Kerry-Luger Bill or Carry-Looter Bill? Fact versus Fiction

Wusatullah Khan's critique on "intellectuals" such as Kashif Abbasi, Irfan Siddiqi and Dr Shahid Masood:

چوبیس روپے کی دانشوری

وسعت اللہ خان

بی بی سی اردو ڈاٹ کام، اسلام آباد

آب اعتراض کرنے والوں نے منظوری سے قبل کیری لوگر بل کا مسودہ حاصل کر کے اسے پڑھنے کی کوشش نہیں کی

آپ کبھی اپنے کسی عزیز یا دوست سے کہیں ’بھائی صاحب ایک لاکھ روپیہ فوری طور پر چاہیں۔ چھ ماہ کے دوران چھ قسطوں میں لوٹا دوں گا‘۔ پہلا سوال ہوگا ’خیریت تو ہے ایسی بھی کیا ایمرجنسی آن پڑی؟‘ یہ سوال کرتے ہوئے دل ہی دل میں آپ کا دوست یہ بھی سوچ رہا ہوگا کہ سال بھر پہلے جو دس ہزار روپے آپ کو دیے تھے وہ یاد دلاؤں کہ نہ دلاؤں۔ چنانچہ قوی امکان ہے کہ آپ کا عزیز دوست یہ کہہ کر ٹالنے کی کوشش کرے کہ اگر کہیں اور سے پیسوں کا انتظام ہوجائے تو دیکھ لو۔آج کل ہاتھ ذرا تنگ ہے اور کہیں سے بھی نہ ملے تو پھر کچھ نہ کچھ تو تمہارے لیے کرنا ہی پڑے گا۔

آپ کسی بھی بینکر کے پاس جائیں اور کہیں پچاس لاکھ روپے چاہیں گھر بنانا ہے۔ پہلا سوال ہوگا۔ پلاٹ کے کاغذات کہاں ہیں؟۔ دوسرا سوال ہوگا ماہانہ آمدنی کتنی ہے؟ پھر پوچھا جائےگا بچے کتنے ہیں؟ ان کی عمر کیا ہے؟ زیرِتعلیم کتنے ہیں؟ آپ کے بینک اکاؤنٹس کی تعداد کیا ہے اور کن کن بینکوں میں ہیں؟ آپ کے پاس کریڈٹ کارڈز کون کون سے ہیں؟ پچھلے چھ ماہ کے بینک سٹیٹ مینٹس کہاں ہیں؟ کیا پہلے کسی بینک سے قرضہ تو نہیں لیا؟ کتنے عرصے کے لیے قرضہ چاہیے؟ ضمانتی کون کون ہیں؟ کتنی قسطوں میں اور کتنے برس میں واپسی ہوگی؟ قرضے کی انشورنس کس کمپنی سے کروائیں گے ؟

اگر آپ کا عزیز دوست محض ایک لاکھ روپے کا غیر مشروط قرضہ دینے سے ہچکچا رہا ہو اور پچاس لاکھ دینے سے پہلے بینک آپ کی مالیاتی اوقات کے بارے میں اس قدر چھان بین کررہا ہو اور طرح طرح کی دستاویزات اور ضمانتیں طلب کررہا ہو تو سوچیے جو ملک آپ کو ڈیڑھ ارب ڈالر سالانہ دینا چاہتا ہے وہ کیا کیا ضمانتیں طلب نہ کرے گا اور کیوں طلب نہ کرے گا؟

جب کیری لوگر بل پچھلے کئی ماہ سے کانگریس کے زیرِ غور تھا تو ہر آتے جاتے امریکی اہلکار سے بہانے بہانے پوچھا جاتا تھا کہ کتنی دیر اور لگے گی؟ اس دوران کسی ٹی وی اینکر پرسن یا تجزیہ باز کو توفیق نہ ہوئی کہ مباحثے کا دنگل سجانے سے پہلے انٹرنیٹ پر دس ڈالر ادا کرکے اس بل کا مسودہ منگوا کر شق وار پڑھ ہی لیتا۔ اب بل منظور ہوگیا تو اسکی شرائط پر غل مچایا جا رہا ہے اور سب سے زیادہ غوغا پندرہ روپے کا انگریزی اور نو روپے کا اردو اخبار پڑھ کر رائے قائم کرنے والا چوبیس روپے کا دانشور کر رہا ہے۔

اگر آپ کو ڈیڑھ ارب امریکی ڈالر سالانہ کے ساتھ نتھی شرائط اتنی ہی ناگوار گذر رہی ہیں تو انکار کردیں۔ کوئی اور دروازہ کھٹکھٹا لیں، صبر کے گھونٹ پی لیں یا پیٹ پر پتھر ہی باندھ لیں

چین تو آپ کا یار ہے نا! ذرا اس سے سو ملین ڈالر غیر مشروط طور پر لے کر دکھا دیں۔ سعودی عرب تو برادر ملک ہے نا! ذرا اسی سے تین ماہ سے زائد کے کریڈٹ پر تیل لے کر بتا دیں۔ اگر آپ کو ڈیڑھ ارب امریکی ڈالر سالانہ کے ساتھ نتھی شرائط اتنی ہی ناگوار گذر رہی ہیں تو انکار کردیں۔ کوئی اور دروازہ کھٹکھٹا لیں، صبر کے گھونٹ پی لیں یا پیٹ پر پتھر ہی باندھ لیں۔

لیکن ڈیڑھ ارب ڈالر دینے والے اور صرف وعدہ، تسلی کرنے والے سب جانتے ہیں کہ اپنا بھاؤ خود لگانا آپ کے بس کی بات نہیں۔ آپ صرف بھاؤ دکھا سکتے ہیں!

Abbas Ather:

Abbas Mehkari:

Tahir Sarwar Mir:

....

کیری لوگر بل: ’ہمارے دشمن بھارت نے بہت لابئنگ کی ‘

آصف فاروقی

بی بی سی اردو ڈاٹ کام، اسلام آباد

’ہمارے دشمن ملک بھارت نے لابی کرنے والوں کے ذریعے لاکھوں ڈالر خرچ کیے تاکہ پاکستان کے لیے امریکی مدد کا یہ بل منظور نہ ہو لیکن صدر پاکستان کی کامیاب سفارتکاری کے ذریعے ان بھارتی عزائم کو شکست ہوئی‘ قمر زمان کائرہ

وفاقی وزیراطلاعات قمر زمان کائرہ نے کہا ہے کہ کیری لوگر بل کے تحت ملنے والے ایک سو بیس ارب ڈالر سالانہ کا بڑا حصہ صوبہ سرحد کی ترقی اور وہاں غربت کے خاتمے کے لیے صرف کیا جائے گا۔

نیشنل پریس کلب اسلام آباد میں کیری لوگر بل کے بارے میں ایک مباحثے سے خطاب کرتے ہوئے انہوں نے کہا کہ عام تاثر کے برعکس حکومت اس بل کے تحت ملنے والی رقم کو بجٹ کی تیاری پر خرچ نہیں کرے گی بلکہ اس رقم کا بڑا حصہ، تقریباً اسی سے ایک سو ارب روپے ہر سال صوبہ سرحد کے شدت پسندی اور دہشت گردی سے متاثرہ علاقوں میں خرچ کیے جائیں گے۔

انہوں نے کہا کہ یہ کتنی بڑی رقم ہے اور اس سے اس صوبے میں کتنی بڑی سماجی تبدیلی آ سکتی ہے اس کا اندازہ اس بات سے لگایا جا سکتا ہے کہ اس وقت صوبہ سرحد کے لیے حکومت زیادہ سے زیادہ دس ارب روپے سال کے خرچ کرتی ہے۔

’جب یہ ترقیاتی رقم آٹھ سے دس گنا بڑھ جائے گی تو آپ خود اندازہ لگائیں کہ وہاں کتنی معاشی اور سماجی ترقی ہو گی اور اس کے نتیجے میں ان علاقوں میں پنپتی شدت پسندی کو ختم کرنے میں بہت مدد ملے گی‘۔

کیری لوگر بل کے ذریعے امریکہ پاکستانی مسلح افواج کے افسران کی ترقی اور اعلیٰ عہدوں پر تعیناتی کے عمل کو بھی مانیٹر کر سکے گا۔ یہ ایک غیر ضروری شرط ہے اور اس کا مقصد سول اور فوجی قیادت کے درمیان خلیج پیدا کرنا ہے۔

مشاہد حسین

قمر زمان کائرہ نے کہا کہ ساری دنیا اب یہ محسوس کرتی ہے کہ شدت پسندی اور دہشت گردی کی جڑیں غربت اور بے روز گاری میں ہیں۔ ’ہم اس رقم کو دہشت گردی کی جڑیں کاٹنے میں صرف کریں گے‘۔

سمینار میں شریک حزب اختلاف کی جماعتوں کے نمائندوں کی جانب سے کیری لوگر بل کے ساتھ منسلک شرائط پر اعتراض کا جواب دیتے ہوئے وفاقی وزیراطلاعات نے کہا کہ کیری لوگر بل امریکہ میں ہونے والی قانون سازی ہے، پاکستان اور امریکہ کے درمیان دو طرفہ معاہدہ نہیں جس پر عمل کرنا پاکستان کے لیے لازمی ہو۔

’ہم امریکی پارلیمنٹ کو ڈکٹیٹ نہیں کر سکتے کہ وہ اپنے قانون کیسے بنائے۔ اگر اس میں موجود شرائط ہمیں یا ہماری پارلیمنٹ کو منظور نہیں ہوں گی تو مدد کی اس پیش کش کو مسترد کیا جا سکتا ہے‘۔

قمر زمان کائرہ کے مطابق ان کی حکومت نے سفارتکاری کے ذریعے اس بل میں پرویز مشرف دور حکومت میں شامل کی گئی بعض شرائط نکلوائی ہیں جن میں ایٹمی سائنسدان ڈاکٹر عبد القدیر تک رسائی کی شرط بھی شامل تھی۔ انہوں نے کہا کہ اس بارے میں اب ایک عمومی سی بات کی گئی ہے کہ پاکستان ایٹمی پھیلاؤ کے خاتمے کی کوششوں میں تعاون کرے گا۔

’یہ تعاون تو ہم ہر حال میں کریں گے چاہے مدد ملے یا نہ ملے لیکن ڈاکٹر قدیر تک کسی غیر ملکی کو رسائی دینے کا سوال ہی پیدا نہیں ہوتا‘۔

وفاقی وزیر اطلاعات نے بتایا کہ بعض ممالک کیری لوگر بل کو منظور ہونے سے روکنے کے لیے اپنا اثر و رسوخ استعمال کرتے رہے ہیں۔ ’ہمارے دشمن ملک بھارت نے لابی کرنے والوں کے ذریعے لاکھوں ڈالر خرچ کیے تاکہ پاکستان کے لیے امریکی مدد کا یہ بل منظور نہ ہو لیکن صدر پاکستان کی کامیاب سفارتکاری کے ذریعے ان بھارتی عزائم کو شکست ہوئی‘۔

قمر زمان کائرہ نے کہا کہ اس بل کے ساتھ منسلک جن شرائط پر اعتراض کیا جا رہا ہے وہ پاکستان کو ملنے والے ڈیڑھ ارب ڈالر کی غیر فوجی امداد کے ساتھ نہیں بلکہ اس فوجی امداد کے ساتھ منسلک ہیں جس کا ابھی تعین بھی نہیں ہوا۔

’آپ نے کیسے یہ فرض کر لیا کہ ہم ایسی فوجی امداد کے لیے جو تیس کروڑ ڈالر سے زیادہ نہیں ہو گی ایسی شرائط مان لیں گے جو ملک کے مفاد میں نہ ہوں‘۔کائرہ نے کہا کہ ابھی یہ بل قانون نہیں بنا اور اس میں ابھی تک ترمیم کی گنجائش موجود ہے۔

کیری لوگر بل میں شامل شرائط کا جائزہ پیش کرتے ہوئے مسلم لیگ (ق) کے سیکرٹری جنرل اور خارجہ امور کے لیے سینیٹ کی کمیٹی کے سربراہ مشاہد حسین سید نے کہا کہ اس بل میں بعض ایسی شرائط ہیں جو امریکہ میں بھارتی لابی نے شامل کروائی ہیں جن سے پاکستان کی سلامتی کو خطرات لاحق ہو سکتے ہیں۔

’ان میں سے ایک شرط یہ ہے کہ پاکستان خطے کے دیگر ممالک اور ان کے اداروں کے تعاون سے علاقے میں دہشت گردی اور اس کے اڈے ختم کرنے کے لیے کام کرے گا‘۔

مشاہد حسین کا کہنا تھا کہ اس شق کی بنیاد پر بھارتی خفیہ ادارہ را پاکستان میں دہشت گردی کے خلاف کارروائی کر سکتا ہے۔

اس کے علاوہ انہوں نے بتایا امریکہ پاکستانی مسلح افواج کے افسران کی ترقی اور اعلیٰ عہدوں پر تعیناتی کے عمل کو بھی مانیٹر کر سکے گا۔ مشاہد حسین کا کہنا تھا کہ یہ ایک غیر ضروری شرط ہے اور اس کا مقصد سول اور فوجی قیادت کے درمیان خلیج پیدا کرنا ہے۔

آپ نے کیسے یہ فرض کر لیا کہ ہم ایسی فوجی امداد کے لیے جو تیس کروڑ ڈالر سے زیادہ نہیں ہو گی ایسی شرائط مان لیں گے جو ملک کے مفاد میں نہ ہوں

قمر زمان کائرہ

امریکہ میں سابق پاکستانی سفیر طارق فاطمی نے کہا کہ کیری لوگر بل کے ذریعے پاکستان کو اب بھارت میں بھی امن قائم کرنے کی ذمہ داری سونپ دی گئی ہے کیونکہ اگر وہاں بھی کوئی دہشت گردی کی واردات ہوئی تو اس کا جواب پاکستان کو دینا ہو گا۔

طارق فاطمی نے کہا کہ اس بل میں شامل بعض شرائط نا قابل عمل ہیں اور بعض ایسی ہیں جو پاکستانی عوام میں امریکہ کے خلاف جذبات ابھارنے کا باعث بنیں گی۔ طارق فاطمی کے بقول کیری لوگر بل پاکستان کے خلاف فرد جرم ہے۔

پاکستان مسلم لیگ نواز کے رکن قومی اسمبلی اور معروف لکھاری ایاز امیر نے کہا کہ اس مسئلے پر ان کے اپنے جذبات بہت زیادہ ہیں اس لیے وہ پارٹی کی ترجمانی نہیں کریں گے بلکہ اپنے ذاتی خیالات بیان کریں گے۔

انہوں نے کہا کہ کیری لوگر بل میں شامل شرائط پر بحث اس وجہ سے لاحاصل ہے کیونکہ پاکستانی حکومت اور قوم کو فیصلہ کرنا ہے کہ وہ غیرت اور حمیت سے زندگی گزارنا چاہتے ہیں یا بھیک مانگنے والوں کی طرح۔

ایاز امیر نے کہا کہ اگر پاکستانی قوم غیرت کی زندگی گزارنا چاہتے ہیں تو انہیں بنیاد پرستی اور عیش پرستی کو خیرباد کہ کر اپنی چادر کے مطابق پاؤں پھیلانا سیکھنا ہو گا اور ایسا کرنے میں نہ کیری لوگر بل کی ضرورت ہے اور نہ وہ اس کے آڑے آتا ہے

....

....

ANALYSIS: Limited options —Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi

The Pakistani government is not prepared to admit publicly that its precarious economic situation restricts its foreign policy options and increases its dependence on international financial institutions and the US

US-Pakistan relations have passed through many ups and downs. Alternating periods of cooperation and sanctions against Pakistan always evoked debate in both countries, reflecting varying degrees of distrust as well as convergence and divergence on bilateral, regional and global issues.

Given the sharp differences in the positions of the two countries in the global hierarchy, Pakistan’s political circles always found this relationship overwhelming. This perception became more conspicuous in the early 1980s when the United States, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and many other states joined hands to build an Islamic-Afghan resistance to the Soviet military presence in Afghanistan.

Since then, US policies towards Pakistan have had greater implications for Pakistan’s domestic context. There were Pakistani winners and losers from the American economic and military assistance and secret funding in the 1980s. In addition to General Zia-ul Haq’s military government, the major winners were Islamic groups and parties. The ISI and the CIA used American funds, material and weapons to strengthen Islamic orthodoxy and militancy to expel the Soviets from Afghanistan. Even when the US left the region in 1990, Pakistan’s military continued to rely on orthodoxy and militancy to pursue its agenda in Afghanistan and it launched a new jihadi project in Indian-administered Kashmir.

The US’ Pakistan policies helped improve the political clout of the extreme right-orthodox religious elements, especially those advocating or pursuing jihad as an instrument of foreign policy and security agenda. This created a symbiotic relationship between Islamic militancy-jihad and the Pakistani state.

The reinvigoration of Pakistan-US relations after 9/11 had similar far reaching implications for Pakistan’s domestic politics.

Islamic parties and militant groups have been the major losers of the current Pakistan-US relations. Their privileged interaction with the Pakistani state suffered initially when the government and the military downgraded their relationship with Islamic and militant groups rather than severing it. However, the drift between the two increased over the years and by 2007, the Taliban and their associates openly turned against their one-time patron — the Pakistani state.

Pakistan’s decision in April 2009 to launch the Swat/Malakand military operation drew the battle lines. In addition to the Taliban and their associates, most Islamists and militants are opposed to Pakistan’s counter-terrorism policies which are described as an appendage to American policies.

The on-going debate in Pakistan on Pakistan-US relations is influenced more by domestic power politics rather than the realities of global politics and the options available to Pakistan against the backdrop of its troubled economy. Pakistani critics have chosen neither to pay any attention to the dynamics of global politics nor take into account the imperatives of promoting internal political cohesion in Pakistan and revitalising its economy.

The current domestic debate, at times emotionally charged, focuses on a number of issues including the physical and personnel expansion of the US embassy in Islamabad, renting of about two hundred houses in Islamabad by the American embassy, and the provisions of the “Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act 2009” (The Kerry-Lugar Act).

There are several unsubstantiated issues that are being raised by those opposed to reinvigorated Pakistan-US relations. These include allegations of the presence of an American security agency, Blackwater, and the arrival of several hundred marines, some of whom are engaged in military-like activities in the vicinity of Islamabad. These people also claim that a good number of American personnel enter Pakistan without visas and without the knowledge of the Pakistani government.

Islamic parties and militant groups are pursuing a massive propaganda campaign against the above issues. Their discourse, unsubstantiated by facts, reflects their self-created perceptions influenced by a narrow religious disposition. Most of them rely heavily on a host of conspiracy theories to explain how the US wants to destabilise and undermine Pakistan.

The Jama’at-e Islami, known as pro-West until 1990, spearheads the anti-US campaign and publicises the threat of the US taking over Islamabad or dismantling the nuclear programme by using a private security agencies and American marines that have been sneaked into Pakistan. Such disposition of Islamic and militant groups is not merely ideological but also reflects their fury on the loss of political clout in Pakistan’s domestic context due to Pakistan’s participation in the US-led global efforts to contain militancy, especially the recent military operations in Malakand/Swat and the tribal areas.

Some opposition is coming from the PMLN and others with strong rightist-nationalist orientations. The PMLN is pursuing a two-track policy. The top-most leaders like Nawaz Sharif and Shahbaz Sharif do not publicly criticise current American counter-terrorism policies and support Pakistani security operations in Malakand and the tribal areas. However, the PMLN’s second line of leadership minces no words about Pakistan’s security operations, Pakistan-US relations and especially the Enhanced Partnership Act, which is being described as an insult to Pakistan. Their views overlap with those of the Jama’at-e Islami.

The current attack on the Enhanced Partnership Act is also part of the opposition effort to somehow knock out the PPP-led federal government, which is already facing a credibility crisis due to poor governance. If that is not possible, they want at least President Asif Ali Zardari forced out of office. The current controversies on Pakistan-US relations provide the opposition with a good opportunity to build additional pressure on the government.

The US government has to share the blame for the current anti-US campaign in Pakistan. Some American statements provide ample ammunition to the opposition in Pakistan. The occasional talk of drone attacks in Balochistan to wipe out the ‘Quetta shura’ of the Taliban gets a negative response even from those who actively support counter-terrorism.

The wording in the Enhanced Partnership Act regarding monitoring could have been done more carefully to take into account sensitivities in Pakistan’s political domain. For example, nuclear proliferation has been mentioned three times and the stipulation in section 203 (c)(1) “...to dismantle supplier networks relating to the acquisition of nuclear weapons-related materials, such as providing relevant information from or direct access to Pakistani nationals associated with such networks” can easily cause controversy if not read carefully.

The provision in section 302 (a) (15) regarding “...military budgets, the chain of command, the process of promotion for senior military leaders, civilian involvement in strategic guidance and planning, and military involvement in civil administration” has caused alarm in political circles. Though the Act talks of monitoring only, this is being interpreted in Pakistan as a cover for interference, making it obligatory for Pakistan to seek US approval on these matters.

The government of Pakistan has allowed confusion to persist on the issues being raised by the political circles and the media. Its explanations are often vague and do not fully respond to the questions being raised.

The Pakistani government is not prepared to admit publicly that its precarious economic situation restricts its foreign policy options and increases its dependence on international financial institutions and the US. The government is unable to defend the new US assistance as an opportunity to revive the economy or to counter the criticism by Islamist and rightist-nationalist circles. (Daily Times)

Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi is a political and defence analyst.

Read more...

An assessment of President Asif Zardari by Abbas Mehkari

Signs of improvement

Sunday, 06 Sep, 2009

DOOM and gloom is to be expected in a country dominated by rapacious politicians and brutal dictators. Democracy has been strangled in Pakistan, the rule of law violated at will and the poor left oppressed. At the same time a particular class has been patronised so it can gather all the spoils. Religion has been exploited to give the unempowered a sense of belonging, to make the unprivileged think that they are equals in an inequitable society. Gen Ziaul Haq, aided and abetted by the US, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, encouraged the forces of obscurantism to further his illegitimate rule. Our intelligence agencies pursued a policy of ‘strategic depth’ in Afghanistan that created Frankensteins we could no longer control. ‘Talibanisation’ entered the nomenclature and, for a time, the country was held hostage by semi-literate clerics and their armed supporters.

But things are getting better. The law and order situation in the NWFP has seen a marked improvement since the army took on the Taliban in Malakand. A report in this newspaper, relying on statistical evidence, illustrates that more may have been achieved in three months than what Gen Musharraf could muster over several years. It is now becoming increasingly clear that Mr Musharraf played a double-game with the West, keeping the threat of Talibanisation alive to force Washington and London into thinking that he was indispensable. His rule as dictator, and favoured ally of the Bush administration, was marked by deals and bargains with the enemies of Pakistan. He could have thrown down the gauntlet, as the current government and army chief have, but he instead kowtowed to the militants and pushed Pakistan to the brink of ruin. What we have seen in the last few months reinforces the idea that where there is a will, there is a way. It has finally sunk in that the Taliban cannot be mollycoddled — they must be defeated. The Pakistan Army has now taken to the battlefield in right earnest and the Taliban are on the run. If the engagement doesn’t lose momentum, the people of Pakistan will emerge victorious. (Dawn Editorial)

Read more...

The ISI-Nawaz Sharif alliance: Too old to remember?

Reinventing history —Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi

The current debate in the electronic and print media on the 1992 security operation, first in rural Sindh and the then in Karachi, is not a non-partisan, fact-based study. The debate is highly polemical and divisive, which could undermine interactions among the political parties

Political developments in Pakistan over the last couple of weeks show that there is a deliberate attempt to reinvent history regarding the 1992 security operation in Karachi, ISI funding to anti-PPP political leaders in 1990, and Pervez Musharraf’s trial for high treason. This is being done against the backdrop of the “minus one, two or all” formulas and the stories about dubious American presence in and around Islamabad.

The key issue is why these stories are being re-told. Is the aim to search for the truth or are these narratives meant to demonstrate how the army/intelligence agencies can manipulate and buy off politicians?

Perhaps some retired officers want their role as history-makers acknowledged, as none of them seems to regret the fact that they helped undermine democracy and caused distortions in politics and society. These stories may also aim to divide political leaders and parties by reminding them of their ‘free-for-all’ struggle for power during the 1990s civilian interlude between the Zia and Musharraf military governments.

The past is relevant to the present and the future if history is examined in a dispassionate, comprehensive and non-partisan manner to understand historical processes in their proper contexts.

Many political groups adopt the ‘pick and chose’ approach towards history to justify the on-going political expediency. Those wanting to dominate the present and the future often want to control the past in order to justify their current agendas.

The current debate in the electronic and print media on the 1992 security operation, first in rural Sindh and the then in Karachi, is not a non-partisan, fact-based study. The debate is highly polemical and divisive, which could undermine interactions among the political parties whose role is crucial to the smooth functioning of the on-going political order.

There is nothing new in the information on the ISI funding some anti-PPP political leaders prior to the 1990 general elections. Its details are on record at least since June 1996, when the then Director General ISI submitted an affidavit to the Supreme Court. This issue is being revived thirteen years later ostensibly to add to the current political controversies. Most political leaders denied accepting any money from the ISI when their names became public in 1996. They are not expected to change their position now. However, the revival of the issue engages the attention of political leaders of all kinds.

The third issue dominating the current political discourse is the prosecution of General Pervez Musharraf for high treason under Article 6 of the constitution in light of the Supreme Court judgement of July 31, 2009. The PMLN is spearheading the campaign for the trial of Musharraf, although it is clear to its leadership that they are not going to succeed. The Jama’at-e Islami is also championing this cause. The Jamiat-e Ahle-e Hadees (another Islamic party) and Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehrik-e Insaf are also supporting a trial of Musharraf.

This issue has polarised the political forces. The PMLN and the JI are using this issue to build pressure on the PPP-led government at the federal level. The PMLN and the MQM are engaging in polemical exchanges on the issue as well, because the MQM is opposed to the PMLN proposal for the trial of Musharraf.

The ‘minus one, two or all’ formulas for removal of top people in the government have evoked interest in political quarters. Some would like to see Asif Ali Zardari removed from power, while others would prefer the entire PPP government to be removed. This is being coupled with a propaganda campaign about increased corruption in various government agencies; and some are going to the extent of accusing people in and around the presidency of involvement in shady financial deals.

It would be interesting to track the source of these ‘minus’ proposals. If they were floated by some political circles opposed to President Zardari, there is not much to worry about; they can be described as part of the polemical debate between the government and some elements in the opposition. However, it becomes a serious matter if some elements in the ISI or the MI have directly floated the proposal or encouraged some political elements to do so. That could have serious implications for the future of the political system.

On top of all this is the issue of expansion of the American embassy in Islamabad, including the presence of some American troops. A section of the media, along with Islamic political parties and circles, has described this as the setting up of an American military outpost that would be a challenge to Pakistan’s sovereignty. This debate, based less on facts and more on emotions, deflects attention away from Pakistan’s current acute problems and increases political pressure on the government.

The simultaneous surfacing of these five issues does not appear to be accidental. It is a planned effort to divide and fragment political forces. The underlying idea is to divide them so sharply that they are no longer in a position to work together.

The major political parties have shown much restraint in their interactions after the February 2008 elections. Despite their differences and complaints against each other, they have not resorted to free-for-all war against each other because they now recognise that unrestrained competition would uproot the democratic experiment, and all of them would lose to religious extremists and the military-bureaucratic elite.

If the dynamics of the current effort to reinvent the conflicts of the 1990s is not fully appreciated by the political forces, they will fall into the trap of those who have no stake in the present system or want to weaken it to wrest the political initiative. It is interesting that the 1990 ISI funding and the 1992 episode are being reinvented though retired army/intelligence officers who could hardly be sympathetic to the present-day political leadership.

The experience of the 1990s suggests that all minus-prime minister formulas were implemented with the blessings of the army chief, and prior to the removal, stories of corruption and mismanagement appeared in the press.

If the minus one or all formula does not have the blessing of the army/intelligence agencies, there is nothing to worry about, because such formulas cannot be implemented without their support. If the formulas have the blessings of some elements in the army and its intelligence agencies, this reflects a shift in the orientation of the top brass from professionalism to cautious dabbling in politics. It would be unfortunate if some elements have started toying with such an idea because, under the present circumstances, the military will be confronted with a more complex situation, compromising its capacity to counter terrorism.

Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi is a political and defence analyst

Read more...

Dr. Shahid Masood: Whose payroll is he on these days?

Package of PTV chairman announced

Tuesday, July 01, 2008 By Muhammad Ahmad Noorani ISLAMABAD: The Establishment Division on Monday issued an ambiguous notification explaining the package and remunerations of the newly-appointed chairman-cum-managing director of the state-owned Pakistan Television Corporation (PTV). The letter of the Establishment Division bearing No 1/64/2008-E-6, dated June 30, 2008, says that besides the fixed remuneration of the new chairman PTV, any other “financial benefits” are negotiable between Dr Shahid Masood and “competent authority” at some later stage. The Establishment Division letter read: “Dr Shahid Masood, chairman PTV, who also has the additional charge of managing director, has agreed to receive the same remuneration package which was given to former MD PTV Yousuf Baig Mirza (annexure-III).” The contract of Dr Shahid Masood will be for a period of five years which could be terminated by either side on a six-month notice. The attached document (annexure-III) issued by the Establishment Division on May 25, 2007, said that MD PTV Yousuf Baig Mirza would get Rs 700,000 per month as salary. His house rent would be Rs 150,000 and utility allowances Rs 25,000. The salary would be raised by Rs 50,000 per annum. Free mobile phone, two residence telephones and one fax would be allowed. Business class tickets would be given for the national and international travels. Recreational allowance would be given according to the situation. The notification issued by the Establishment Division on Monday said Dr Shahid Masood would be paid Rs 50,000 extra to that of the package of the previous MD as he (Dr Shahid) would also hold the office of the PTV chairman. Information minister Sherry Rehman has also approved the Establishment Division notification. However, senior PTV officials see the point of “extra financial benefits to be negotiated later” with concern. The officials maintained that it would be totally against the rules of the corporation and illegal to offer somebody any percentage of the income from any programme aired on the PTV. Dr Shahid Masood was appointed as the PTV chairman through the Establishment Division letter No 1/64/2008-E-6, dated May 31, 2008, and was given the additional charge of the MD through the letter No 1/64/2008-E-6, dated June 21, 2008. http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=121626

(Jang, 17 August 2009)

....

Pir Mazhar-ul-Haq points towards the fact that certain (yellow) journalists such as Dr. Shahid Masood are being fed by the ISI and other agencies to destabilise democracy in Pakistan.

...

Some relevant comments:

Dervaish at pkpolitics:

Why do we have people like Shahid Masood (Meray Mutabiq) here ? He is a compromised individual, having done soul-selling, Faustian deals with those whose crimes against the country, institutions and people of Pakistan we are still suffering from. One of the main reasons many of us come to Pkpolitics is because of the quality material of a political and cultural nature available here--and also because there are stand-up acts among the participants like Javedshiekh, larki and mulla---but when we see these whores of journalism selling their bogus and hypocritical wares, again and again, we feel rather disappointed.

Just because he---and other maraasis like Javed Chaudhry (kal tak) and Iftikhar (jawab deh)---say things that are ideologically/politically in line with your politcs (roughly translated as pro Imran-PTI, pro Sharif bros. and others of the ilk) does not mean that he should be given space here. Wittingly or unwittingly you have given these shameless bozos a new life and respectibility and many have already forgotten the unforgiveable crimes of these opportunists. This is one reason why institutions, as opposed to oft-proven corrupt individuals, don't take root in Pakistan: one should not be too surprised now to see the imminent return of the Fawji zalim Musharraf back in politics and power, just like Shahid Masood is now back as a "respectable" journalist. Memories are too short, things get forgotten too easily: we refuse to learn from the past. In a way, some of the media anchors and column writers---for whatever reasons---are accomplices in the fostering and promotion of such collective amnesia.

The media and internet sites like this play crucial roles in resucsitating these dead and rejected monsters and making them look "respectable" again. This is unfortunate, although some would like to call this practice as democratic and a freedom of expression issue. Just look how that criminal cow of Rawalpindi (Sheikh Rashid) is getting unnecessary media space and reviving his political fortunes thanks to these TV political talk shows (often on the TV shows of typically Punjabi maskharas like Javed Chaudry and Iftikhar but recently even on a show like Talat's, which was really disappointing!). These failures crave to be on these shows because they know that the media (the anchors) is the magic pill that will give their political life a new lease. Our salavation lies in the once-and-for-all rejection of these anti-people monsters. How many times do we, the people of Pakistan, want to test and try them out ? We cannot afford the same any more.

Decency, if not justice, demands that this site shows some respect for its audience and shun these black sheep of the profession of journalism. They are all poor quality material who do not deserve to be on this otherwise decent, high quality and wonderful site. Thank you.

....

Dr. Shahid Masood, who basically has a background of National Students Federation (NSF of People’s Party) is a failed surgeon by profession. He got attracted some 7-8 years ago toward journalism. His thinking was that journalism brings in a lot of money. He remained with ARY ONE WORLD and then joined GEO TV before accepting the bribe of Charimanship of PTV by the PPP government. In Pakistani politics, if you want to succeed or you want to grow and reach some top government position or you want to make lots of money, you have to abuse, curse and shoot at the government, the military, and the Establishment or give a big shit to the United States (what Imran Khan, Aitzaz Ahsan, Mirza Aslam Baig, Hameed Gul, Talat Hussain, Nusrat Javed (Aaj TV), Hamid Mir (Geo), Dr. Shahid Masood (ex-PTV now GEO) are doing and did.

...

Anonymous:

His summersaults are the biggest evidences. The Biggest crime of the media anchor is when he sells his soul.

He was biggest critic of PPP then all of a sudden he met Asif Zardari at his residence ( as per his own narration on Geo TV) and joined PTV with big salary.
He himself admitted in the Geo TV that as per the agreement he was suppose to pay back the money if he leaves the Job. When asked by Geo moderator in “Jawab Deh” that you always criticize big people for corruption why don’t you yourself pay back the money which belongs to public exchequer he didn’t have any answer.

He said on TV that he met Asif Zardari with the permission of Ansar Abbasi and Shaheen Sehbai but both of them said Shahid Masood is not telling truth.

Now again he is grilling PPP on GEO may be he wants to raise his conscience money

Such a opportunist and Zameer farosh Shame

....

tahir mahmood said:

same BS from SM with same old ISI payroll journalists like Hassan Nisar, Irfan Siddique, Ansar Abbasi and Sheeda Talli. SM why don’t you invite Hussain Haqqani in your show who would expose your IQ level.

democrate said:

same old song again,zerdari zerdari zerdari,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,daactar is obsessed with zerdari.

Pakistan-Khappay said:

Honesty I have started feeling sorry for Dr SM. He tried his best to get Zardaris attention by doing all the baseless propaganda in his last few shows with the same guests again and again and again. Poor chap he is being totally ignored. He lost the plot today and his patience and started stating his wishes and discussing so called rumours. He had to change the guests , couldnt get hameed gul and ik again, he tried to get some people who will not disagree with him, but failed desperately, in the end literally begging SR to say :khuda ke liye keh do rumours khabar ban sakti hain.

I do have a cofession I enjoyed some bits of this show:

Where Malik said Laanti mehsood is dead and he had to sheepishly agree, this after his show with Hamid Mir where he said Laanti will appear on tv in next few days and how embarrased RM etc will be. Well khuda ki lathi today he said nodding his head, like a british Bull ***.

Second was end of show where this great scholar actually admittted his show was more light fiction and entertainment by including SS singing to children.

On a serious note this man openly confessed in a talk show that he got a call from Hameed Gul ( a person nominated by BB as people who are plotting to kill her) that sanha KAr saaz was planned, when BB shaheed landed on airport, question how did Hameed Gul know that, he was obviously trying to scare BB off in typical taliban manner, and though she would run away like NS, but he should she was Bhuttos daughter and a jiyali, our motto is

Yeh jan to aani jaani he
Is jann ki koi Baat nahi
Jis dhajh se koi maqtal main gaya
Wo shan salamat rehti he.

Dr SM your current state is makafat e amal, Hameed Gul should wait for his turn, he will be hanged IA for BBs murder along with his cronies.

Last note for DR BBD : If wishes were horses beggars would ride:.

Some People have mentioned JI and PTI and AL in some comments, Which parties are these, pardon me for ignorance, but I even checked Electoral results on this website but they are mentioned nowhere.

Since we are in a light mood so do check this link. So I sign off with a song as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ghAXpfOtlg

Bawa said:

ڈاکٹر صاحب! آپ بھی کمال کرتے ہیں. جن لوگوں کو انکے گھر والے بھی سننا پسند نہیں کرتے آپ انکو ٹی وی پر بلا لیتے ہیں. وہ بھی نازک معاملات پر بات کرنے کیلئے. آپ بھی خدا کا خوف کریں. شیخ رشید، حسن نثار، روف کلاسرا، اکرام سہگل اور حمید گل جیسے لوگوں پر عوام تھوکتے ہیں. آپ کے دماغ کی چپ میں زرداری وائرس نے بری طرح حملہ کر دیا ہے. لگتا ہے دوبئی والوں سے کوئی طاقتور انٹی وائرس کا انتظام کروانا پڑے گ

Khubaib said:

There must be a limit of everything.The difference between western and Pakistani media is that western societies do not believe in mud slinging and it cost sometime very heavily to the who who indulges into this type of shit but since electronic media is being gradually evolved in the country people like Shahid Masood will keep mushrooming until we reach saturation level.If he knew that the incumbent set up or President was corrupt why he joined PTV as MD in first place.A small fly told me the other day that he still owes Rs 5 million of PTV which he has to return.He locked horn with the then Information Minister in PTV and bite the dust.Imagine a person criticizing the high and mighty of the country when he himself failed to record presidential address correctly not once but twice as MD PTV.

Mere allegations suggest that SM is on someone’s payroll.He joined ARY Network but then joined Geo in search of ‘greener pastures’ soon he made his way to top PTV slot, obviously trampling others and what did he earn? Well to be honest quite an hefty amount but humiliation as after he was booted out of PTV it was clear that he will try to settle the score with vengeance—good going Dr.Shahid keep it up.

mobi said:

media merchant of disorder

qaisanwar said:

ڈاکٹر شاہد مسعود ۔۔۔۔۔۔ آج سکرپٹ پھر عرفان صدیقی کا لکھا لگتا ہے۔ حکایتوں کا بڑا بے ربط استعمال ۔۔۔۔۔ لفظوں کے تیر پھر زرداری کی طرف ’ رہبر چین میں چین ہی لکھ رہے ہیں’ آپ ہارون رشید نہیں کہ روز اول سے داءیں بازو کے ترجمان ہوں ۔ آپ عطا ء لحق قاسمی نہیں کہ میاں نواز شریف سے وابستگی پر فخر کرتے ہوں۔ آپ عباس اطہر نہیں جو ترقی پسند تحریک کی حمایت لیکن پیپلز پارٹی سے عشق پر نازاں ہوں ۔ آپ نزیر ناجی بھی نہیں جو کم از کم ملا دشمنی پر یکسو ہوں ۔آپ حامد میر اور کامران خان بھی نہیں کہ جن کی ایجنسیوں کے ساتھ مسلسل وابستگی ہو ۔ آپ انصار عباسی بھی نہیں جو کہ اپنی رجعت پسندی پر فخر کرتا ہو۔ آپ مصطفی کھر ہیں جو کہ پیپلز پارٹی میں آتا جاتا رہا اور پھر اپنا اعتابر کھو بیٹھا ۔ آپ فاروق لغاری ہیں جو کہ میاں نواز شریف اور بے نظیر کو گالیاں دیتے دیتے خود ایک گالی بن گءے ہیں۔ آپ پیپلز پارٹی کے حامی تھے آپ نے اس کی قیمت وصول کی۔ آپ کی شیری رحمان سے نہ بنی آصف زرداری نے آپ کے لیے کوءی رستہ تلاش نہ کیا ۔ آپ نے آصف زرداری کو گالیاں دینے کا راستہ تلاش کر لیا ۔ جو آپ کو ملا تھا اس سے زیادہ شاید کوءی آپ کو دے نہ پاءے۔ آپ نہ ملیحہ لودھی اور مشاہد حسین جیسے زہین ہیں نہ ہی آپ کااسٹبلشمنٹ کے ساتھ تعلق ان جتنا پرانا ہے۔۔ آپ واجد شمس الحسن اور عطا ء الحق قاسمی بھی نہیں کہ ان کی فطرت میں محسن کشی نہیں تھی۔ خدارا زرداری دشمنی سے نکلیں ۔ اپنے لفظوں کا اعتبار بناءیے۔ اب تو ایاز امیر جیسے پیپلز پارٹی کے مخالفوں نے بھی آپ کے کالموں اور پروگرام پر کراہت کا اظہار شروع کر دیا ہے۔آپ کو شاید اثر چوہان یاد ہو وہ آپ کے انداز میں بھٹو کو گالیاں دیا کرتا تھا لیکن اب کوءی اسے جانتا بھی نہیں ۔ زرداری دشمنی میں ہارون رشید وغیرہ آپ سے کہیں معبر قرار پاءیں گے اس لیے کہ وہ بھٹو خاندان کی دشمنی کا فریضہ پچھلے چالیس سالوں سے انجام دے رہے ہیں اور آج تک اس خاندان سے قریب نہیں ہوءے۔آپ ابھی ابھی تازہ تازہ نوکری سے نکلے ہیں آپ کا اعتبار مشکل سے بنے گا۔ آج محمود خان اچکزءی نے وہ نہیں کہا جو آپ چاہتے تھے ۔محمود خان اسٹبلشمنٹ کے دشمن ہیں حکومت کے نہیں ۔ رجعت پسندوں کے ساتھ ان کا معاشقہ وقتی ہے۔وہ اپنی سوچ میں بڑے واضح ہیں۔ آپ کو شاید پتہ نہ ہو کہ ایک زمانہ تھا ایجنسیاں محمود خان کو قتل کرانے کے درپے تھیں وہ آپ کے مستقل پینلسٹوں حمید گل ؛ روءیداد خان؛ مشاہد حسین اور ہم نواءوں کی طرح نہیں بولیں گے ۔ آپ نے ان کے کچھ الفاظ پکڑ لیے اور پھر پٹے ہوءے مہرے مشاہد حسین کو لے آءے ۔ اور پھر قاضی حسین احمد بیچارے کتنے پریشان تھے کہ میاں صاحب نے الیکشن میں حصہ کیوں لیا۔ عدالتوں نے ان کی خو اہش کے مطابق انارکی نہیں پھیلاءی اس لیے عدالتوں سے بھی نالاں ہیں ۔ آپ تھوڑے ہوءے بجھے ہوءے لگ رہے تھے ۔ میاں نواز شریف اور یوسف رضا گیلانی آپ کے ماینس ون والے فارمولے والے جھانسے میں نہیں آءے۔کامران خان کا طریقہ آپ سے بہتر ہے۔ وہ اسٹبلشمنٹ کے پرانے اور آزمودہ فارمولے پر کام کر رہے ہیں کہ سیاسی حکومت ؛ چاہے پیپلز پارٹی کی ہو چاہے مسلم لیگ کی ؛ اس پر کرپشن کے الزامات کی بوچھاڑ کر دی جاءے۔ابھی حال ہی میں انہوں نے میاں نواز شریف اور عدلیہ کو دبا ءو میں لانے کے لیے ان پر تنقید بھی کی ہے۔ حا لآنکہ وہ یہ کام ایسٹبلشمنٹ کے طے شدہ وقت پر کرتے ہیں لیکن ناظرین میں اپنا اعتبار بھی بنا لیتے ہیں ۔ آپ کا مسءلہ ہے کہ آپ کے زرداری دشمن ایجنڈے میں صرف ضیا ء الحق گروپ آپ کے ساتھ ہے جو کب کا پٹ چکا ۔ آپ کے گروپ کا مہرہ عمران خان زرداری کو گالیاں دینے کی حد تک تو اسٹبلشمنت کے کیانی گروپ کو قبول ہے ورنہ ایک بدلی ہوءی دنیا میں دنیا میں وہ اعتزاز احسن پر داءو لگانے میں زیادہ آسانی محسوس کریں گے۔ پیپلز پارٹی اور مسلم لیگ نواز میں مما ثلت پر گیلانی کا آج کا بیان شاید آپ کو مایوس کرے ۔ ابھی تک افتخار چوہدری؛ گیلانی ؛ نواز شریف اور زرداری ایک دوسرے کو سپیس دے رہے ہیں ۔ ایجنسیوں اور آپ کو نقب لگانے کے لیے کوءی کمزور جگہ نہیں مل رہی ۔ دیکھتے ہیں جیت کس کی ہوتی ہے۔ جمہوریت کی؛ کیانی کی اسٹبلشمنٹ کی یا ضیاء الحق گروپ ک

propolitics said:

Shahid Masood (Zia Ul Haq Lovers Association), Kamran Khan (ISI) and Hamid Mir (MI) are creating the conditions where Army regains control over politics. Have they ever presented a program on defense deals, business subsidies of Forces etc. When they blame Musharraf they do not mention that he got bribes in defense deals like any other general. Qazi Hussain, Roedad Khan, Mushahid Hussain – all have been on the payroll of agencies. Dr. Shahid invites them again and again as they represnt His Master’s Voice.

MalangBaba said:

qaisanwar, U hit the nail right over the head. This is not the first time such tactics being used against PPP. Each and every PPP government faced these kinds of attacks. In 70’s the same work was being done by Mujeeb Shami, Iltaf Hasan Qureshi and Abdul Qadir Hassan and today we have ppl like Kamran Khan, this ‘for sale’ doc. They are targeting President zardari to destroy PPP. This will not happen. Zardari chose to become President with a reason. They know that constitutionaly no one can remove President except parliament with 2/3 majority. They are doing nothing except buildiong a case for new military intervention.

propolitics said:

niazbhatti,

I am sorry if I have hurt your feelings. Several documents are available on the corporate interests of Pakistan Army and on how Army’s subsidies are nurtured under the military governmetns. According to news papers, a few years back, Fauji Foundation was provided a subsidy to deal with the financial crisis as a state enterprise. However, as far as state control over its assets and policies is concerned it is considered as a private enterprise. I can give you more details on it.

The problem with the TV anchors is that they blame politics as an institution. But when condemning generals, their demands are individual. Whatever Musharaf did , it was his role as a head of an institution. Now all TV talk shows are blaming Musharaf but not his institution.

As far as agencies and media are concerned, you might have noticed a news item today. Brgd Imtiaz says that confiscation of Jinah Pur maps from MQM offices was a drama. If you remember , those days ISI was under the control of PM. The then Chief of the Army Staff, allegedly, was against MQM and then a MI sponsoered journalist Azhar Sohail presented the map of Jinah Pur to the press. This news provided an excuse to launch an operation agaisnt MQM.

A must read:

Dr. Shahid Masood exposed in Jawabdeh, story of lifafah journalists, and Salman Taseer's letters to Shahbaz Sharif....

Read more...

Ziaists in Pakistan: From long march to terrorism - some questions for Nawaz Sharif

There are two forms of Ziaists: (1) political Ziaists who keep conspiring against democracy on the pretext of one excuse or the other; (2) militant Ziaists who are represented in the shape of operatives and sympathizers of Taliban and Sipah-e-Sahaba.







(Abbas Mehkari)
Read more...

Remembering Benazir Bhutto - By Abbas Mehkari

Read more...

A meeting with Asif Zardari, a political economist, a visionary leader - Abbas Mehkari

Read more...

Let's fight terrorism through the power of democracy: Pakistan's elected government needs our support - Abbas Mehkari

Read more...

My choice today: Sunday 22 June 2008 - Swat Accord, Peace Deals with Terrorists; Marvi Benazir, The Lawyers Movement

The restoration of judges – Irshad Ahmed Haqqani

Marvi, Benazir – Abbas Mehkari

Swat accord

WHILE every effort ought to be made to salvage the peace deal struck with the Swat militants on May 21, Maulana Fazlullah and his men cannot be allowed to dictate terms. After all, only a month has passed since the accord was signed while Swat has been wracked by militancy for years. The writ of the state is still being established in the district’s more troubled regions and it is naïve to demand that all army troops be pulled out on short notice — by next Tuesday to be exact. What the militants should accept, and the state must concede not an inch more, is a phased withdrawal. If troops left the area en masse, who would ensure that the Swat Taliban are indeed living up to their side of the bargain? The police and local administration? Highly unlikely, given the latent firepower of the militants. At best, local officials can monitor the situation but they are in no position to enforce the terms of the deal: no private militias, no obstruction in the way of girls’ education and polio vaccine campaigns, cessation of attacks on barber shops and music outlets, a ban on the display of weapons and manufacture of explosive devices, dismantling of suicide squads, etc. For these and other reasons, a military presence is essential in the short term. Under no circumstances can the Taliban be allowed to regroup, recruit and otherwise strengthen themselves, which is precisely what happened after the September 2006 deal with militants in North Waziristan.

Enforcement of Sharia law in Swat is also not as straightforward as the Taliban make it out to be. True, the government accepted this demand on May 21 but the modalities of the new legal system need to be worked out and that will naturally take time. Dispensation of justice cannot be summarily handed over to the Taliban — it has to remain within the framework of the state irrespective of the changes being mulled. The release of militants captured by security personnel is a relatively simpler process, but there too a case-by-case review is perhaps in order.

It also needs to be asked why the Swat militants are in such a hurry. Does their urgency have anything to do with the ongoing surge in Taliban activity on the other side of the Durand Line? The militants must realise that laying down arms and making peace with the government is not only in the interest of Pakistan but also their own. If they resort to violence yet again, the military will be left with no option but to launch another crackdown. Worse, outside forces may take on the job without anyone’s permission. (Dawn).


Today’s despot may be tomorrow’s statesman
By Robert Fisk

HOW are the mighty fallen, we used to say. Now we turn it round. How did the fallen become mighty again? Remember the “mad dog of the Middle East” — Reagan’s stupid cliché — the “terrorist” sponsor who even sent a shipload of guns to the IRA?

A certain Moammar Qhazafi — there are 17 different ways of spelling his name in Latin script — was the crazed leader of Libya who wrote a mind-numbingly boring volume of pseudo philosophy called The Green Book and who wanted to mock the White House by calling his own palace the Green House until someone tipped him off that this would mean he would look even more of a cabbage than he already was.

Then suddenly, he gave up some imaginary weapons of mass destruction and Anthony Blair, now the commercial director of World Faith, went out to fawn over him in Tripoli and he was called “statesmanlike” by the absurd Jack Straw and then he was invited to Paris by the even more absurd Nicolas Sarkozy where he right royally made the French president look like a twat by behaving in an extremely unstatesmanlike way.

And now — bingo — Sarkozy has done it again. This time it’s Bashar al-Assad, another presumed “sponsor of world terror” — this twaddle comes from Washington, of course — who will (if he accepts the invitation francaise) be in Paris on Bastille Day to take his place in the reviewing stand at the end of the Champs Elysees. The man whom millions of Lebanese believe plotted the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri in Beirut on 14 February 2005 will thus be receiving one of France’s highest honours: to stand beside the French president as he reviews his military forces.

Le Canard Enchaine, my favourite French newspaper, carried a wonderful cartoon this week in which an extremely good likeness of Bashar asks Sarkozy and the gorgeous Carla: “What is it exactly, your 14 July?” And Carla replies: “It’s the end of a tyrant.” And Sarkozy, almost lost for words, then adds: “Er — a king.” Well quite. And both apply to Bashar, whose succession after his father’s death in 2000 did rather suggest that Syria was now a caliphate (as Egypt will become if Uncle Hosni is succeeded by his son Gamal Mubarak). But seriously, how did Bashar, a hate-figure of the United States and an adjunct to Bush’s crazed notion of the “axis of evil”, get on the guest list? Sure he’s been asked to attend France’s spanking new “Union of the Mediterranean” (along with Ehud Olmert), but there’s more to it than that.

For one thing, both he and Sarkozy smell American failure. The American disaster in Iraq — and in Afghanistan (a movie coming to your local cinema soon) — and its total failure to produce a peace between Israel and the Palestinians and the loss of Lebanon as its protege (now that the pro-Syrian Hezbollah can veto America’s friends in the parliamentary majority once there’s a cabinet) means that France can move in among the wreckage for a second crack at le mandat francaise.

The tribunal to judge Hariri’s murderers still does not exist and even Walid Jumblatt, my favourite Druze nihilist, has been in Saudi Arabia to ask the king to keep pushing for the court. He did the same in Washington, chatting to Bush and Gates and the rest along the same lines. But the United States has failed in the Middle East.

Bashar is thus to be allowed back into the civilised West, which Jacques Chirac once encouraged him to visit before feeling betrayed after Syria’s apparent involvement in Hariri’s murder. My own suspicion is that Baath party security was involved in the mass assasination, but not Bashar.

Either way, it’s only 17 months since Chirac’s foreign minister, Philippe Douste-Blazy turned up in Beirut for the funeral of young Pierre Gemayel (assassinated, the usual fingers pointing towards Syria yet again) to announce that Chirac was “the best defender on earth of Lebanon’s sovereignty”. Now, it seems, Sarkozy is the best defender on earth of Syria’s sovereignty. And of Bashar.

Of course, all this is presented in what I call the politics of candlelight. Olmert may meet Bashar al-Assad, the French tell us, and thus further their indirect peace talks. It’s time to bring Syria in from the cold — which is why two of Sarkozy’s top henchmen have been in Damascus, buttering up the Syrian president in the hope he won’t turn down the trip. France will be able to encourage Bashar to behave in Lebanon, open an embassy in Beirut, delineate the Lebanese-Syrian border, blah, blah, blah. It’s a reward, too, for Bashar’s support for the Doha conference which ended — up to a point — Lebanon’s latest bout of sectarian sickness, albeit to the advantage of Sister Syria herself.

Now the Lebanese parliamentary majority is groaning about Bashar’s visit. So is France’s largest Jewish organisation, although not very successfully; last time the Syrian president visited Paris, it symbolically blamed him for the Nazi Holocaust of Europe’s Jews, which ended well over a decade before Bashar was born. Now even that elegant old butterfly from Libya is objecting to the “Union of the Mediterranean”. Yes, the “statesmanlike” panjandrum Qadhafi denounced the whole shebang with the immortal words:

“We are not dogs to whom they throw bones.” Sarkozy should have guessed.

This was, after all, the same Qadhafi who turned up at a non-aligned summit in old Yugoslavia — this from a former Serbian diplomat friend of mine — with a camel and a white horse, the first to provide milk, the second to ride through the streets of Belgrade en route to the conference. He got to keep the camel. The horse was banned.

But that’s how things go when you see yourself as a “guide” — Qadhafi’s description of himself; oddly the very same term used by A Hitler — and there really is no knowing what happens to wayward folk when they climb on our wheel of fortune. We gave Kurt Waldheim an honourary knighthood, then withdrew it when we found out he had a dodgy Second World War past. We took away Ceausescu’s knighthood when he was executed on Christmas Day. We loved Saddam when he tortured and killed all his communists — when mayor of Paris, Chirac fawned over him too — and when he invaded Iran, then hated him when he invaded Kuwait and were happy to see him hanged 17 years later.

Fear not, such a fate will not await Bashar. He will honour the downfall of the tyrant-king and he will no doubt receive economic help from France. And thus his people will not have to eat cake.— © The Independent.
Read more...