aerial strikes in Pakistan--could inflame an already fragile security situation. Hasan-Askari Rizvi, a political analyst, and Shuja Nawaz, director of the South Asia Center at the Atlantic Council in Washington, cite concerns in Islamabad that there is no plan for Pakistan after U.S. forces quit Afghanistan.

Hassan Abbas:
The outcome of the Obama administration's stretched Afghanistan policy review process was anxiously awaited not only in the United States but in Islamabad. Pakistan was complaining for a while that the United States was not sharing its Afghanistan strategy and long-term plan with them. A series of recent visits from high-level U.S. officials to Islamabad were meant to dispel this impression and offer an expanded partnership. In response, Pakistan has cautiously welcomed the new plan, but in reality it is still trying to decipher it fully. Given how the senior U.S. officials of the State and Defense Departments are daily adding new meanings to Obama's words through their "creative interpretations," the Pakistani government cannot be blamed if it appears to be slow in understanding the real intent and scope of the new strategy.

Pakistan is facing a terrifying wave of terrorist attacks in its major cities--targeting ordinary people as well as security personnel and their families. Widening political rifts and an assertive judiciary can change the country's political landscape quite quickly. In this scenario, no one in Pakistani power corridors is expected to respond positively to ultimatums and tough demands. President Obama gauged this situation very well and gave a firm but friendly message to Pakistan, basically saying, "We need you, and success of our policy is dependent on your unflinching cooperation." Long-term U.S. commitment to Pakistan is offered if this works out.

Pakistan, however, was also expecting a deal that includes guarantees that India's security-related role in Afghanistan will be reduced. Unless there is some behind-the- scene understanding on this count, Pakistan may not be able to live up to Obama's expectations. Ideally, India and Pakistan should join hands to stabilize Afghanistan, but someone needs to facilitate that kind of an arrangement. Obama has the stature, potential, and vision to play that role.

Any expanded CIA role in Pakistan (especially in terms of drone strikes in Balochistan and ground assaults in Federally Administered Tribal Areas/North West Frontier Province), as speculated in the media, will be disastrous for the U.S.-Pakistan relations besides creating further rifts between the civil and military leadership in the country.

For views of other experts, click here

Thursday, December 17, 2009

Peshawar Declaration against Terrorism - Deserves Recongnition and Appreciation

PESHAWAR DECLARATION (short version)
AIRRA, Dec 12 and 13 2009

A joint declaration by Civil Society and Anti terrorist political parties and groups was issued as “Peshawar declaration” after deliberations in a two-day conference held in Peshawar on Dec 12 and 13 2009.

1 All organizations attached with Amn Tehrik, AIRRA and political parties, i.e., ANP, PPP, PPP(S), PMAP, National Party, Awami Party Pakistan, PDC, and FRM participated in the conference.

2- It was unanimously agreed that the main and real factor behind the present chaos and instability in the region is the Strategic Depth policy of Pakistan. This is the root cause reason of terrorism in the region. Therefore, this forum strongly demands of the abolition of this policy and accountability of all architects of this policy because the policy has caused far more financial damage to Pakistan than NRO and debts waive-off put together. This policy is also responsible for killing and maiming millions of the innocent people in Pukhtunkwa and other parts of Pakistan.

3. This conference also demands in the strongest possible words that Pakistan must have to stop her policy of interference in Afghanistan and accept Afghanistan as a sovereign independent state in the region. The conference believes that this is in the interests of millions of people of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

4. There are several political parties and groups in Pakistan which do not oppose terrorism unequivocally but are directly or indirectly involved to support terrorists in Pakistan and the region. This conference declares such pro-terrorist parties are the enemies of the Pashtun nation and humanity at large.

5. The conference demands that targeted and immediate operation against all centers and networks of terrorism should be initiated and the blunders of the past should not be repeated.

6. This conference also demands the elimination of all foreign, non-local and local terrorists in FATA (Federally Administrative Tribal Area). Damages should be compensated. A comprehensive developmental package should be commenced according to the wishes and aspirations of the people of FATA.

For complete statement, click here
Related:
Ulema, Mushaikh declare suicide attacks un-Islamic - Dawn

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

New details on Obama's $7.5 billion aid package to Pakistan: Foreign Policy Magazine Exclusive:

Exclusive: New details on Obama's $7.5 billion aid package to Pakistan
Foreign Policy: 12/16/2009

The administration sent Congress its first mandated report on Pakistan strategy yesterday, part of the terms of the Kerry-Lugar Pakistan aid bill. The document isn't public, but a copy was obtained by The Cable, and it shows in new detail how the Obama team is thinking about Pakistan and how it intends to distribute the $7.5 billion in the package.

The report is notable in that it doesn't just focus on problem areas, as some observers had feared, and actually tackles nationwide and longer-term problems beyond the extremists now operating in Pakistan's northwest region. The message of the report is clear: The administration intends to show demonstrable results soon to justify and vindicate the program, while sewing the seeds for longer-term progress all the while.

The biggest chunk of the funds, $3.5 billion spread over five years, will go to "high impact, high visibility infrastructure programs," according to the report, focusing on the energy and agricultural sectors -- "programs that Pakistani citizens can see."

Another $2 billion will be directed to "focused humanitarian and social services," which includes extending the reach of the Pakistani government to areas where extremists now operate. Of that pot, $500 million will be earmarked for immediate post-crisis and humanitarian assistance, with the rest going to improving the quality and access to health and education.

The remaining $2 billion will go to building up the Pakistani government both at the national and local levels. The money will be split between funding actual government entities and improving the security and legal infrastructure overall.

Again, the focus here is on enabling the Pakistan government to control more areas within its borders. For example, the report states that "building Pakistani policing capacity is particularly important in order to sustain the recent security gains achieved by the Pakistani military in the NWFP and FATA."

For complete article, click here
To read the original (leaked) document, click here

NRO Thrown in the Dustbin of History

Pakistan Strikes Down Amnesty for Politicians
By JANE PERLEZ, New York Times, December 17, 2009

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — The Supreme Court struck down a controversial amnesty on Wednesday that had dismissed corruption allegations against thousands of Pakistan’s politicians, including President Asif Ali Zardari, effectively restoring the cases against them.

As president, Mr. Zardari is granted immunity from prosecution under the Constitution. But the Supreme Court order is expected to reverberate across Pakistan’s rocky political landscape and to further weaken the standing of Mr. Zardari, whom the United States has tried to support as a partner in the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Petitions challenging Mr. Zardari’s eligibility as a presidential candidate are expected to follow from the ruling, and about a dozen senior members of Mr. Zardari’s coterie of advisers will most likely face renewed corruption cases, some many years old.

They include the interior minister, Rehman Malik, who is perceived as being particularly close to the Americans; the defense minister, Ahmad Mukhtar; and Mr. Zardari’s chief of staff, Salman Farooki, said Babar Sattar, a lawyer and expert on the amnesty.

Even as the court ruling was awaited Wednesday afternoon, a former law minister, Syed Iftikhar Gillani, said that the government ministers facing renewed corruption charges should resign.

Mr. Zardari and his supporters noted that the cases stem from the 1990s when his wife, Benazir Bhutto, served as prime minister. Mr. Zardari had never been convicted, despite having spent 11 years in jail, proof they say that the cases arrayed against him are political vendettas without substance and aimed at undermining the civilian government’s current agenda, which is pro-American, in the face of a resurgent military.

Farhatullah Babar, the presidential spokesperson, talking to reporters outside the Supreme Court after the ruling, said that Mr. Zardari and the Pakistan Peoples Party respected the court and its verdict. But he stressed the president’s immunity.

“We believe that no criminal case can be instituted or continued in any court against a president or a governor during the term of office,” he said. “So, this doesn’t affect the president of Pakistan. Regarding other matters, the law will take its course and we will see what happens.”

For complete article, click here
 
Related: Varrying Perspectives
SC strikes down NRO, all cases reopen: Justice is served - Daily Times
Full text of SC short order - DT
‘A landmark judgment’ - Dawn
NRO Struck Down by the Supreme Court - All Things Pakistan

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Inside Pakistan Today...


Abracadabra! By Kamran Shafi
Dawn, 15 Dec, 2009

And quite suddenly not only is there a Quetta shura, large as life itself, it has also been ‘significantly damaged’ by Pakistan’s security forces!

Now, all of this must have happened in one day flat, for everyone and Charlie’s Aunt were going blue in the face till three days ago, and for months now, telling us there was no such thing: that it was a figment of the Americans’ imagination and of those the ‘Ghairat Lobby’ calls traitors and friends of the Hindu/Christian/Jewish lobby.

That it was one more brick in the Americans’ case for taking out our bombs through Blackwater. Since when, please, has yours truly been yelling and screaming that we should hear the cries of good people like Mir Hasil Bizenjo, a sitting senator and son of that good man of fond memory, Mir Ghous Bux Bizenjo; Sardar Akhtar Mengal, a former chief minister of Balochistan, and son of Sardar Ataullah Mengal; Habib Jalib Baloch, and other Baloch leaders when they say that there is a Quetta shura of the Afghan Taliban operational in Quetta itself, and up to no good?

All I, for one, got for my pains were rude and threatening emails from the ‘Ghairat (honour) Lobby’ and its paid handmaidens.
Why do we do this to ourselves? Why do we repeatedly shoot ourselves in the foot with an elephant gun every third day, can anyone please tell me? What is it with us, for God’s sake, that makes us portray ourselves as so many jokers and clowns before the rest of the world?

Why do we repeatedly make a spectacle of ourselves so that the world laughs at us, as it would at a country unsure of itself and with no faith in its own (good, mark you) people; a country which would much rather hide behind too-clever-by-half statements, and behind what is known in Punjabi slang as barraks, in English empty, loud threats (as in Punjabi movies: Haa Thaadi) to no one in particular?

Our country is in very deep trouble, my friends, very serious trouble indeed.

For complete article, click here

Related:
Roots of Terrorism - Shahid Javed Burki, Dawn
No more jihadi proxies - Dr Manzur Ejaz, Daily Times
Praying behind imams who endorse terror declared haram - DT
Tribal areas: still a long way to go - Rahimullah Yusufzai, The News
Military Victory in South Waziristan or the Beginning of a Long War? - Imtiaz Ali, Jamestown Foundation

The Confessions of a Groveling Pakistani Native Orientalist: Pervez Hoodbhoy

Is the Check in the Mail?
The Confessions of a Groveling Pakistani Native Orientalist
By Pervez Hoodbhoy; Counterpunch.com; December 14, 2009

Here ye, Counterpunch readers! The victory of Native Orientalists – the ones which the late Edward Said had warned us about – is nearly complete in Pakistan. It has been led by “the minions of Western embassies and Western-financed NGOs” and includes the likes of “Ahmad Rashid, Pervez Hoodbhoy, Najam Sethi, Khaled Ahmad, Irfan Hussain, Husain Haqqani, and P.J.Mir”. Thus declares Mohammad Shahid Alam, a professor of Pakistani origin who teaches at Northeastern University in Boston, Massachussetts. [CounterPunch, 2 Dec 2009]

I ought to be thrilled. Now that I am a certified foreign-funded agent/orientalist/NGO-operator who “manages US-Zionist interests”, a nice fat cheque must surely be in the mail. Thirty six years of teaching and social activism at a public university in Pakistan – where salaries are less than spectacular – means that additions to one’s bank balance are always welcome.

But what did I do to deserve this kindness? My sole interaction with the good professor was in mid-2008, when we shared the speaker’s podium at the International Islamic University in Islamabad. Sadly, it was not terribly pleasant.

But then these are not pleasant times. There is carnage in the streets. Blood flows down the gutters and body parts are strewn in bazaars and markets. Suicide bombers have also targeted mosques, funerals, and hospitals. The internet is filled with videos of Pakistan army soldiers being decapitated, pictures of separated heaps of limbs and heads of Shiites, and women writhing under the blows of heavy whips and chains.

The Taliban, mostly from the mountains of Waziristan and other tribal areas of Pakistan, are not particularly shy to broadcast such achievements. For example, their decapitation movies – culminating in heads being stuck upon poles and paraded around town – are watched for free by kids. On 15 February 2009, the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan announced a ban on all female education and, at last count, 362 schools have been blown up in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

Curiously, these very people also happen to be the heroes of Professor Alam. This self-described “anti-imperialist” and “anti-Zionist” migrant to the heart of imperialism tends to become breathless in his celebration of the brave Taliban “resistance fighters”. At the meeting I mentioned above, he received ecstatic approbation from a leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami, Khurshid Ahmad, who chaired the meeting. This praise is also apparent in what the professor writes:

"Yet, in one corner of Pakistan, resistance comes from the sons and daughters of the mountains, yet uncontaminated by western civilisation, firm in their faith, clear in their conviction, proud of their heritage, and ready to fight for their dignity…. They stood up against the Soviet marauders: and defeated them. Today, they are standing up again, now against the American marauders and their allies."

Pakistan’s Mercenary Elites, by M. Shahid Alam, http://aslama.org/Pol/PolOctober92007.html

Unless the professor is physically infirm, may I suggest that he head for the mountains of Waziristan to help the Pakistani Taliban movement? Or give a helping hand to Al-Qaida, an organization also known for its benevolence? To be sure, he may miss the free lunches the American taxpayer provides to him, but surely there must be satisfaction to be had in strapping a madrassa lad with explosives aimed at a Pakistani bazaar – especially one frequented by unveiled women and brides-to-be.

For complete article, click here

Monday, December 14, 2009

SECRETARY HILLARY CLINTON TETE-A-TETE WITH DR. HASSAN ABBAS


SECRETARY HILLARY CLINTON TETE-A-TETE WITH DR. HASSAN ABBAS: A Conversation about Pakistan and the United States' Relations with the Muslim World
WATANDOST BLOG, December 14, 2009; FP - The AFPAK Channel blog

HASSAN ABBAS: During your recent visit to Pakistan, you won the hearts of many through your courageous outreach - visiting Badshahi mosque, participating in television talk shows, interacting with students at country’s premier educational institution Government College Lahore, and most importantly going to the mausoleum of Mohammad Iqbal, the poet-philosopher who gave the idea of Pakistan. Even those who are critical of the U.S. policy were appreciative of these gestures and it served an important message to those Pakistani politicians also who are not in touch with masses.

What were the signs of hope that you gauged during this visit?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, the resilience and the courage of the Pakistani people. Everywhere I went, I met people who are speaking out and standing up and working hard, and that was extremely moving to me. I also felt like both the civilian government and the military leadership understood that the threat they faced had to be addressed.

And I thought that was very promising, because the terrorist threat to Pakistan is growing and it’s intense and it can only be defeated by the Pakistani people coming together and rejecting it, in the first instance, trying to present a different narrative than the one that the terrorists are putting forth, using military force where they must, but mostly by developing the democratic institutions, by developing the country, clearly demonstrating that Pakistan has no room for those who want to tear down, because the Pakistan people want to build.

HASSAN ABBAS: During the said trip you also visited Police offices in Islamabad to pay tribute to the sacrifices rendered by police officials in the fight against extremism. You are the first and so far the only foreign leader visiting Pakistan who thought of this. It is becoming clear in Pakistan that the country will not be able to win this battle especially in areas like Punjab and Karachi unless its law enforcement and police forces are reformed and upgraded. I must confess that this topic is of special interest to me as before my academic career in the US, I was a police official in Pakistan. Also Pakistan army cannot be expected to fight everywhere in the country. In this context, will the US be supporting police and law enforcement reform agenda in Pakistan?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we would be honored to do so, because I agree with you that the police truly are on the front lines. They often have to deal with the rush of violence that comes in cities or towns and they don’t have the support they need, they don’t often have the equipment that they need. And as you say, I met a number of police officers, both in Lahore and in Islamabad, who are very committed, but under-resourced. And I am more than happy to consider any request from the Pakistani Government to help the police force, because I agree completely that they’re the front line of defense.

HASSAN ABBAS: Thank you very much. I am sure this would make a headline in Pakistan. I have been in touch with many of my former colleagues in the country and during my research on the subject, I found that Pakistan police is one of the very few organizations in the country where there is an internal institutional effort for reform. I hope your message of support in this sphere will be welcomed and appreciated in Pakistan.

My next question is about U.S. relations with the Muslim world. This U.S. administration has certainly set a new tone of dialogue, reconciliation and respect in this realm. President Obama’s speeches in Turkey and Cairo were absolutely great and gave the right message to the Muslim audiences around the world. What is the follow-up on that? What are the next stages of that relationship?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, it’s a great question because we’ve been working very hard on follow-up, and I recently attended a conference in Marrakesh, Morocco where we announced a number of follow-up actions. The one that was just embraced wholeheartedly was the idea of science envoys. I said at the time that much of the science that we take for granted today was really discovered and refined in prior times by Islamic scholars and scientists. And from astronomy to algebra, there’s so much that we owe to the Muslim world, and there needs now to be a renewed emphasis on science, which is not incompatible with religion, and therefore, we’re going to be sending Nobel science prize winners, former heads of the National Academy of Sciences, and so many others to visit universities and governments to try to rekindle that with our help.

We’re also investing in more English language education programs. We’re investing in more business programs, entrepreneurship programs. We’re going to start a series of interfaith dialogues. There will be a lot of follow-up to Cairo because we have had such demand and we’re going to try to meet it.

HASSAN ABBAS: You are known for your cordial relationship with Pakistani diaspora in the U.S. There is a large Muslim diaspora in the U.S. which I believe can act as a bridge between the U.S. and the Muslim world. Which are the other Muslim diaspora groups in the U.S. that you feel encouraged about and which can play a positive role?

SECRETARY CLINTON: That’s a great question. Well, I do believe that the Palestinian diaspora has been galvanized around economic development. A number of my Palestinian American friends are making investments in the West Bank because the security has improved so much, thanks to the good work of President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad. So there is a rather dramatic increase in the economic activity in the West Bank which many American Palestinians are investing in.

There are a number of Indian Muslims who are very involved in interfaith and other outreach activities. I do a lot of work with the Bangladeshi community, which is not as involved as the Pakistani community has been in academia or in professional activity, but is really at the grassroots in a lot of countries – or a lot of cities in our country. So I think those are some examples of what we’re working on.

HASSAN ABBAS: My last question is about India-Pakistan relations. The United States has said many times that it would like to facilitate better India-Pakistan relations and I think there’s no doubt about the sincerity of that purpose. But of course, U.S. has its limitations in terms of how much it can do to bring both parties on the table and perhaps India is not very comfortable with the idea of third party mediation because of its stature, and reasons of history. However, President Obama made an interesting statement on the subject during his recent visit to China. European Union also is interested in playing a role in this arena.

Do you think there might be some possibility in future that EU, China, and United States altogether can take an initiative to bring Pakistan and India together and help them resolve their differences. We continuously hear that peace in the Af-Pak region is considered the most critical issue for the global security concerns. A global approach hence can be relevant. Do you think such an international effort can work?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I think it could be a guarantor or it could be a positive force for implementation. But I think that the impetus must come from the two countries themselves. And at some point, both countries might say we’ve gotten as far as we can get; therefore we need some support, we need some new energy. But we have to start with the two countries and with their commitment to pursuing this dialogue first.

For Picture: Thanks to Riz Khan of Aljazeera

COMMENTARY: I was pleasantly surprised when out of the blue I received a message from the State Department inviting me to interview Secretary Clinton for my blog. I was also provided the opportunity to sit in during the interviews she gave to Riz Khan of Aljazeera and a Pakistani news channel. Riz Khan’s unending series of jokes were hilarious that kept us in good spirits while we all waited for the Secretary in a small and cozy room at the State Department. His fun performance was as spectacular as it was dramatic. However, I only came to know the next day that he was testing his jokes on us – as I heard him repeat all those jokes in his role as the master of ceremony in the inaugural event of the American Pakistan Foundation (APF) in New York. Secretary Clinton was the chief guest at the event and she made a splendid speech warming the hearts of a largely Pakistani-American audience.

Hilary Clinton’s passion for Pakistan was palpable during the conversations I witnessed. She also referred to a special feeling that President Obama has for Pakistan and earnestly hoped that the U.S. – Pakistan relations would benefit from this supporting factor. She admired the way “Pakistan has pulled together to go after those elements of the Taliban that are directly threatening them.” What she left unsaid in this regard also says a lot about how U.S. is viewing the situation in Pakistan-Afghanistan border region.

Her views about U.S. role in Afghanistan and globally were also insightful. There is a growing perception that U.S. is giving up the state-building goal in Afghanistan while focusing entirely on military ‘surge’. She dispelled this impression effectively when in response to a question from Riz Khan she argued that, “military effort is essential to providing security, but long-term stability, peace and prosperity can only come through political reconciliation, through development, through the enhancement of the capacity of Afghan institutions, expanding the education system – the kind of nuts and bolts that really build and sustain society” and emphasized that she is working hard for these objective. The people of Afghanistan deserve this and U.S. owe it to them but the fact remains that U.S. cannot manage this alone. She acknowledged this limitation while responding to a different question: “there’s not a problem in the world that the United States can solve alone, but I would quickly add there is not a problem in the world that can be solved without the United States.” While the second part of this notion is a debatable proposition, it is also surprising why U.S. has not involved regional players to stabilize Afghanistan. India, Iran, Turkey, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and China besides Pakistan, all have stakes in Afghanistan and without a regional settlement U.S. will find it very difficult to turn the tables on growing insurgency in Afghanistan. Accommodating legitimate interests of Afghanistan’s neighbors will help.

Hillary Clinton’s heartfelt concern for women rights in the Muslim world and highlighting a dire need for interfaith dialogue and harmony impressed me greatly. President Obama is lucky to have her on his side at a time when U.S. is aspiring to rebuild its image globally and looking for partners to ‘give peace a chance’. Her vision and guidance will surely prove to be a valuable asset for this administration.

Hassan Abbas is a Bernard Schwartz fellow at the Asia Society in New York and a senior advisor at the Belfer Centre, Harvard Kennedy School. The interview was conducted on December 10, 2009 in Washington DC. The text of questions is slightly edited for clarity. For the State Department transcript click here

Related Coverage:
Hillary offers help for Pakistan police force - The News
Hillary urges talks on Kashmir - Dawn
Clinton offers US help to Pakistani police - James Smith, Boston Globe
Also carried by
Institute for Social Policy and UnderstandingAll Things Pakistan; and Asia Society

Sunday, December 13, 2009

The New York Times - Getting Pakistan Wrong

The New York Times - Getting Pakistan Wrong
Wajiha Ahmed, Huffington Post, December 11, 2009

In her December 5, 2009 New York Times article, reporter Sabrina Tavernise looks to history to explain why many Pakistanis are so critical of America. Unfortunately, Tavernise looks to the wrong history, focusing on Pakistan's trauma after the partition with India. Instead, she should have focused on US support for successive Pakistani military dictatorships.


No doubt, as Tavernise highlights, there are conspiracy theorists in Pakistan, and criticizing America can be a powerful tool to elicit populist support. However, Tavernise's analysis ignores very real grievances regarding American interference in the country.

It is worth noting that the last US-supported military dictator, General Musharraf, left the stage less than a year and a half ago. He allowed the Taliban to fester, ignored burgeoning economic problems, and institutionalized the military's illegal hold over governance. It is easy to forget that Musharraf's reign was the third period of U.S.-supported dictatorship in Pakistani history.

The point is that while some Pakistanis might subscribe to outrageous theories, it is disingenuous to paint such a simplistic picture of the vast majority of Pakistanis. Tavernise's report that Pakistan's media outlets "trumpet" conspiracy theories is incomplete. Even a quick skim of major Pakistani television networks and newspapers reveals a robust national debate.

In this debate, many Pakistani commentators place blame squarely on the Pakistani government for failing to protect its citizens. These commentators also blame Pakistan's military and intelligence agencies for past support of militant organizations.

Tavernise's article isn't the only example of problematic Pakistan analysis at the New York Times. There is also Scott Shane's December 4, 2009 piece, "C.I.A. to Expand Use of Drones in Pakistan." Shane's piece deprives American readers of an opportunity to truly evaluate U.S. drone missile attacks.

For complete article, click here

Friday, December 11, 2009

A requiem for freedom By Ayesha Siddiqa

A requiem for freedom By Ayesha Siddiqa
Dawn, 11 Dec, 2009
 
One is often asked whether or not Pakistan will survive the current crisis. You tell them that, yes, Pakistan will survive. After all, territories don’t grow feet to walk away with.


There is a sigh of relief and those asking the question happily walk away despite one’s attempts to draw their attention to the fact that there is something fundamentally changed about Pakistan.

In fact, there are some seriously sad things happening around us that do not grab people’s attention because all they are bothered about is the survival of the physical. Saving the soul is not an idea that catches the public’s attention.

I wonder how many people notice the rapidly changing world around them. Suicide attacks and bomb blasts add to the din created by those who are busy establishing a new brand of nationalism which has no shade of tolerance, pluralism or multi-polarity. There are young bloggers who believe that all forms of dissent especially those that challenge their version of nationalism must be silenced. One would not be surprised if they use uncivil methods to achieve their objective.

For complete articles, click here