Tuesday, November 30, 2010

What Wikileaks say about Pakistan and Saudi Arabia - II

Pakistan-Saudi Relations Appear Strained in Leaked Cables
Farhan Bokhari, CBS News, Nov 29, 2010

Pakistan's ties with Saudi Arabia appeared to be under fresh strain on Monday in the wake of revelations from classified documents released by WikiLeaks, which quoted Saudi Arabian King Abdullah calling Pakistan's president Asif Ali Zardari "the greatest obstacle" to the country's progress.

"When the head is rotten, it affects the whole body," Abdullah said of Zardari in one of the documents.

While Pakistani officials publicly condemned the claim as an attempt to undermine the traditionally close ties between the two countries, western and Arab diplomats warned that the revelations may have finally exposed genuine underlying tensions.

Both are prominent Islamic states: Saudi Arabia is the world's largest oil producer and the birthplace of Islam while Pakistan has the distinction of being the world's only Muslim country armed with nuclear weapons.

Pakistan's relations with Saudi Arabia predate its birth in 1947, when the country was carved out as an independent state from British colonial India. And many Pakistanis - like Muslims in all countries - feel tied to Saudi Arabia because of the traditional Islamic pilgrimage to the holy city of Mecca.

For complete article, click here

Related:
WikiLeaks: No chance for IPI pipeline - UPI: American diplomats in the latest document dump by the Internet watchdog WikiLeaks said it was unlikely that Iran would build a gas pipeline to Pakistan....

Pakistan the ‘most bullied US ally’ - Dawn: ... a top Pakistani military official claimed the country “has transited from the ‘most sanctioned ally’ to the ‘most bullied ally’” of the US.

Anne Patterson: WikiLeaks Outs A Truth-Teller - Huffington Post: Anne Patterson....pleads that Washington's whole policy is counterproductive: it "risks destabilising the Pakistani state, alienating both the civilian government and the military leadership, and provoking a broader governance crisis without finally achieving the goal".

The must-have weapons and the countries that want them: CNN - ...the Israelis complained about the sale to Jordan of air-to-air missiles that could pose a threat to Israeli warplanes. The Americans assured the Israelis that new missiles had no greater capabilities than the older version. ...  

Robert Fisk: Now we know. America really doesn't care about injustice in the Middle East: Independent - Tears of laughter, I have to admit, began to run down my face when I read the po-faced US diplomatic report from Bahrain that King Hamad – or "His Supreme Highness King Hamad" as he insists on being called, in his Sunni dictatorship with a Shia majority...

World Leaders, Officials Watch WikiLeaks with Curiosity, Concern: VOA - Mr. Zardari's spokesman accused WikiLeaks of damaging Pakistan's relations with Saudi Arabia, and said President Zardari considers King Abdullah as his elder brother...

Monday, November 29, 2010

'Afghan peace solution' by Arnaud Borchgrave - Very Insightful

Taliban militants hand over weapons in peace-reconciliation program in Afghanistan
Commentary: Afghan peace solution
UPI, Oct. 25, 2010
By ARNAUD DE BORCHGRAVE, UPI Editor at Large
 
WASHINGTON, Oct. 25 (UPI) -- America's 17 intelligence agencies have spent more than half a trillion dollars -- more than $500,000,000,000 -- since 9/11, most of it on the global war on terror, and the Obama administration still believes that if Taliban supremo Mullah Mohammad Omar Akhund were to return to power in Kabul, al-Qaida would be back too -- "in a heartbeat." And this despite much evidence to the contrary.

Recent weeks have produced a number of reports about "negotiations" between some Taliban elements and the Kabul government as well as with U.S. and NATO intermediaries. There were contacts but no negotiations and none of the Taliban participants was authorized to speak on behalf of the reclusive and secretive, Mullah Omar, in hiding since the U.S. invasion collapsed his regime in October 2001.

Judging from Special Envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke's appearance on Fareed Zakaria's "GPS" program this past Sunday, there is still little knowledge of what has been in the public domain since June 14, 2001.

UPI consultant Ammar Turabi, a Pakistani-born American, and this reporter, sat cross-legged on the carpeted mud floor of Omar's Spartan adobe house on the west end of Kandahar and listened to the reclusive war leader's list of complaints about Osama bin Laden.

For complete article, click here

What Wikileaks means for the Muslim World?: Saudi Arabia Exposed, Turkey Ascendent, Iran under seige...

WikiLeaks Document Dump Exposes Muslim Governments' Hypocrisy
Muqtedar Khan, Huffington Post, Nov 28, 2010

WikiLeaks is in the process of dramatically transforming foreign affairs and international relations. It is revealing over 250,000 cables from US embassies worldwide to the State department and other classified documents. The consequences of this 'mega-scoop' will be very far reaching indeed.

For the United States the issues are both strategic as well as ethical. On a strategic level the leaks -- which expose frank assessment of foreign leaders by senior American officials and American thinking on many critical issues -- will complicate Obama administration's ability to deal with its allies and may increase global cynicism about US intentions.

Many of the allies will be angry and distrustful. They will also be afraid of being candid in the future. All players in the future will be trying to second-guess each other, unwilling to articulate what their real intentions and goals are. After all, nobody wishes to read a summary of their confidential dialogue with Americans in the New York Times. The revelations may also reverse many of the hard earned diplomatic gains made by the State department over the years in acquiring support for US policies from many nations.

On the ethical level, the key question is: What will the American public do with the knowledge that the US government has allies who are known criminals; that it says one thing in public and pursues another policy in reality; that bullying seems to be a standard operating procedure and intervening in every affair seems to be a natural instinct of US foreign policy. Will the Senate, or the House, call for hearings to hold the administration accountable? Will there be a public outcry?

The revelations so far about the Muslim world are eye opening. Muslims, even some American Muslims have raised criticism of American foreign policy to the level of religious ritual. Often Muslim radicalism and alienation is explained as a direct consequence of US foreign policy alone (the point being that US foreign policy is anti-Islam and subversive to Muslim nations). Therefore Muslim anger and radicalism against the U.S. while often expressed in unjustifiable ways is still understandable.

For complete article, click here

Related:
WikiLeaks exposé: Israel tried to coordinate Gaza war with Abbas - Haaretz

Mideast leaders: Destroy Iran's nuclear facilities - The Seattle Times
Israel's Five Pillar Strategy...: Guardian
Turkey makes up second biggest share: Zaman
Britain fears Islamic fury over WikiLeaks: Report - The Economic Times
Wikileaks by Cameron Munter (US ambassador to Pakistan) -  The News

Sunday, November 28, 2010

What Wikileaks say about Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Qatar - I


(Updates - at the end of blog post)

1. Excerpts from New York Times about Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Qatar:

A dangerous standoff with Pakistan over nuclear fuel: Since 2007, the United States has mounted a highly secret effort, so far unsuccessful, to remove from a Pakistani research reactor highly enriched uranium that American officials fear could be diverted for use in an illicit nuclear device. In May 2009, Ambassador Anne W. Patterson reported that Pakistan was refusing to schedule a visit by American technical experts because, as a Pakistani official said, “if the local media got word of the fuel removal, ‘they certainly would portray it as the United States taking Pakistan’s nuclear weapons,’ he argued.”
.....
The cables show that nearly a decade after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the dark shadow of terrorism still dominates the United States’ relations with the world. They depict the Obama administration struggling to sort out which Pakistanis are trustworthy partners against Al Qaeda, adding Australians who have disappeared in the Middle East to terrorist watch lists, and assessing whether a lurking rickshaw driver in Lahore, Pakistan, was awaiting fares or conducting surveillance of the road to the American Consulate.
........
Suspicions of corruption in the Afghan government: When Afghanistan’s vice president visited the United Arab Emirates last year, local authorities working with the Drug Enforcement Administration discovered that he was carrying $52 million in cash. With wry understatement, a cable from the American Embassy in Kabul called the money “a significant amount” that the official, Ahmed Zia Massoud, “was ultimately allowed to keep without revealing the money’s origin or destination.” (Mr. Massoud denies taking any money out of Afghanistan.)
.......
Mixed records against terrorism: Saudi donors remain the chief financiers of Sunni militant groups like Al Qaeda, and the tiny Persian Gulf state of Qatar, a generous host to the American military for years, was the “worst in the region” in counterterrorism efforts, according to a State Department cable last December. Qatar’s security service was “hesitant to act against known terrorists out of concern for appearing to be aligned with the U.S. and provoking reprisals,” the cable said.

The cables also disclose frank comments behind closed doors. Dispatches from early this year, for instance, quote the aging monarch of Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah, as speaking scathingly about the leaders of Iraq and Pakistan.

Speaking to another Iraqi official about Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, King Abdullah said, “You and Iraq are in my heart, but that man is not.” The king called President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan the greatest obstacle to that country’s progress. “When the head is rotten,” he said, “it affects the whole body.”

For complete story click "Cables Obtained by WikiLeaks Shine Light Into Secret Diplomatic Channels" by By Scott Shane and Andrew W. Lehren,  New York Times - November 28, 2010

2. Excerpts from New York Times about Iran - The Saudi-Iran Rivalry

There was little surprising in Mr. Barak’s implicit threat that Israel might attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. As a pressure tactic, Israeli officials have been setting such deadlines, and extending them, for years. But six months later it was an Arab leader, the king of Bahrain, who provides the base for the American Fifth Fleet, telling the Americans that the Iranian nuclear program “must be stopped,” according to another cable. “The danger of letting it go on is greater than the danger of stopping it,” he said.

His plea was shared by many of America’s Arab allies, including the powerful King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who according to another cable repeatedly implored Washington to “cut off the head of the snake” while there was still time.
.....
There is also an American-inspired plan to get the Saudis to offer China a steady oil supply, to wean it from energy dependence on Iran. The Saudis agreed, and insisted on ironclad commitments from Beijing to join in sanctions against Tehran.

At the same time, the cables reveal how Iran’s ascent has unified Israel and many longtime Arab adversaries — notably the Saudis — in a common cause. Publicly, these Arab states held their tongues, for fear of a domestic uproar and the retributions of a powerful neighbor. Privately, they clamored for strong action — by someone else.

If they seemed obsessed with Iran, though, they also seemed deeply conflicted about how to deal with it — with diplomacy, covert action or force. In one typical cable, a senior Omani military officer is described as unable to decide what is worse: “a strike against Iran’s nuclear capability and the resulting turmoil it would cause in the Gulf, or inaction and having to live with a nuclear-capable Iran.”
.......
In December 2005, the Saudi king expressed his anger that the Bush administration had ignored his advice against going to war. According to a cable from the American Embassy in Riyadh, the king argued “that whereas in the past the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Saddam Hussein had agreed on the need to contain Iran, U.S. policy had now given Iraq to Iran as a ‘gift on a golden platter.’ ”
.......
..... A later cable noted simply, “Saudi Arabia has told the Chinese that it is willing to effectively trade a guaranteed oil supply in return for Chinese pressure on Iran not to develop nuclear weapons.”

For complete article, "Around the World Distree over Iran" by David E. Sanger, James glanz and Jo Becker, New York Times, Nov 28, 2010

3. Excepts from Der Spiegel on Egypt:

....the Americans are forced to endure the endless tirades of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarek, who claims to have always known that the Iraq war was the "biggest mistake ever committed" and who advised the Americans to "forget about democracy in Iraq." Once the US forces depart, Mubarak said, the best way to ensure a peaceful transition is for there to be a military coup. They are statements that add insult to injury.

On the whole, the cables from the Middle East expose the superpower's weaknesses. Washington has always viewed it as vital to its survival to secure its share of energy reserves, but the world power is often quickly reduced to becoming a plaything of diverse interests. And it is drawn into the animosities between Arabs and Israelis, Shiites and Sunnis, between Islamists and secularists, between despots and kings. Often enough, the lesson of the documents that have now been obtained, is that the Arab leaders use their friends in Washington to expand their own positions of power.
For complete article, click "A Superpower's View of the World", Speigel Online, Nov 28, 2010

Related From Guardian, UK:
Saudi Arabia urges US attack on Iran to stop nuclear programme - Guardian
US embassy cables leak sparks global diplomacy crisis - Guardian
US embassy cables: Egypt spy chief promises pressure on Hamas - Guardian
Israel seeks to block US planes for Saudi - Guardian
WikiLeaks cables: Bin Laden's PR is better than ours, Americans complained - Guardian
US diplomats spied on UN leadership - Guardian
US steps up pressure on Turkey over Iran - Guardian
Israel's Assessment about Pakistan, Iran and Turkey - Guardian

Related from other interesting sources:
‘Chipped’ Detainees, Iran Mega-Missiles And More in Latest WikiLeaks - Wired
WikiLeaks 'under cyber attack' - Telegraph
Pakistan: Now or Never? - Reuters
Wikileaks Gates: No Iranian Help to Taliban - Informed Comment
Turkey did not invite India for meet on Afghanistan to appease Pak: The Hindu
Wikileaks Documents:
US-Saudi Relations - King Abdullah's Iranphobia
Insider's View about Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan

Pakistan: Blasphemous distortion of Islamic law

Blasphemous distortion of Islamic law
The News, November 28, 2010
S Iftikhar Murshed

The death sentence handed down on Aasia Bibi over allegations of blasphemy has brought shame to Pakistan and been roundly condemned worldwide. It has also distorted the teachings of Islam. Punjab governor Salmaan Taseer, despite his murky track record in politics, did the right thing for once by visiting the hapless woman and holding out the promise of a presidential pardon. This prompted obscurantist clerics to stage demonstrations in several cities of the province. On Nov 24 the Alami Jamaat-e-Ahl-e-Sunnat issued a fatwa (decree) which declared him an apostate.

Blasphemy laws have existed in British India since 1860. In 1927, Article 295 was added to the Penal Code under which “deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religious belief” became a culpable offence. The law was non-discriminatory and conviction under its provisions depended exclusively on conclusive evidence, as a consequence of which there were only ten blasphemy cases in the 58 years between 1927 and 1985. Since that year the number of blasphemy cases has soared to more than 4,000.

In 1982, Gen Ziaul Haq introduced Section 295-B in the Penal Code of Pakistan, under which “defiling the Holy Quran” became punishable by life imprisonment. In 1986, Section 295-C was added, mandating capital punishment for “use of derogatory remarks in respect of the Holy Prophet”. Even the law minister at the time did not support the bill when it was introduced in the National Assembly “on the ground that the Quran did not prescribe a penalty for this offence”.

The enactment of Ziaul Haq’s blasphemy laws unleashed a reign of terror in which the impoverished Christian community suffered the most. The violence will continue till these draconian laws are repealed. This is unlikely, however, because the present law minister, Babar Awan, was quoted by the print media on Nov 26 as saying that “no one can change the blasphemy laws.” Thus, so-called liberal politicians have been just as responsible as semi-educated clerics for the distortion of the laws of Islam in pursuit of their respective political agendas.

For complete article, click here

Related:
Our intolerant ways - By Babar Sattar, The News
Aasia Bibi and the Blasphemy Law - Huma Imtiaz, Jinnah Institute
The Christian woman facing death over a work squabble - Rob Crilly, Telegraph
Pakistani-Americans, HR groups seek blasphemy laws review - Dawn

Friday, November 26, 2010

Islam and the West: Reaching Intercultural Understanding - Madeleine Albright

Islam and the West: Reaching Intercultural Understanding
Madeleine Albright, Huffington Post, Nov 11, 2010

Last month, these nineteen former foreign ministers met in Madrid to conduct a far-reaching assessment of the relationship between the West and the "Muslim World." This post reflects their conclusions.

The signatories below and I welcome the many initiatives that are underway among governments, in civil society, and within the religious community to expand areas of cooperation between the Muslim community and other actors. President Obama's trip to Indonesia this week is an important example of the high-level attention that must be given to these relationships. Despite such efforts to enhance communications, serious obstacles remain. In almost every part of the globe, there continue to be people who have chosen -- whether out of ignorance, fear, or ill will -- to sow conflict where reconciliation is needed. It is up to responsible voices on all sides to make the case for constructive action based on shared interests and values. This is a duty that extends beyond governments alone, to include decision makers and other people of influence from all sectors of society. The standard we seek to achieve is not mere tolerance, but a widespread attitude of genuine mutual respect.

As former foreign ministers, we have a particular interest in solving practical problems. We favor policies and initiatives that will improve the environment for cooperation across the boundaries of nation and creed. We recognize, of course, that the present state of relations between Muslims and the West must be viewed within an historical context and that the terms "Muslim" and "the West" refer to entities that are resistant to easy generalization. We also acknowledge that the prospects for success will be profoundly affected by the future direction of events in such areas of conflict as Afghanistan and Pakistan, and by progress in the Middle East peace process. We believe, however, that certain broad steps can and should be taken to strengthen the foundation for intercultural understanding.

First, we must be willing to conduct an honest self-examination that does not gloss over differences or duck hard issues. Superficial courtesy is easy, but the path to agreement on the application of moral principles is arduous. A dialogue that matters will examine, among other topics, the legacy of imperialism, women's rights, freedom of worship, the criteria for just war, educational standards, and the appropriate relationship between religious and civil law.

Second, we must communicate better by eliminating from our vocabulary terms that recall past stereotypes or that reflect ignorance or disrespect. The idea that the West has singled out Islam as an enemy is nonsense; so is the allegation that Islam provides a rationale for terrorism. On whatever side, the actions of a few cannot be used to condemn the many.

Third, we must emphasize the firm connection that exists between democratic and Islamic values while also heeding the lesson of Iraq, which is that democracy must find its roots internally. Neither Islam nor any other religious faith should be used to justify despotism or to validate the suppression of civil society.

Fourth, we must establish common ground on questions of immigration and integration in all of our countries and others. Leaders in and outside of government must search for answers that take into account economic and demographic realities, while discouraging reactions based on prejudice or fear. Here, as elsewhere, a balance between rights and responsibilities must be maintained.

Finally, we should continue to expand business, scientific, academic, cultural and religious contacts that provide a social bridge connecting the Muslim world to non-Muslims in the West.

There exists no single instrument for transforming relations. There are, however, a number of tools that can be used by political, religious, business and academic leaders to generate progress. These include official policies, educational initiatives, and public-private partnerships of all types that reinforce certain basic precepts, such as:

•The common moral foundation of the three Abrahamic faiths;
•Respect for human rights based on the legal equality of persons and the inherent dignity and value of every human being;
•A rigorous commitment to truth - in official pronouncements, in the media, in the classroom, and on the Internet;
•Support for broad-based economic development so that young people everywhere are able to look to the future with hope; and
•An honest effort to view the world - historically and contemporaneously - through the eyes of the "other."

For complete article, click here

Thursday, November 25, 2010

Intelligence Squared Debate: Racial and Religious Profiling at US Airports

"Don't forget that within the United States and all around the world, there are people among the Muslims, majority, mainstream, who are fighting extremists. Don't just lump all of them together by just your one policy choice. Don't isolate them. Don't lose the hearts and minds. So yes, do profiling, but don't lump everyone together. That will be something exactly opposite to all what this great country stands for." -- Hassan Abbas


Nov 22 Debate: For complete transcript, click here


Related:

Sunday, November 21, 2010

Drone Strikes in North Waziristan: Pakistan may refuse to cooperate

Pak may say 'NO' to drone hits in NWA
Thu, Nov 25, 2010, The Nation/Asia News Network

ISLAMABAD - In a major policy shift, Pakistan is likely to say 'NO' to the US over its CIA-operated drone strikes in North Waziristan Agency, thus bringing an end to the policy of former military ruler General (Retd) Pervez Musharraf.

Well-placed sources told The Nation on Wednesday that Islamabad has decided in principle to convey Washington that it does not desire unabated drone strikes, and would rather like to tackle terrorism related challenges on its own.

When approached, the US Embassy spokesman expressed his ignorance about these developments. However, the government and military sources were of the firm opinion that the US drone strikes had aggravated the problem.

"The US might have achieved tactical gains through the drone strikes, but they too had caused enormous damage to Pakistan's efforts towards fighting the terrorism", military chief spokesperson Major General Ather Abbas told The Nation on Wednesday.

He was of the view that the Pakistan Army does not support US drone strikes, and has always sought to secure the US drone technology to effectively tackle the challenge without any collateral damage.

However, these efforts, he said, had not borne fruits so far.

In a related development, the National Assembly Standing Committee on Defense headed by PPP MNA Azra Afzal Wednesday took serious view of the media reports that US was seeking to expand drone attacks in Quetta.

The committee, which met at the Parliament House, sought a candid clarification from the Interior, Foreign and Defence Ministries by Dec 7. The committee also directed for a special briefing on ISI role in the war on terror.

For complete article, click here
Related:
Dirty dancing to the drone hum - Dr Mohammad Taqi, DT
Drone attacks: Unlawful killings, double standards - Express Tribune

Friday, November 19, 2010

Pakistan Bombshell or America Bombshell?

Pakistan Bombshell
Arnaud de Borchgrave, Atlantic Council, November 17, 2010

Some can't wait to get out of Afghanistan and some can't wait to see us leave. NATO allies now want out ASAP. Some have already left (Dutch troops), others are preparing to leave (Canadians) and soon the allied fighting force will be reduced to 100,000 Americans and 9,000 Brits.

And Afghan President Hamid Karzai now wants the United States to reduce its military footprint countrywide -- just as U.S. commander Army Gen. David H. Petraeus seeks to widen it -- and begin negotiations with Taliban.

When NATO allies volunteered military units to assist the United States in rooting out al-Qaida's infrastructure in Afghanistan after 9/11, they figured they'd be home in a few months. Had their governments known that their troops would be in Afghanistan for a decade, they would have stayed home.

Most troublesome for U.S. and NATO allies is that al-Qaida, the original reason for dispatching troops "out of area," fled Afghanistan for Pakistan in mid-December 2001.

The prestigious Council on Foreign Relations' 25 experts-strong, 71-page task force report on the crisis, says, given "the complex political currents of Pakistan and its border regions … it is not clear U.S. interests warrant" the costly war, "nor is it clear that the effort will succeed."

And if U.S. President Barack Obama's December strategic review "shows progress is not being made, the U.S. should move quickly to recalculate its military presence in Afghanistan."

The same week CFR published its gloomy assessment of the Afghan war, one of Pakistan's most influential journalists, the editor of a major newspaper, made the "off the record" -- which now means go ahead and use it but keep my name out of it -- rounds in Washington to deliver a stunning indictment of all the players.

Samples:

-- All four wars between India and Pakistan (1947, 1965, 1971 and 1999) were provoked by Pakistan.

-- There is no Indian threat to Pakistan, except for what is manufactured by Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence agency.

-- Washington says Pakistan must do more to flesh out insurgent safe havens in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. As long as the Taliban were the illegitimate children of ISI that was possible. But Taliban are now the enemies of Pakistan, irrespective of whether they are Pakistani Taliban or Afghan Taliban. Assets have become liabilities. We've lost 3,000 Pakistani military KIA. All the jihadis terrorist organizations were created by Pakistan -- and they have now turned against us.

-- Pakistan has a big stake in Afghanistan. And America's own exit strategy is entirely dependent on Pakistan. Our army has a chokehold on your supply lines through Pakistan. And Pakistan wants to be the U.S. proxy in Afghanistan. ISI wants to make sure Pakistan doesn't become a liability in Afghanistan.

-- The United States should cut its losses in Afghanistan as rapidly as possible.

-- There is no chance whatsoever for the United States and its NATO and other allies to prevail in Afghanistan. No big military successes are possible. All U.S. targets are unrealistic. You cannot prevail on the ground. ISI won't abandon Taliban. And if Taliban doesn't have a major stake in negotiations with the United States, these will be sabotaged by Pakistan.

-- Time is running out for Petraeus -- for the United States and for us (Pakistan). Our system is falling apart. The sooner the United States and Pakistan are on the same page, the better it will be for both of us.

-- The Kerry-Lugar aid bill ($1.5 billion a year over five years) is too little too late. Only half of U.S. pledges are actually coming in. A huge slice of this bill goes to administration and local bureaucracy. Some $25 million was earmarked for Sesame Street -- for Pakistanis! U.S. aid isn't achieving any of its objectives. Flood relief also caused havoc. 400 bridges were washed away.

-- The attacks against U.S./NATO supply lines through Pakistan, which have included the torching of scores of tanker trucks, weren't the work of Taliban guerrillas; they were all the work of ISI made to look like Taliban. The objective was to demonstrate the extent to which the United States is dependent on Pakistani security.

-- U.S. drone strikes? The Pakistani line about "huge provocations" and more civilians killed than Taliban and their partners is pure army invention. Drones play a limited role and should continue.

-- One can't begin to understand the Pakistani crisis until one absorbs the terrifying fact that Pakistan's 180 million population includes 80 million children under 18 -- almost half the population. And only 40 percent of Pakistani children are in school. (Reminder: Pakistan is also one of the world's eight nuclear powers, counting North Korea).

-- India and Pakistan must bury the Kashmir feud. The reason it continues in an off-and-on mode is because that's what the Pakistani army wants. The army's corporate interests are at stake. If the crisis is resolved, the army loses its narrative for dominating the economy.

-- Pakistan is a work in progress. The war against extremism is our war, too. The stake holders are changing. Urban Pakistan isn't interested in al-Qaida's global caliphate narrative.

For complete article, click here

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Counterinsurgency in Pakistan: The Inside View - At Spy Museum in DC - Nov 18 - 6:30 pm


Counterinsurgency in Pakistan

Counterinsurgency in Pakistan: The Inside View
Spy Museum, DC - Thursday, 18 November - 6:30pm

"It's a crucial relationship.''—CIA spokesman George Little, July 2010

As the U.S. hunts for al-Qaeda in Pakistan, the Pakistan Intelligence Service, ISI, and the CIA work closely together. The two intelligence services have a long and rocky history, including rumors of double dealing and double agents, yet when the two partners collaborate they are very effective. But what is the future of this relationship? Are their endgames compatible? The Pakistani government is careful about public backlash towards the appearance of too close a relationship with the U.S., so where will this relationship take the two countries? Join this panel of experts to explore what’s really happening on the ground in Pakistan and their predictions for the future: Hassan Abbas, Quaid-i-Azam professor, South Asia Institute, Columbia University, Bernard Schwartz fellow at the Asia Society, and former Pakistani government official; Shuja Nawaz, director, South Asia Center at the Atlantic Council of the United States;Nicholas Schmidle, author of To Live or To Perish Forever: Two Tumultuous Years Inside Pakistan and a fellow at the New America Foundation; andFarhana Qazi, senior lecturer, AFPAK Team, Booz, Allen & Hamilton.

New US Blueprint for Afghanistan ?

New US Blueprint for Afghanistan
Asia Society, November 17, 2010

“If media reports (or leaks) are to be believed, then the Obama administration is all set to tweak its policy towards Afghanistan and unveil a plan to end U.S. combat operations by 2014. This fine-tuning was in the cards, though the earlier plan to start drawing down U.S. forces from July 2011 remains in place. Apparently, the drawing down process will be slowed. It is in fact realistic and pragmatic to pursue this approach, because the Afghan military and police will get more time to take up their responsibilities and settle down. Moderate elements among Afghan insurgents may also feel the pressure to come to the negotiating table.

However, deteriorating U.S. relations with Afghan President Hamid Karzai are a big hurdle in this context. The new Afghan parliament is also expected to become assertive in the meantime. Relations between Pakistan and the U.S. are yet another part of the matrix -- partly fragile, partly unpredictable. The Obama administration is well advised to involve regional players as well as the U.N. as it seeks to reach a peaceful and sustainable settlement for Afghanistan,” says Asia Society Bernard Schwartz Fellow Hassan Abbas.

Related:
Afvietnam - Juan Cole
U.S. appears ready to acknowledge a long haul in Afghanistan - Los Angeles Times
Afghanistan will suffer 'eye-watering' attacks after troops leave - Guardian
Obama team plans transfer of security to Afghanistan by 2014 - USA Today
French Defense Minister: Afghanistan 'A Trap' - VOA

Holbrooke dismisses chances of Musharraf comeback


Holbrooke dismisses chances of Musharraf comeback
Dawn, Nov 17, 2010

WASHINGTON: Pakistan’s former military ruler Pervez Musharraf has very little chance of regaining power in 2013 elections and any return to military rule would be a disaster, a senior US official said on Wednesday.

“He has about as much chance of coming back to power as (former Soviet) President (Mikhail) Gorbachev,” Richard Holbrooke told a gathering of US diplomats and security experts.

Musharraf, who came to power in 1999 in a bloodless military coup, announced last month in London he had created a new party, the All Pakistan Muslim League, with an eye to competing in the 2013 polls.

Musharraf, who has lived in self-imposed exile since he stepped down under threat of impeachment in 2008, has said he believes he has “an even chance” of regaining power.

Holbrooke said Musharraf’s comments should be taken with “considerable skepticism” and that the former Pakistani ruler was responsible in large part for the current struggle against extremism in the region.

“Had he fulfilled his promises to President Bush to restore democracy, close down the extreme madrassas and do the right thing in the tribal areas, we wouldn’t be in the situation we are today. He didn’t keep his word,” Holbrooke said.

For complete article, click here
Related:
Asif Ali Zardari assigns serving army officer for Pervez Musharraf's security - DNA
Nuke Ring Work of Government, Not Khan, Musharraf Says - NTI
EXCLUSIVE: Don’t mess with Pakistan — By Pervez Musharraf  - DT

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Analyzing Al-Libi’s letter to bin Laden

Al-Libi’s letter to bin Laden
S Iftikhar Murshed, The News, Nov 16, 2010

Osama bin Laden has been accused by his former associate and comrade in arms, Noman Benotman, or Abu Muhammed al-Libi as he is known in Afghanistan, of betraying Mullah Omar, the supreme leader of the Taliban. This is elaborated in an open letter of Sept 10, 2010, to the Al-Qaeda chief in which al-Libi alleges that “Afghans, including Mullah Omar and his supporters, asked us to protect their country and its people. Instead, you wanted to use their country as a launch-pad for war against America, Israel, the West and the Arab regimes. What benefit has this brought the Afghan people? Separately, when Mullah Omar asked you on several occasions to stop provoking and inviting American attacks on his country, you ignored him. How can you claim to fight for an ‘Islamic state’ and then so flagrantly disobey the ruler you helped put in place?”

Al-Libi is no stranger to jihad, and his association with Osama bin Laden dates back to the 1980s when they fought alongside the Afghan mujahideen against the Soviet occupation forces. He later joined the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), whose avowed objective was the violent overthrow of the Qadhafi regime and establishing a Shariah-based government in that country. Al-Libi became exceptionally close to bin Laden when the two were in Sudan in the 1990s and this relationship intensified after they were expelled from Khartoum and compelled to return to Afghanistan in 1996. Two years later, the LIFG’s armed struggle against the Qadhafi regime collapsed and its fighters relocated to Afghanistan, where bin Laden was desperately trying to recruit jihadi outfits for his self-proclaimed war against “Jews and Crusaders” through the World Islamic Front he established in 1998.

This generated sharp differences between al-Libi and bin Laden. The leadership of the LIFG was no less opposed to taking on the US. Not because of any support for American policies but for its concern that such an enterprise would have disastrous consequences for the Taliban movement, which had given refuge not only to Al-Qaeda but also to several other Arab jihadi groups. For his part, Mullah Omar sought and obtained assurances from bin Laden that he would not launch attacks against the United States from Afghanistan.

For complete article, click here

Related:
An open letter to Osama bin Laden - Foreign Policy

Pakistan must be engaged, says Kashmir interlocutor: The Hindu

Pakistan must be engaged, says Kashmir interlocutor
Shujaat Bukhari, The Hindu, Nov 15, 2010.

“The year Pakistan got engaged with India, we saw considerable improvement on ground”

Advocating a role for Pakistan in finding an amicable solution to the Kashmir problem, academician Radha Kumar, one of the three interlocutors on Kashmir, on Sunday stressed the need for working towards credibility of the dialogue process.

Before winding up the second visit to Kashmir and Ladakh, Professor Kumar told journalists that dialogue was important to arrive at a consensus, though there were varied perceptions in Ladakh and Kashmir.

Emphasising that Pakistan's role could not be wished away, she said it was a “necessity” to engage Pakistan in finding a permanent solution to the problem.

“The year Pakistan got engaged with India, we saw considerable improvement on ground. We were close to the Kashmir solution. We would like to see the dialogue process restart from the point it was left off. Unfortunately, the Pakistan government has shown disinclination to resume the dialogue from where they had left off. I hope they will change their position,” she said.

She was accompanied by another interlocutor M.M. Ansari.

Expressing concern over the media's “negative approach,” Professor Kumar said it had a larger role to play in maintaining the credibility of the dialogue process. “Our biggest challenge is to demonstrate the credibility of the process.”

She hoped that a framework for the Kashmir settlement would be possible within the next nine months. “As we said earlier, we are open to a dialogue with all shades of opinions, and that is what we have been doing so far.”

Professor Kumar said the interlocutors had submitted the report of their first visit to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Home Minister P. Chidambaram and Chief Minister Omar Abdullah.

“Our priority is to see what could be the political settlement of the Kashmir dispute. There is universal agreement that everyone wants political settlement of the issue. And it would be better to achieve it sooner than later.”
She stressed that the solution to the Kashmir problem could not be achieved without making changes on the ground. Without elaborating, she said it was must to release political detainees.

Related:
'Kashmir roadmap to be ready in next six to nine months' - Times of India
India: Repeal Immunity Law Fueling Kashmir Violence  - Human Rights Watch, Sep, 2010

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Obama's Indonesia speech bridges a divide


Obama's Indonesia speech bridges a divide

By Edward Schumacher-Matos
Washington Post, Thursday, November 11, 2010

Barack Obama this week gave one of the most powerful and convincing speeches of his presidency, rising above the morass of policy minutiae to connect with people's emotions.
Too bad he gave the speech in Indonesia.

Obama spoke on religious and ethnic tolerance in the world's most populous Muslim-majority country. Coincidentally, the speech was delivered a week after the normally sensible residents of Oklahoma gratuitously attacked Muslims by voting to ban sharia, or Muslim religious law. They did so even though no one in this country was trying to introduce it and no Oklahoma court is known to have cited it.
A federal judge this week issued a restraining order temporarily blocking the measure, but it comes on top of an ugly campaign season of baiting Muslims and immigrants, of tension-stoking by some Fox News commentators and of a sense of insecurity in the land - about terrorism, about lost jobs and about what many Americans see as threats to our culture.

In Jakarta, Obama dropped the cool, professorial tone that has marked his presidential talks. While he usually argues analytically well, he has often failed to appeal to our better spirits, whether for the health of our citizens or the health of our economy. Obama recognized as much in his post-mortems of why the Democrats crashed in the midterms.

But perhaps he felt liberated by returning to the land where once he was just a boy named Barry. He soared with inspiration, delivering a message designed for the Muslim world but as applicable to our own:

"Across an archipelago that contains some of God's most beautiful creations, islands rising above an ocean named for peace, people choose to worship God as they please. Islam flourishes, but so do other faiths. Development is strengthened by an emerging democracy. . . . Here we can find the ability to bridge divides of race and region and religion - by the ability to see yourself in other people."

For complete article, click here
Related:
Transcript of Obama's Speech in Indonesia
Obama makes long-awaited return to Indonesia - Yahoo News
Barack fever grips Indonesia -Australian
Obama's in Asia, but where's his foreign policy? - Foreign Policy
Tifatul handshake incident goes global - Jakarta Post
In defense of Obama's Muslim outreach - By Marc Lynch, FP

Tuesday, November 09, 2010

Kashmir and Obama's India visit



Kashmir’s Fruits of Discord
By ARUNDHATI ROY, New York Times, November 8, 2010
New Delhi
A WEEK before he was elected in 2008, President Obama said that solving the dispute over Kashmir’s struggle for self-determination — which has led to three wars between India and Pakistan since 1947 — would be among his “critical tasks.” His remarks were greeted with consternation in India, and he has said almost nothing about Kashmir since then.

But on Monday, during his visit here, he pleased his hosts immensely by saying the United States would not intervene in Kashmir and announcing his support for India’s seat on the United Nations Security Council. While he spoke eloquently about threats of terrorism, he kept quiet about human rights abuses in Kashmir.

Whether Mr. Obama decides to change his position on Kashmir again depends on several factors: how the war in Afghanistan is going, how much help the United States needs from Pakistan and whether the government of India goes aircraft shopping this winter. (An order for 10 Boeing C-17 Globemaster III aircraft, worth $5.8 billion, among other huge business deals in the pipeline, may ensure the president’s silence.) But neither Mr. Obama’s silence nor his intervention is likely to make the people in Kashmir drop the stones in their hands.

I was in Kashmir 10 days ago, in that beautiful valley on the Pakistani border, home to three great civilizations — Islamic, Hindu and Buddhist. It’s a valley of myth and history. Some believe that Jesus died there; others that Moses went there to find the lost tribe. Millions worship at the Hazratbal shrine, where a few days a year a hair of the Prophet Muhammad is displayed to believers.

Now Kashmir, caught between the influence of militant Islam from Pakistan and Afghanistan, America’s interests in the region and Indian nationalism (which is becoming increasingly aggressive and “Hinduized”), is considered a nuclear flash point. It is patrolled by more than half a million soldiers and has become the most highly militarized zone in the world.

For complete article, click here

Related:
We are not afraid of the K-word, Manmohan tells Obama - NDChronicle.com
Kashmir and the Need for Securing U.S Interests in South Asia - Mohsin Muhi-ud Din, Huffington
Obama kept support for India's UNSC bid secret till last - Economic Times
Kashmir's Young Generation Expresses Frustration With Stalemate - VOA
Omar Abdullah welcomes US President Obama's comments on Kashmir - Sify News
Kashmir separatists say Obama backs their position - Indian Express

Pakistan: Angry Young Nation

Angry Young Nation
Mosharraf Zaidi, The News, Nov 2, 2010

On October 30, The Indus Entrepreneurs or TIE held a national conference on entrepreneurship whose theme was “Unleashing Change”. Without a generation of innovators and entrepreneurs, job creation in Pakistan will stay dormant, while our population and its appetite for consumption goes through the roof. TIECON 2010, as the conference was branded was a great success. It brought together many experienced entrepreneurs to share their experiences with aspiring tycoons. The issue of entrepreneurship and the value it adds to the economy, to society and to politics needs greater attention than it gets, and organiser Moonis Rehman did very well in bringing it to light through TIECON 2010.

The one aspect of the conference that disappointed however was an aspect, that in recent months, I have found to be common to virtually every conference, workshop, seminar or discussion I attended. It may be the single most disturbing aspect of public life in Pakistan. Our national public discourse has become so irrational, personalised, emotive and imbalanced, that a substantive and honest discussion about important issues has become nearly impossible.

At TIECON 2010 as at other recent events I have attended, through no fault of the organisers, I have seen people stand up and make speeches, where they’ve been invited to ask questions. Not speeches about the depth and breadth of the topic at hand. No, no, no – political speeches that belong in Jamshed Dasti’s kutchehri and not in a serious policy discussion. I have watched young people, students no older than 18 years of age shout into microphones, wailing about inflation, and corruption, and terrorism. Were these young Pakistanis at a political rally or were they participating in a drunken discussion about teenage angst and their collective frustrations? No. They were attending a serious conference in a room full of senior business leaders, government officials and social workers. I have watched retired senior Pakistani citizens veer off course from painstakingly crafted seminar agendas so that they can postulate tired old Marxist, or Islamist, or post-modernist theories about what is wrong with Pakistan.

Everybody wants to make a speech, and be angry. Everybody wants to make rebuttals based on how they felt when they woke up. People are getting bolder and bolder. I’ve watched otherwise serious people begin questions and comments with a very honest and disturbing acknowledgment of their anger, “You know, I am very angry...”. Old people, young people. Women and men. Leaders and followers. Everyone is part of this new culture of shouting and screaming and making the quality of the national public discourse nearly unbearable. If you are getting tired of the migraine from this unending national shouting match, you are probably not alone.

What is the answer? Rather, first of all, what exactly is the issue? Far too many times we misdiagnose the problem. Two of the most commonly made assertions about the problem statement, ideology and manners, don’t accurately reflect the real problem.

Partisanship often tends to drive a lot of the criticism in national discourse. The terms liberal extremists and media Taliban are used by folks occupying different ends of the ideological spectrum. If two people at either end of a debate are shouting at each other, the problem of shouting isn’t that one person is a so-called Taliban, and the other, a so-called liberal. Clearly, the quality of the national discourse has little to do with what ideology you follow or represent – even if one group has, by dint of larger numbers, a greater capacity to shout and intimidate. A generic lack of civility or manners also seems to be a poor explanatory instrument for the poor quality of the national discourse. We don’t have to be civil just for appearance’s sake. Civility is a personal choice people make based on how they are raised as children, and what their view of courtesy and its social value is. Indeed, aggressive speech may not always be a bad thing.

For complete article, click here

Monday, November 08, 2010

Iran's Political Elite: The 49 Most Influential People - An Informative PBS Article

Iran Primer: Iran's Political Elite
by Mehrzad Boroujerdi and Kourosh Rahimkhani
PBS, 01 Nov 2010


Abdi, Abbas (1956- ) A leading journalist and political analyst. He was one of the students who took over the American embassy on November 4, 1979. In 1999, he took part in a debate with one of the former hostages at UNESCO headquarters in Paris. An engineer by training, he served after the revolution in the intelligence agencies, the judiciary, and the Center for Strategic Studies, which is affiliated with the Office of the President. He was imprisoned for eight months in 1993 for writing critical columns in the Salam newspaper and later served a three-year jail term (2002-2005) for conducting a poll on behalf of Gallup that showed more than 74 percent of Iranians were interested in rapprochement with the United States.


Ahmadinejad, Mahmoud (1956- ) A conservative populist politician who won 61 percent of the votes in a runoff presidential election against former president Rafsanjani in 2005. He was reelected in a disputed vote in 2009 that gave birth to the opposition Green Movement. Son of a blacksmith, he earned a doctorate in transport engineering and served with both the Basij and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) during the Iran-Iraq War. In his website profile, he claims that during the war he worked as a Basij volunteer in the engineering group in Kurdistan and West Azerbaijan. He reportedly became a member of the IRGC in 1986 when he joined the Guards' Special Forces division. Afterward, he served as governor general of Khoi and Mako, governor of Ardabil, mayor of Tehran (2003-2005), and then president. His acerbic comments about Israel and the United States and his messianic discourse have made him a controversial figure in international politics.


Asgaroladi, Habibollah (1932- ) A heavyweight in the conservative political camp. There are rumors that his family was originally of Jewish descent and converted to Islam during the reign of Reza Shah Pahlavi. He served for many years as the secretary-general of the Islamic Coalition Party (Hezb-e Motalefeh-ye Eslami), the Supreme Leader's representative on the Imam Khomeini Relief Committee (the biggest governmental charity serving 10 million poor people), a member of parliament, the commerce minister (1981-1983), and a member of the Expediency Council. He also twice (1981 and 1985) ran unsuccessfully as a candidate for the presidency.


Bahonar, Mohammad Reza (1952- ) A powerful conservative member of parliament who has so far served six terms in the chamber (often in leadership posts), as well as three terms in the Expediency Council. He and like-minded colleagues founded the influential Islamic Society of Engineers (Jame'eh-ye Eslami-ye Mohandesin) in 1991. His older brother, Mohammad Javad Bahonar, served for only 26 days as Iran's prime minister before a bomb claimed his life as well as that of President Mohammad Ali Raja'i in 1981.

For complete list, click here

Sunday, November 07, 2010

Islam and the Goal of Love By William C. Chittick (Huffington Post)


Islam and the Goal of Love
William C. Chittick, Ph.D..Professor of Religious Studies, State University of New York, Stony Brook
Huffington Post, November 6, 2010

Muslim scholars who claimed that Islam specifically and religion generally are based on love were not simply talking through their hats, as many readers of my previous post seem to think. They offered plenty of evidence. In order to see its logic, however, we need to remember the two axioms upon which all Islamic thought is built: the reality of God and the messengerhood of Muhammad.
The first axiom does not depend on the Quran. It needs to be accepted before there is any reason to consider Muhammad and the message. If God is not real, then God's "messages" will be even less real.

This first axiom states that there is only one true reality. Everything else -- the universe and all it contains -- derives from it. What we call "realities" are in fact non-realities dressed up in fancy clothes.

In the language of Islamic theology, this axiomatic notion is called tawhid (pronounced "toe-heed"), meaning "the assertion of unity," that is, the unity of the ultimate reality, which is commonly called "God." Any close reading of the Quran (and the works of practically any Muslim theologian, Sufi or philosopher) will show that tawhid is taken as self-evident to any healthy intelligence. If people miss it, the problem is "forgetfulness," the outstanding characteristic of the human race. According to the Quran, Adam did not "sin"; rather, "He forgot" (20:115).

The second axiom of the Islamic worldview is that Muhammad is God's messenger and the Quran God's message. No matter how important this axiom may appear, it hangs on the axiom of God's absolute unity.

Neither Muhammad nor the Quran is God. Both dwell in the realm of contingency and questions. Anyone who has delved into Islamic literature knows that every word of the Quran is open to interpretation. The very expressions used to designate the ultimate reality, God's "most beautiful names" -- such as Merciful, Knowing, Alive, Powerful, Forgiving, Majestic, Wise -- need to be explained. Explanation and understanding are human attributes, which is to say that they are riddled with forgetfulness.

Literally, the word tawhid means to say one, to make one, to assert one, to declare one. Theologically it means to declare that the ultimate reality, by whatever name it may be called, is one. In this bald form, the statement is unremarkable, not least because it is found in practically all religious traditions and most pre-modern philosophy.

For complete article, click here
Related:
The Meaning of Islam - Huffington Post, September 22, 2010
William Chittick’s life and work - World Wisdom
http://www.suficircle.com/

Saturday, November 06, 2010

The Unending Terrorist Attacks in Pakistan: All Calculus, No Answers

All calculus, no answers
By Mosharraf Zaidi, AfPak Channel, Foreign Policy, November 5, 2010

Today at Friday prayers, a bomb detonated in a mosque in Darra Adam Khel, killing more than 66 worshippers. It was the work of, by most accounts, a suicide bomber. In the Pakistani press and on the two dozen news channels that feed us a constant and unrelenting stream of what is happening in the country, the total number of people in the mosque at the time of the attack was anywhere between 100 and 500. The roof either collapsed, or did not collapse. There were anywhere between 50 and 200 injured. Pakistani officials use the figure of 30,000 Pakistani victims of terrorism routinely. Three years since the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) launched this war into a different, much bloodier dimension, the official response to this mayhem seems only to show Pakistan still has no counter-terrorism strategy. As always, the only certainties in the aftermath of terror in Pakistan were two things. First, Pakistani leaders would fall over themselves to repeat platitudes about terrorism in Pakistan and how very strongly they condemn this kind of thing. Second, this will all happen again, very soon.

How strongly did the terrorist attack in Darra Adam Khel register within the Pakistani discourse? The customary thing in Pakistan after a terrorist attack is a casual, "oh-no-not-again." It's casual because you simply cannot expend all your energy lamenting one terrorist attack, when you know there is another just around the corner. We have to conserve our outrage and our routine condemnations for these events, because, let's face it, there will never be a Pakistani 9/11. We've never built anything quite so magnificent and meaningful as the World Trade Center, or the Pentagon. So we stutter and stumble. From one kind of 9/11 to the next.

Within six hours, the next one came. Not very far from Darra Adam Khel, in Sulaiman Khel, four grenades were thrown into another mosque, killing at least five worshippers. The Darra Adam Khel attack was no longer the top news item, having been replaced with this latest incident of violence, another in the fertile orgy of terrorist indulgence that Pakistan offers to anyone with the money and guts to pursue a seemingly bottomless appetite for human life.

The mosque wasn't a Shia mosque, or an Ahmedi mosque. It wasn't a room full of Americans, or Indians. It was Pakistanis. Pashtuns. Mainstream, run-of-the-mill Sunni Muslims. The desperate attempts to frame the conflict in Pakistan as an ideological war keep running into piles of dead bodies from demographics that aren't supposed to get in the way of convenient cleavages between Pakistanis -- extremist and moderate, Sufi and Wahhabi, Deobandi and Barelvi, Muhajir and Pashtun. In between these cleavages, innocent human beings keep getting blown up, riddled with shrapnel, shot and maimed. And this doesn't include the unseen, unreported and unverifiable numbers of Pakistani soldiers that die in this war every day. Nor does it include innocent victims of drone attacks, the numbers for which are equally unknown, although much more vociferously contested.

There is a lot that the Untied States and other countries, like India, expect Pakistan to be able to do, to protect their citizens from the incurable madness and cancerous lawlessness of terrorists that make their home in Pakistan. Yet Pakistan has proven that it is a country that cannot protect its own citizens -- in mosques, shrines, universities, shopping centers and police stations. How can it possibly protect the citizens of other countries?

It makes one wonder, what kinds of machines are being used in Washington to assess the "Pakistani calculus." For a country that can't even conduct the basic arithmetic of addition and subtraction, the idea of calculus seems a stretch. Nearly seventy more grieving families, almost three years since the terrorist coalition in Pakistan, the TTP first came together -- and still all calculus, and no answers.

Mosharraf Zaidi has served as an advisor on international aid to Pakistan for the United Nations and European Union and writes a weekly column for Pakistan's the News. You can find more of his writing at http://www.mosharrafzaidi.com/

Related:

Obama in India: Agenda and Expectations


Obama to Visit India, and Both Sides Hope to Expand Ties
By Vikas Bajaj and Heather Timmons

MUMBAI, India — As President Obama pays his first visit to India this weekend, he may want to take his lead from Mary Kay.

Since Mr. Obama took office two years ago, America’s top economic policy makers have visited India numerous times but left with little to show for their long flights. This time, too, officials on both sides have tried to temper expectations, given the geopolitical and trade tensions between the two nations.

But, even without a big policy push from Washington, companies from both countries have already been forging deals at a fast and furious pace.

American brands as diverse as Mary Kay cosmetics, Harley-Davidson motorcycles and Cinnabon sticky buns have recently set up shop or expanded in India, often with local partners helping them navigate this country’s notoriously convoluted bureaucracy. Meanwhile, American corporate giants like General Motors and the drug maker Bristol-Myers are expanding factories, sales outlets and research laboratories in India.

As a result of such moves, American exports to India in the first six months of 2010 hit $14.6 billion, up 14 percent from the period a year earlier and nearly five times what it was a decade earlier.

Corporate America mainly hopes the visit by the president, with more than 200 American executives in tow, can help better define the common economic interests of the United States and India and build on the trade and investment foundations the business community has already laid.

“Business had been leading the way from the very beginning,” said Ron Somers, the head of the United States India Business Council, a business advocacy group. Now, Mr. Somers said, “we want to crown that with a genuine strategic partnership.”

For complete article, click here

Related:
President Obama's Asian Agenda - Jayshree Bajoria, Council on Foreign Relations
Obama Is Not Likely to Push India Hard on Pakistan - NYT
Obama Heads To India - NPR
Obama's India visit may be more style than substance - Reuters
Symbolism in Obama’s India visit worries Pakistan - Dawn
Managing Expectations as Obama Heads to Asia - Vishakha Desai, Asia Society

China - Pakistan Relations and American Interests

At Odds with U.S., Pakistan Deepens Ties with ChinaBy Ishaan tharoor, TIME, Nov 1, 2010

Declarations of solidarity and the $2 billion in promised military aid received by a high-level Pakistani delegation in Washington last week belie the hardening of U.S. attitudes toward Islamabad. A White House report to Congress in early October accused the Pakistani army of avoiding "military engagements that would put it in direct conflict with Afghan Taliban or al-Qaeda's forces," suggesting this inaction was a "political choice." Mounting exasperation within the Administration at the failure of Pakistan to do its designated part in the U.S. war in Afghanistan is prompting calls in Washington to take a much tougher line with Islamabad. But rather than produce a more pliant Pakistan, an escalation of U.S. pressure could prompt Islamabad to strengthen its ties with a more forgiving ally, China.
Despite the Pakistani military's long-term reliance on U.S. support, anti-American sentiment in the country is dangerously high, stoked in part by growing anger over civilian casualties from U.S. drone attacks as well as disquiet with Washington's warming ties with Pakistan's archrival, India. President Obama is due to travel to India this week in a high-profile state visit.

In an exclusive interview with TIME conducted in late September, Pakistan's Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi complained about the controversial civil-nuclear-energy deal the Bush Administration negotiated with India. No similar deal is on the cards for the Pakistanis, with Washington skittish about the security of Islamabad's nuclear program and about the continued links between members of its military intelligence agency, the ISI, and various jihadists. "We were the traditional allies — the Indians remained in the Soviet camp," says Qureshi. "Ever since that changed, the American approach has changed. Today, America values India a lot."
Washington's perceived shift toward India has led some among Pakistan's elites, particularly within its powerful security establishment, to place more emphasis on Islamabad's relations with Beijing. Pakistan and China share what is often dubbed an "all-weather" friendship: a Cold War–vintage alliance born out of geography and a mutual antipathy to India. In February, China agreed to build two nuclear reactors in Pakistan, a move that was seen as strategic tit-for-tat following the India-U.S. deal. And last month, leaked reports suggested that China National Nuclear Corporation was in advanced talks with Pakistani authorities to build a massive new one-gigawatt nuclear facility. Previous Chinese technological assistance is believed by some to have gone well beyond simple energy projects. "Without Chinese help," says Hassan Abbas, a professor of South Asian studies at Columbia University, "there would be no Pakistani nuclear bomb."
Abbas, a former Pakistan government adviser, says Beijing's interests in the region are now expanding at a rapid clip — "the Chinese ambassador in Islamabad is a very active person," he notes. China has enlisted Pakistani cooperation in quashing potential Muslim insurgencies in its far-western province of Xinjiang, bordering Pakistan and Afghanistan. Apart from its nuclear-energy investments, China is also constructing dams, building infrastructure and exploring for precious metals. It has also developed the strategic deep-water port at Gwadar on the Arabian Sea in Pakistani Baluchistan — although hopes to have that serve as a primary conduit to Central Asian trade have been clouded by the security situation, which has seen Gwadar possibly eclipsed in that role by an Indian-backed port in Iran. "China is a neighbor and a friend," Qureshi told TIME. "China has the technology today and China has the money to invest."

For complete article, click here
Related:
Official: China Using Pakistan To Curb Rise Of India - AHN

Thursday, November 04, 2010

Rethinking a Middle East in Transition: MEI Conference


Conference: Washington DC
8:45-9:00am: Opening Remarks: Ambassador Wendy Chamberlin, President MEI

9:00-10:30am: US Middle East Policy in the 2nd Half of the Obama Term
David Makovsky, Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Suzanne Maloney, Brookings
Ambassador Edward Djerejian, Baker Institute
Joost Hiltermann, International Crisis Group
Moderator: Ambassador Barbara Bodine, Princeton University

10:45-12:15: New Approaches to Non-State Armed Actors
David Kilcullen, Center for a New American Security
Robert Malley, International Crisis Group
Mitchell Reiss, Washington College
Moderator: Roger Hardy, Woodrow Wilson Center

12:30-1:30: Keynote Luncheon featuring address by Dr. Saeb Erakat, Chief Negotiator for the PLO

1:45-3:15: Shifting Regional Dynamics: Turkey, Israel, Iran and the Arab States
Ambassador Itamar Rabinovich, Tel Aviv University
Omer Taspinar, Brookings
Shibley Telhami, University of Maryland
Alex Vatanka, Middle East Institute
Moderator: Geneive Abdo, The Century Foundation

3:30-5:00: Reevaluating US Policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan
Hassan Abbas, Columbia University
Stephen Biddle, Council on Foreign Relations
Brian Katulis, Center for American Progress
Paul Pillar, Georgetown University
Moderator: Caroline Wadhams, The Center for American Progress

FOR FURTHER DETAILS VISIT: http://www.mei.edu/

Wednesday, November 03, 2010

Civil Society Demands Immediate Inquiry Into Harassment of Sherry Rehman


Civil Society Demands Immediate Inquiry Into Harassment of Sherry Rehman
ATP Team; http://www.pakistaniat.com/; November 2, 2010

Editor’s Note: A wide array of civil society activists from different fields and different persuasion have released the following statement on the recent harassment of former Information Secretary of the PPP and former Federal Minister of Information, Sherry Rahman. ATP joins in the sentiment and spirit of the statement.

We believe that freedom of speech which includes holding diverse opinion, is the fundamental right of every citizen and indeed forms the basis of every civilized and democratic society. In Pakistan we have fought long and hard to secure this right from dictators and democrats alike. We feel that we need to continue to be vigilant about growing attempts to muzzle free speech in the public domain. Most importantly, we must not allow our own inaction as citizens to lend sanction to the naked state-backed intimidation that we witnessed at the hands of a government that was once the proud standard-bearer of fundamental rights in Pakistan.

It is therefore our duty as watchful citizens to not allow political parties to unleash such blatant acts of harrasment and intimidation in a series of crude attempts to gag its own senior leadership through violent means.

Sherry Rehman’s case is particularly disturbing. As former Information Secretary of the PPP, and former Federal Minister for Information, her services to democracy and press freedoms bear no repeating.

On the heels of a show cause notice served on her by her party for speaking on a television channel that was ostensibly under a ban by the PPP, her house in Karachi was held under siege for hours. On October 22, 2010, about 300-350 armed goons, front-lined by women, protested outside her gates while local police stood and watched them block roads as well as lay siege to her house.

While some sections of the party leadership maintain no knowledge of these activists, their reluctance to take punitive action against these “fringe elements” deployed with party symbols and flags continues.

In a subsequent development that was even more shocking, a Sindh minister went on the television to say without hesitation that Sherry Rehman should have expected such inaction for speaking to a channel that was proscribed by the party.

She was blatant in owning the fascist behavior of these new party shock troops in what she described as “emotional outbursts” by party workers the government or party could control. The silence and inaction of other leaders after several days of the incident now also points to a trail of complicity in dangerous violence.

It should be noted by all that we strongly condemn this attack. The attack on a public representative’s house, where her undefended mother and daughter were held hostage for hours, was completely unwarranted and constitutes a serious violation of their fundamental rights.

It was reliably reported that Rehman’s effigy was burnt in front of her besieged house, while traffic and roads leading to her house were blocked for several hours by shock troops from the PPP stronghold, Lyari. Her vilification was allowed to go unchecked even before this incident. Graffitti threatening her with physical decapitation if she “violated party discipline” was repeatedly sprayed outside her house. We not only condemn such resort to terror, but also demand that the President and the Prime Minister order an inquiry into the siege of Ms. Rehman’s house and take swift and appropriate action against those responsible for resorting to terror in the name of a protest.

We demand that the Report of an Inquiry be made public within 7 working days from today.

SIGNATORIES. Dr. Hassan Abbas, Tahira Abdullah, Dr. Meekal Ahmad, Amb. Shamshad Ahmad, Tasneem Ahmar, Ambreen Ajaib, Absaar Alam, Mukhtar Ahmad Ali, Miariann Babar, Justice Fakhruddin G. Ebraheem, Imtiaz Gul, Anis Haroon, Hameed Haroon, Ali Dayan Hasan, Dr. Parvez Hoodbhoy, Dr. Akmal Hussain, Irfan Hussain, Quatrina Hussain, Amb. Touqir Hussain, Prof. Ayesha Jalal, Nusrat Javed, Asma Jehangir, Amb. Shafqat Kakakhel, Ali Karamat, Haris Khalique, Aqsa Khan, Amb. Humayun Khan, Amb. Mazhar Khan, Samina Khan, Amb. Riaz Khokhar, Mohammad Malick, Amir Mateen, Fauzia Minallah, Hamid Mir, Khawar Mumtaz, Zubeida Mustapha, Kishwar Naheed, Dr. Adil Najam, Fawzia Naqwi, Shehzad Nawaz, Sameena Nazir, William Parvez, Omar Qureshi, Salman Akram Raja, Abbas Rasheed, Rashed Rehman, Dr. Tariq Rehman, Justice Majida Rizvi, Raza Rumi, Najma Sadeque, Babar Sattar, Dr. Dushka Sayed, Fareeda Shaeed, Zeenia Shaukat, Dr. Ayesha Siddiqua, Najam Sethi, Kamran Shafi, Ahmar Bilal Sufi, Mohammad Tahseen, Nasim Zehra, Mohammad Ziauddin.

Shared Humanity: A Terrific Website: http://www.ontheground.pk/

The world has been slow to react to the enormity of the floods in Pakistan.Pakistan urgently needs the world to stand with her during this grave humanitarian crisis. Acumen Fund is sharing our perspective from the ground. We urge you to raise your voice in support for Pakistan by adding to the tapestry and highlighting other ways to help.
http://www.ontheground.pk/


Tuesday, November 02, 2010

Tahir ul Qadri's Lecture in Washington DC - November 8



The Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center For Muslim-Christian Understanding Invites You To: A Leading Islamic Authority Takes On The Radicals: A MAJOR FATWA AGAINST TERRORISM

Date: Monday, November 8th
Time: 12:15 p.m
Location: Copley Formal Lounge

Description: Dr. Muhammad Tahir-Ul-Qadri, Founding Leader, Minhaj-Ul-Quran International. In recent years, the world has witnessed some tragic terrorist attacks around the globe, including the U.S., justified through the misinterpretation of Islamic teachings. Such events have widened the gap between Islam and the West. Consequently it has left many in confusion about key concepts of jihad and the Islamic legal stance on suicide bombings and terrorism, while also causing another threat of home-grown terrorism. On March 2nd 2010, Dr. Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri issued a comprehensive 600-page 'Fatwa' (religious ruling) condemning the perpetrators which is regarded as one of the most comprehensive condemnations of terrorism to date by any leading Islamic authority. This Fatwa is a direct refutation of the ideology of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. It is one of the most extensive rulings, an "absolute" condemnation of terrorism without "any excuses or pretexts" which goes further than ever and declares terrorism as kufr (disbelief) under Islamic law. This ruling aims to help guide those who have been misled to the path of terrorism and clarify key concepts. Its implications are critical for the Muslim world and the West alike. Dr. Tahir-ul-Qadri’s talk will highlight its applicability, clarify key concepts of jihad, suicide bombings, dar al-harb (Abode of War) and dar al-Islam (Abode of Peace) and why terrorism is in fact a continuality of the Kharijites (Khawrij) or rebels.

Dr. Muhammad Tahir-Ul-Qadri is the founding leader of Minhaj-ul-Quran International (MQI), an organization with branches and centers in more than 90 countries around the globe. Dr. Tahir-ul-Qadri is a former professor at University of the Punjab, Pakistan and a prolific author and researcher. He traveled around the Islamic world and studied under famous Shuyukh of Mecca, Medina, Syria, Lebanon, Maghrib, India and Pakistan and received from them around 500 authorities and chains of transmission in Hadith and classical Islamic and spiritual sciences which are published in two of his thabats, al-Jawahir al-Bahira fi’l Asanid at-Tahira and as-Subul al-Wahabiyya fi’l-Asanid adh-Dhahabiyya. He has authored around 1,000 books out of which more than 450 have been published. As an unrivaled orator and speaker, he has delivered over 6,000 lectures and has been teaching Hadith, Tafsir, Fiqh, Theology, Sufism, Seerah, Islamic philosophy, Law and Islamic politics and many other rational and traditional sciences to thousands of people, including Ulema, scholars, Shuyukh, students, intellectuals and academics in the east and west. In March 2010, he pronounced the historic 600-page Fatwa on Terrorism which is regarded as one of the most comprehensive, unconditional condemnations of terrorism to date. Dr. Qadri is a living model of profound classical knowledge, intellectual enlightenment, practical wisdom, pure spirituality, love, harmony and humanism. He is well known for his ardent endeavour to strengthen bonds among people, by bringing them together through tolerance, dialogue, integration and education. He successfully bridges the past with his image of the future and finds convincing solutions for contemporary problems. Dr. Qadri is chairman of the Board of Governors of Minhaj University Lahore which is chartered by the Government of Pakistan. He is founder of Minhaj Education Society, which has established more than 570 schools and colleges in Pakistan. He is also chairman of Minhaj Welfare Foundation, an organization involved in humanitarian and social welfare activities globally.

For more infromation on the Fatwa, click here or here.
To RSVP, click here. Seating is limited and will be available on a first-come, first-served basis.