Pakistan Stands United Against All Threats

U.S. accusations that Pakistan is supporting Afghan insurgents have triggered a nationalist backlash and whipped up media fears of an American invasion, drowning out any discussion over the army’s long use of jihadi groups as deadly proxies in the region.

People rally against the U.S. in Multan, Pakistan,

The reaction shows the problem facing the United States as it presses Pakistan for action: Strong statements in Washington provoke a negative public response that makes it more difficult for the army to act against the militants – even if it decided it was in the country’s interest to do so.

Pakistan’s mostly conservative populace is deeply suspicious of U.S. intentions a decade after Washington forged an alliance with Islamabad. Many people here believe the U.S. wants to break up Pakistan and take its arsenal of nuclear weapons, and America is very unpopular throughout the country.

By contrast, Pakistanis lack unity against Islamic militants. Politicians and media commentators are often ambiguous in their criticism of the Pakistani Taliban, despite its carrying out near weekly bombings in Pakistan over the past four years.

One small private television channel has aired an advertisement that features images of Adm. Mike Mullen, America’s top military officer, and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta along with scenes of the Pakistani army fighting and raising the country’s flag.

Each time the Americans appear, a shrill voice sings: “Enemies, you have challenged a nation which has a growing knowledge of the Quran and the support from Allah. Our task in this world is to eliminate the name of the killers!”

Mullen’s comments on Capitol Hill last week set off the storm.

He said the Haqqani network, the most deadly and organized force fighting American troops in Afghanistan, was a “veritable arm” of Pakistan’s premier spy agency, the strongest public statement yet by U.S. officials on Pakistan’s long suspected duplicity.

He and other U.S. officials suggested that the U.S. would use any means necessary to defend itself. That raised speculation here that America might deploy troops in Pakistan’s North Waziristan territory, the Afghan border region where the Haqqanis are based.

Most analysts view that scenario as highly unlikely because of the risks it entails for U.S. interests in the region. But it has not stopped right-wing politicians and retired generals that are well represented on TV talk shows from speculating on the threat of American boots on Pakistani soil.

On Thursday, the leaders of the country’s feuding political parties will put aside their differences to sit under one roof to discuss the issue. In announcing the meeting, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said the lawmakers will discuss “the security situation in the wake of threats emanating from outside the country.”

The Sunni Ittehad Council, an organization representing the country’s Barelvi sect, often referred to as the most moderate among Pakistani Muslims, issued a statement saying it was obligatory on all Muslims to wage jihad against the United States if it attacked Pakistan.

“The Pakistani government and the armed forces should start preparing to counter any possible American attack as Islamic law suggests ‘keeping the horses ready’ to counter any sort of foreign aggression,” the statement said.

There have been a few small street protests since Mullen’s comments, but nothing major.

In some respects, the situation mirrors the atmosphere after the May 2 American helicopter raid on Osama bin Laden, which was carried out without the knowledge of the Pakistani army. There was outrage then over the infringement of the country’s sovereignty by the U.S., but little on how bin Laden had been living in the army town of Abbottabad for so long.

Now, the focus is on Pakistan’s public humiliation at the hands of a supposed ally – and the threat of American action.

There appears to have been little debate on whether Pakistan is right to allow the Haqqani network free reign in parts of the country. Nor has there been much discussion of Pakistan’s historical use of militant proxies in India. This is all the more striking because the Haqqani network and other militants are allied, at least ideologically, to the Pakistani Taliban, who carry out attacks inside Pakistan.

The dominant right-wing narrative in Pakistan following Mullen’s comments has been that the United States is losing the war in Afghanistan and wants to pin the blame on Islamabad. The threat posed by the Haqqani network is seen as exaggerated, and tackling them now is thought not to be in Pakistan’s interest.

The anger this week at America coincided with the visit of Chinese Public Security Minister Meng Jianzhu, allowing the media and politicians to peddle another populist trope: that Beijing will be able to replace the United States as a source of funds if and when Pakistan chooses to sever its ties with Washington.

“American allegations and threats have extremely endangered our country’s security and sovereignty. It is high time … we should consult our friendly neighbors and other countries out of this region and get their support,” said an editorial in the right-wing mass circulation paper, Nawa-i-Waqt.

Most analysts say this hope is misplaced, noting that Beijing shares international concerns about Pakistan as a breeding ground for terrorism and has shown little sign it wants to prop up the government. The hope also fails to address how China would replace American influence on institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

Anti-American sentiment in Pakistan was already rife and growing, following the shooting deaths of two Pakistanis by CIA operatives in Lahore in January and the raid on bin Laden. Both events were portrayed here as further evidence of the malign intentions of the United States.

The Pakistani media tend to focus on the supposed American threat because that’s what Pakistanis want to read and hear about, said Cyril Almedia, a liberal political analyst and columnist. But he said there were signs that those who wanted to see the alliance with the United States break down may be disappointed, noting that the army – which receives billions from the United States in aid – had been relatively muted in its reaction.

“Emotions are running high, but there are indications the military is performing a delicate balancing act,” Almedia said. “On the one hand, it is trying to give a response that satisfies a paranoid, conservative population and the rank-and-file, yet also a feeling that this is not the moment to cause a complete rupture with the United States.”

India Cries as US Offers Dam Funding in Pakistan

By SAEED SHAH

ISLAMABAD — Even as U.S.-Pakistani cooperation on anti-terrorism programs is withering, the United States is considering backing the construction of a giant, $12 billion dam in Pakistan that would be the largest civilian aid project the U.S. has undertaken here in decades.

Supporters of a U.S. role in the project say American participation would mend the United States’ tattered image, going a long way toward quieting widespread anti-Americanism amid criticism that the U.S. lavishes money on Pakistan’s military while doing little for the country’s civilian population.

Approval of the project still faces many hurdles. India objects to the dam because it would be in Kashmir, an area that India also claims. The project also is likely to face opposition from Pakistan’s critics in the U.S. Congress, who’ve called for all aid to be cut off after Osama bin Laden was found hiding in northern Pakistan earlier this year. Recent Pakistani actions, including allegations this week that Pakistan had allowed Chinese military experts to inspect the wreckage of an American stealth helicopter that crashed in the bin Laden compound, are likely to inflame such criticism.

Still, proponents of U.S. aid for the project recall that the United States was popular in Pakistan in the 1960s and ’70s, when Washington backed the construction of two enormous dams, Tarbela and Mangla.

“Getting involved in a long-term project like this is very compelling for us,” said a senior U.S. official who asked not to be identified because no final decision on the project has been made. “This would be a huge demonstration of our commitment to Pakistan and our faith in the country’s future.”

The Diamer Basha dam would provide enough power to overcome Pakistan’s crippling electricity shortage. Proponents of the project also claim that its water storage capacity, in a 50-mile-long lake that would be created behind the dam, would be so great that it would have averted last’s years devastating floods, which deluged a fifth of the country, pushed 20 million people out of their homes and caused an estimated $10 billion in damage.

The U.S.-Pakistani alliance since 2001 has been plagued by accusations in Washington that Islamabad is playing a “double game” by secretly supporting Afghan insurgents, while Pakistan thinks it’s been bullied into acting against its own interests and that it’s been unfairly blamed for American failures in Afghanistan. The unilateral American raid that killed bin Laden in May humiliated Pakistan’s powerful military, causing anti-terrorism cooperation to be all but halted.

Diamer Basha also could bolster the credentials of the civilian side of Pakistan’s government, which traditionally is locked in a struggle with the military over who will dictate policy. The last two military-run governments didn’t manage to build a large dam, leaving the country with a shortage of electricity that forces daily blackouts, known as “load shedding,” that last for as long as 12 hours. The blackouts disrupt industry, throwing thousands out of work and creating misery in ordinary households.

Diamer Basha, to be located on the Indus River, would provide 4,500 megawatts of power, roughly the country’s current shortfall, though it would take some eight years to build.

Shakil Durrani, the chairman of Pakistan’s Water and Power Development Authority, said the dam had received Pakistani government approval and that he was confident of American support for the project, after talks with U.S. officials. The authority plans to develop a shortlist of contractors for the massive construction project at the end of this year.

“If we had a reservoir the size of Diamer Basha, the floods last summer would not have occurred,” Durrani said. “This would be the largest project ever undertaken in Pakistan. It is our top priority.”

The U.S. would provide only a fraction of the $12 billion needed to complete the project. However, the American money would be crucial in enabling other international finance sources to support the dam, especially the Asian Development Bank.

The U.S. official indicated that some $200 million would be provided initially, with the possibility of hundreds of millions more as the project develops.

“We want to see the Diamer Basha project launched. We believe that putting down some money at the beginning will act as a catalyst, accelerate the process,” the official said.

U.S. aid to Pakistan, ramped up to $1.5 billion a year under the Obama administration, has been widely dismissed in the country as going mostly to consultants and lacking direction. It remains unclear how much of the money has arrived in Pakistan since the new aid program began in 2009.

The U.S. official said Washington had spent $2 billion on civilian assistance in Pakistan since October 2009, including $550 million on flood relief last year, but Pakistani officials and analysts say the amount is much less.

“The vast majority of the U.S. aid has gone to the Pakistan military, not schools or social services,” said Mosharraf Zaidi, an analyst. “Diamer Basha would be tremendously good for Pakistan and would show that the U.S. is invested in a long-term relationship with Pakistan, no matter how bad things look today.”

Since 2001, Washington has provided $20.7 billion to Pakistan, according to a recent report from the Congressional Research Service. Of that, $6.5 billion was economic aid, including budget support, an assistance program for the extremism-plagued tribal area and help for internally displaced people. However, it’s included no landmark infrastructure projects.

“U.S. aid is neither visible nor tangible, as far as the people of Pakistan are concerned, unlike, say, aid from China or Saudi Arabia,” said Tariq Fatemi, a former Pakistani ambassador to Washington. “Most Pakistanis want the U.S. to focus on sectors that really matter, namely energy and power.”

In contrast, Chinese economic aid in recent years has included nuclear power plants and the construction of a large deepwater port at Gwadar in the country’s southwest. The Saudis are constantly pumping money into mosques and religious seminaries in Pakistan and they periodically provide cut-price oil.

The Indian Embassy in Islamabad declined to comment directly but it pointed to a statement that the government of India issued in 2006, after the Diamer Basha project was first proposed. That statement said India had officially protested to Pakistan, as the dam would be “in territory that is part of the State of Jammu & Kashmir, which is an integral part of India by virtue of its accession to it in 1947.”

Arundhati Roy and Kashmir’s struggle for justice

Murtaza Shibli

The news that the prize-winning Indian author Arundhati Roy may be arrested for her remarks about Kashmir is not surprising. It is a sign of growing Indian intolerance towards the issue. During the current phase of the Kashmiri intifada, the only Indian response to Kashmiri demands for justice and self-determination has been the use of overwhelming military force. More than 112 civilians – mostly youths – have been killed and several thousand injured, mainly by the Indian military and paramilitary.

The current unrest in Kashmir has met with an increasingly brutal response from the Indian military.

In the absence of strong international criticism, the Indian state has been emboldened to crush any dissent or demands of justice ferociously. Intimidating Kashmiri civil society has always been part of the standard Indian response, but it has grown exponentially over the last few months. In early July, the police arrested Mian Qayoom, president of the Kashmir Bar Association (the main lawyers’ body), for protesting against human rights violations. He was arrested under the draconian Public Safety Act, which authorises incarceration for up to two years if the authorities feel that the detainee may disturb peace and order or threaten the security of the state.

Several other human rights activists, such as Ghulam Nabi Shaheen and political workers remain behind bars, along with hundreds of Kashmiri youths who have been detained for offences such as throwing stones at gun-toting Indian armed forces.

Frustrated by having to treat the mounting casualties amid curfew restrictions and with dwindling medical supplies, a group of doctors at the government medical college in Srinagar staged a peaceful sit-in – only to be accused by the police of various “offences” including rioting and “disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant”. The police also accused them of inciting people and using “anti-national slogans”. The largest local newspaper, Greater Kashmir, lamented that creating an atmosphere of intimidation in this way “speaks of the mindset that always contributed to the worsening of the situation”. It continued: “Rather than establishing a connect with its people and knowing from them what has gone wrong and how can it be corrected, government, by initiating such actions against people, is only pushing the situation towards worse.”

From the very beginning of the current unrest, the government adopted the policy of restricting journalists reporting on demonstrations and brutal government responses. The Indian army and paramilitary forces beat several journalists, refused to respect their curfew passes and even forced closure of leading newspapers as their offices remained locked and the journalists were denied access. In one such incident in July this year, 12 photojournalists working for local, national and international publications suffered serious injuries from security forces trying to stop them recording the demonstrations. One of the BBC’s Urdu service journalists, Riaz Masroor, was stopped and beaten by police as he went to collect his curfew pass on 9 July. According the BBC, he suffered a fractured arm.

In September, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) renewed its call to allow Kashmiri journalists to cover the unrest. This is how Anuradha Bhasin, the executive editor of the Kashmir Times, described the situation to me in an email in September: “The level of intimidation is so high that many reporters have been forcibly doing table [desk-based] stories, mainly operating from the homes. And as an editor, sometimes, even I find that a safer arrangement, given the vulnerability of the reporters in simply stepping out of their homes”.

The current phase of intifada has deeply exposed Indian vulnerability in Kashmir. In absence of any Pakistani support to the new generation of Kashmiris, Indian claims to blame Pakistan, Islamic terrorism and Lashkar-e-Taiba have lost credibility even among its own population.

This has provoked several newspaper reports and opinion articles by Indian journalists and commentators that not only question India’s brutal tactics but also have shown sympathy to Kashmiri demands. It has created what Roy rightly describes as “panic about many voices”, and the threat of charging her with sedition, she says, “is meant to frighten the civil rights groups and young journalists into keeping quiet”.

As the “ISI or Laskhar-e-Taiba” theory of the protests becomes increasingly untenable, Kashmiri demands are finding greater resonance within Indian civil society. The threat to Roy may be a crude attempt to prevent such criticism from gathering momentum at a time when Barack Obama is planning a visit to India next month. India is determined to keep Kashmir out of the picture and, to achieve this, intimidation and terror against Kashmiris has already entered another phase.

Ex-Afghan intelligence chief behind anti-Pakistan propaganda

ISLAMABAD: The former chief of Afghan intelligence gathering outfit Amrullah Saleh has taken up the full-time job to malign Pakistan on one end while providing all sorts of assistance to terrorists to step up activities on the soil of Pakistan on the other.

He throughout had been in league with Indian Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) to destabilise Pakistan but has been recently ousted by Afghan President Hamid Karzai due to his dubious role in the affairs of the state. Amrullah has also assumed the task of creating difficulties for the Afghan administration. The story carried by the Sunday Times and so-called report against Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) by London School of Economics are the handiwork of Amrullah Saleh.

Well placed diplomatic sources told The News that Amrullah Saleh has threatened his leadership that he would bring the peace fragility back in the region to the previous level since he was refused a free hand to play the Indian game in the region.

Amrullah has been brought up and groomed by the Indian intelligence organisation and he had been involved in anti-Pakhtun activities throughout his career. He was the head of the Afghan National Directorate of Security (NDS). He was appointed to the position by President Hamid Karzai in early 2004, succeeding Muhammad Arif Sarwari.

Saleh is an ethnic Tajik from Panjshir, and worked for the Northern Alliance under Ahmad Shah Masood. In 1997 he was appointed to lead the Northern Alliance’s Dushanbe office, where he served as the main conduit linking the CIA to Masood.

With the September 11, 2001 attacks against the United States and the beginning of US bombing against the Taliban, Saleh returned to Afghanistan towards the end of October to help lead Northern Alliance intelligence, serving as the special assistant to intelligence chief Muhammad Arif Sarwari. The Northern Alliance subsequently took over Afghanistan’s existing intelligence apparatus. While Sarwari became director, Saleh was appointed to head Department One, whose duties included liaison with foreign military, diplomatic and intelligence organisations.

Sarwari and Saleh reportedly had a falling out over the latter’s enthusiasm for greater reform, leading to Saleh’s assignment to a lesser post in late 2003. Sarwari was removed from his post as leader of the NDS in early 2004 amidst various criticism that he had, amongst other things, abused his powers, worked against the government and that the NDS had committed human rights violations. President Hamid Karzai appointed Amrullah Saleh in his place in February 2004. Saleh resigned from the NDS on June 6, 2010 after a Taliban attack against the national peace jirga held by President Karzai. He was temporarily replaced by Engineer Ibrahim Spinzada. Saleh has been accused of following the footprints of his predecessor.

DIGGING DIRT

By Fatima Rizvi

There are incorrigible Pakistan ‘bashers’ They are well known and have become stereo typed as such. Their speculation and criticism is loaded with hearsay with zero facts-a lot of conjecture to create misperceptions. They have difficulty in ever saying anything good about Pakistan. Some are also Pakistanis looking for western approval.

In a recent article in a US newspaper Mr Selig Harrison has picked up the perennially green subject of a confrontation between the military and the President/civil government in Pakistan. By doing so he has betrayed his total disconnect with the changed and new civil-military relationship in Pakistan or he does not want to accept this reality and wants to live in the past. Whatever the reason it is most regrettable. There is an elected government and President in Pakistan and there is no civil-military confrontation. Interaction-yes but confrontation-no. Simply because no one wants it.

Read Complete Article : http://fatima-rizvi.livejournal.com/23634.html