Wikileakes: Benazir Bhutto has US support

KARACHI: According to whistleblower Wikileaks, a cable of the US Ambassador dated January 28, 2008 stated that Asif Ali Zardari described the US as “our safety blanket”. He recounted how Benazir Bhutto had returned despite the threats against her because of support and clearance from the US.

Zardari acknowledged that he had believed that the closer he got to General Kayani, the more Kayani would be weakened.

Wikileaks spilled the beans from one of the statements made by Khyber Pakthunkhwa Chief Minister, Amir Haider Khan Hoti. US Counsel Principal Officer in Peshawar Tracy’s cable dated April 30, 2009 sent to Washington said that Amir Haider Khan Hoti has appreciated the drone attacks, but he (Hoti) also said that he could never support it in public.

Lahore US Counsel Principal Officer Brian Hunt said that former Governor Punjab, Salman Taseer flayed Shahbaz Sharif’s government. In a cable dated December 31, 2008, Brian Hunt wrote that Salman Taseer was of the view that Shahbaz Sharif’s government was highly heart burning. “Shahbaz Sharif is hard working, but just like my gardener. Brian Hunt in a memo dated February 7, 2009 wrote that Salman Taseer had nothing to do with the lawyers’ long march and he was getting ready to celebrate Basant and would see whether the people give importance to the long march or choose to party for Basant.

Why the Attack on Libya is Illegal

Counterpunch

Western nations started the third international armed conflict against a Muslim country in the last decade. They went to great pains to claim that the use of force against Libya was legal, but an application of international law to the facts indicates that in fact the use of force is illegal.

This brief commentary evaluates the use of force against Libya, starting with UN Security Council Resolution 1973 that allegedly authorises it and the eventual attack on the people of Libya.

THE FACTS: Unlike the non-violent demonstrations in Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Arab world, the demonstrations that began in Libya on 17 February had deteriorated into a civil war within days. Both sides had tanks, fighter jets, anti- aircraft weapons, and heavy artillery. The government’s forces consisted of mainly trained military, while the armed opposition consisted of both defecting soldiers and numerous civilians who had taken up arms.

Indications of the level of force each side has at its disposal were shown by claims on Saturday, 19 March, that both a Libyan government fighter and a fighter jet flown by the opposition had been shot down near Benghazi. As the civil war increased in intensity, the international community contemplated action in support of the armed opposition. On 17 March, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1973. And within 42 hours an attack on the troops of the Libyan government, aimed, according to the British Defence Minster William Hague, at killing the Libyan leader, had begun.

At around 12:00 noon local time in Washington, DC, on Saturday, 19 March, French fighters launched attacks against targets described as tanks and air defence systems. A few hours later, US battleships began firing cruise missiles at Libyan targets.

Although Arab and Muslim countries had joined the coalition against their Arab and Muslim neighbour, none of them actually participated in the airstrikes by sending aircraft. Already just after airstrikes began, Russia, China and the secretary-general of the Arab League, Egyptian Amr Moussa, condemned the loss of civilians lives that were caused by the bombing sorties.

Despite denials of the intention to target the Libyan leader, sites such as the living quarters and compounds used by Colonel Muammar Gaddafi were attacked. After the first day of bombings, more than four-dozen civilians, including women and children, were reportedly killed.

The attacks came after the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1973. In response to this resolution the Libyan government had officially called a ceasefire in the civil war that it was waging against armed rebels whose base is Benghazi. Libya also announced that its airspace was closed. Western leaders responded to these actions by the Libyan government by claiming that they could not be believed and arguing that the fighting was continuing. Indeed, Libyan sources confirmed that the civil war was ongoing and that both sides continued to attack each other.

UNSC RESOLUTION 1973: Resolution 1973 was adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter with 10 votes for, none against and five abstentions. Voting for it were the UN Security Council’s permanent members, United States, Britain, France, and non-permanent members Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal, and South Africa. Abstaining were permanent members Russia, China and non-permanent members Germany, Brazil, and India.

The resolution was adopted on Thursday, 17 March, just after 18:30 local time in New York. US Ambassador Susan Rice described it as strengthening the sanctions and travel bans imposed earlier in UNSC Resolution 1970. It was promoted by the French and United Kingdom governments, but with a strong presence of the United States in the background pulling the strings.

At the UNSC meeting was the new French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé. Although as former Prime Minister he was not new to the UN, he arrived just weeks after his predecessor had been replaced for having accepted favours from a Libyan businessmen and just days after his government became the first Western government to recognise the forces fighting against the government in Libya’s raging civil war as the legitimate representatives of the Libyan people.

The Libyan government did not have a representative present at the meeting after its nominated ambassador, former President of the General Assembly Ali Abdel-Salam Treki was denied admission to the United States. Nevertheless, although officially relieved of his duties more than a week ago for defecting to the opposition, former deputy permanent representative Ibrahim Dabbashi was on hand at the Security Council media stakeout Wednesday to make a statement and take questions.

Resolution 1973 contains 29 operative paragraphs divided into eight sections. The first section calls for an “immediate cease-fire” in its first paragraph and for respect for international law including “the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian assistance.”

A curious second operational paragraph “stresses the need to intensify efforts to find a solution to the crisis” and goes on to qualify this as responding “to the legitimate demands of the Libyan people” and leading to “the political reforms necessary to find a peaceful and sustainable solution.” Such vague language leaves open both the question of which Libyan legitimate demands must be met and what political reforms are necessary. Legally these requirements also appear to be a direct interference in Libya’s internal affairs in violation of Article 2(7) of the UN Charter, which all UN Security Council resolutions are bound to respect according to Article 25 of the Charter. This apparently irreconcilable discrepancy will fuel speculation that the resolution is another example of politics refusing to respect international law.

Paragraphs 4 and 5 concern the protection of civilians with the latter paragraph focusing on the regional responsibility of the Arab League.

The longest operative part of the resolution is then devoted to the creation of a no-fly zone in paragraphs 6 through 12. Article 6 creates the no-fly zone “on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians.” Paragraph 7 then enumerates several humanitarian exceptions.

It is perhaps paragraph 8 that will focus the mind of most international lawyers where it is written that states may “take all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban on flights.” The use of the term “all necessary measures” opens the door to the use of force. At the same time, the use of force is limited to enforcing the no-fly zone and does not extend to attempts to kill the Libyan leader or to supporting one side in the armed conflict, although preventing the Libyan government from using its air force, of course, favours the armed opposition.

Paragraph 8 is unusual in that is appears to authorise the use of force under Chapter VII without applying any of the safeguards for the use force that are stated in Article 41. There is no determination made that measures not involving the use of force had failed. In fact, Resolution 1973 was adopted after the UN Security Council, the UN Human Rights Council and the African Union had decided to send missions to contribute to a peaceful solution, but before any of these missions could visit Libya. Moreover, Resolution 1973 was adopted after an offer by the Libyan leader to step down and leave the country with his family had been rejected by the armed opposition without room for negotiation.

Paragraphs 13 through 16 call for an arms embargo and ” [d]eplores the continuing flows of mercenaries” into the Libya. In doing so, paragraph 13 decides that paragraph 11 of UNSC Resolution 1970 (2011) shall be replaced with a new paragraph that “authorises Member States to use all measures commensurate to the specific circumstances to carry out such inspections.” Again this language indicates that force may be used against seafaring vessels suspected of carrying arms to Libya in violation of the embargo.

In paragraphs 17 and 18, states are required to deny take off, landing or overfly rights to “any aircraft registered in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya or owned or operated by Libyan nationals or companies.” Although it is clearly stated that these provisions shall not affect humanitarian flights, it will undoubtedly complicate such flights.

Paragraphs 19 to 21 extend the asset freeze imposed by paragraphs 17, 19, 20 and 21 of UNSC Resolution 1970 (2011) to “all funds, other financial assets and economic resources” that are “owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the Libyan authorities… or by individuals or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, or by entities owned or controlled by them.” The related paragraphs 22 and 23 extend the travel restrictions and the asset freeze in resolution 1970 (2011) to all the individuals in two annexes. In doing, these paragraphs essentially prevent members of the Muammar Gaddafi family from leaving Libya and effectively force them to fight the armed opposition.

Paragraph 24 creates a new body, a “panel of experts”, to assist the committee created in UNSC Resolution 1970, to ” [g]ather, examine and analyse information from States, relevant United Nations bodies, regional organisations and other interested parties regarding the implementation of the measures” in UNSC Resolution 1970, to “[m]ake recommendations … to improve implementation of the relevant measures,” and to ” [p]rovide to the Council an interim report on its work no later than 90 days after the Panel’s appointment, and a final report to the Council no later than 30 days prior to the termination of its mandate with its findings and recommendations.”

Paragraph 27 says all states “shall take the necessary measures to ensure that no claim shall lie… in connection with any contract or other transaction where its performance was affected by reason of the measures taken by the Security Council in Resolution 1970 (2011), this resolution and related resolutions.”

Finally, in penultimate paragraph 29, the Council “[d]ecides to remain actively seized of the matter.”

PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS: By the time the resolution was in the public domain, British tabloids and broadsheets were already rallying the world to war. The French were convening a meeting being described as the planning meeting to use force. And while the US president was remaining cautiously ambiguous, other US officials were openly calling for military intervention in what had by now become a civil war in Libya.

In the emotional fury, international law seems to have been forgotten. One BBC commentator went so far as to suggest that political support for a no-fly zone by the Arab League was a legal justification for the use of force. Similar uses of force in Afghanistan and Iraq, which are widely considered as violating international law, seem not to have had much of an impression on British journalists.

Journalists elsewhere have also seemed oblivious to international law in their consideration of Libya, often calling for the invasion of this sovereign country by force, despite the fact that not only Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits such a use of force, but so too does the language of UNSC Resolution 1973 itself.

Even opponents of the use of force seem unaware of the applicable international law. British MP Jeremy Corbyn in the House of Commons, for example, asked if we use force against Libya to protect one side in a civil war, why don’t we use it in Bahrain were dozens of unarmed protesters have been killed by national and foreign forces, or in Yemen where about 50 peaceful protesters were slaughtered by army sharpshooters. This query at least appears to understand the fact that international law, to have real value in international relations, needs to be applied in similar situations in a similar manner. Failure to apply the law consistently seriously undermines the law and its restraints on international action.

INTERNATIONAL LAW: While decisions regarding the use of force against Libya seem to have been based more on emotions than on an understanding of the relevant law, this law is not irrelevant. International law will continue to reflect the general rules that states use in their relations with each other long after the end of the armed conflict in Libya. It is also, one might suggest, crucial to peace and security in a world made up of people of diverse values and interests.

Perhaps the most fundamental principle of international law is that no state shall use force against another state. This principle is expressly stated in Article 2, paragraph 4, of the UN Charter. No state can violate this principle of international law.

While the UN Security Council can order the use of force in exceptional circumstances, according to Article 24(2) of the UN Charter, the Council “shall act in accordance with the Principles and Purposes of the United Nations.” This means, at least, that when peaceful means of dispute resolution are still possible the options for authorising the use of force are extremely limited. In the present case, the Security Council appears to have rushed to use force.

Narrow exceptions to the prohibition of the use of force are found in Article 51 and Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The latter provisions, especially Article 42, allow the Security Council to take action that “may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.” Both resolutions 1970 and 1973 state that they are being adopted under Chapter VII. Neither, however, meets the requirements of Article 42 that a determination has been made that “measures not involving the use of force” have failed.

In a civil war it is hard to see how such a determination can be made. It would appear that at the very least it would have to be based on on- the-ground fact-finding. Fact-finding missions by the UN Human Rights Council and the Security Council have not yet gone to Libya. While there is little doubt Western governments, such as the United States, have significant abilities to determine what is happening in Libya with distant surveillance methods, this does not provide sufficient evidence of whether the government of Libya is complying with the Security Council’s resolutions. Only on-the-ground observers can determine this, as we have seen from the misinformation spread about Iraq’s actions based on third party and distant surveillance sources.

Moreover, the evidence of Libya’s compliance is mixed. Libya almost immediately announced it would respect the terms of UNSC Resolution 1973 after it was adopted. Nevertheless, in an unprecedented show of diplomatic intolerance, and without confirmation of the facts on the ground, Western leaders called the Libyan leader a liar.

Libya has also offered to accept international monitors, even extending invitations to them to visit the country. And in an extraordinary concession, the Libyan leader sent a message to the armed opposition when they had the upper hand and were approaching Tripoli, offering to step down and leave the country. It was only after this offer was rejected and opposition leaders said it was non-negotiable that the Libyan leader be captured and killed that the government’s troops launched their offensive.

If international law allows states to use force in very limited circumstances, there are even fewer circumstances in which non-state actors are allowed to use force. One of those circumstances is when the right to self-determination is being exercised against a foreign and oppressive occupying power. This might entitle Iraqis or Afghanis to use force against occupying armies, but it would not entitle the Libyan people to use force against their own government.

Even the extrajudicial right of revolution, that many international lawyers admit exists when the limits of the law have been reached, has not been explicitly relied on by the Libyan rebels. While participation in the governance of Libya might have been a widespread problem, the country had the highest per capita income in Africa and among the best Millennium Development Goals indicators. Moreover, Libya has shown itself to respect international law in the past, implementing judgments of the International Court of Justice in the conflict with Chad and even turning over suspects for which there was questionable evidence for trial abroad in the Lockerbie affair.

Finally, the question of self-defence is relevant to the use of force against Libya. Rather than justifying the Western attack against Libya, however, it would appear to justify action taken by Libya against Western interests. In other words, as Libya has been the object of an armed attack that is likely illegal under international law, it has the right to defend itself. This right includes carrying out attacks against military facilities or personnel from any country involved in the attack. In other words, the attack against Libya by France and the United States makes the military facilities and personnel of these countries legitimate targets for attacks carried out by Libya in self-defence.

Regardless of the legality of the use of force by any party to the armed conflict international humanitarian law or the laws of war will continue to apply. According to this law, all states involved in an armed conflict must take care not to attack civilians. The Libyan authorities alleged they were respecting this restriction in the civil war, although the rebels refuted this claim. International humanitarian law requires that no military force may be directed against civilians or civilian facilities in Libya.

Similarly international human rights law continues to apply, making attacks on civilians subject to the restrictions on the use of force emanating from existing international human rights obligations. If the use of force against Libya is illegal as suggested above, then the standard for determining whether disproportionate force is being used is that applicable during peacetime. This is the case because no state involved in the use of force in Libya has announced its derogation from its international human rights obligations and because to allow states to derogate merely by starting an armed conflict in violation of international law would be contrary to the object and purpose of any of the existing human rights treaties.

The use of force in a manner that is contrary to existing international law is perhaps the greatest harm to humanity in the long-term. In the Pact of Paris in 1928 and again in the UN Charter in 1945, states agreed not to use force against each other to accomplish their foreign policy ends. The Western world has appeared to repeatedly challenge this agreement in the last 10 years, especially by its willingness to take military action against predominately Muslim states. In doing so they have sent an undeniable signal to the international community through their actions, and despite some of their words, that international law does not matter to them. If this message is not answered by the proponents of international law, then the advances we have made to ensure that the international community respects the rule of law may be undone for future generations

N.Korea says to sever all ties with S.Korea

SEOUL – North Korea said Tuesday it was severing all ties with South Korea and cutting communications links in protest at claims that it had torpedoed one of Seoul’s warships.

South Korean navy personnel stand guard next to the wreckage of the naval vessel Cheonan, which sank …

The North said it would expel all South Korean personnel from a jointly-run industrial estate at Kaesong north of the border, and ban South Korean ships and planes from its territorial waters and airspace.

The state Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of Korea said South Korea’s claims that it had sunk the warship were tantamount to a declaration of war.

In a statement on the official news agency, it said it was freezing relations and abrogating a non-aggression agreement.

The statement further heightened regional tensions sparked by a report last week from a multinational investigation team.

The team said there was overwhelming evidence that a North Korean submarine had sunk the South Korean corvette on March 26 with the loss of 46 lives.

The US said Pyongyang’s reaction was totally contrary to its self-interest. “I think it’s odd,” State Department spokesman Philip Crowley told reporters.

“South Korea is one of the most dynamic economies in the world… North Korea is unable to care for its citizens. It’s unable to feed its people.”

“I can’t imagine a step that is less in the long-term interest of the North Korean people than cutting off further ties with South Korea,” Crowley said.

Seoul Monday announced a package of reprisals, including a halt in most trade. It plans to refer the sinking to the United Nations Security Council.

The North said it would not talk to the South again for the remainder of President Lee Myung-Bak’s term of office.

The conservative leader began a five-year term in February 2008, adopting a tougher line towards the North than his liberal predecessors.

The North also vowed an “all-out counterattack” against the South’s decision to resume an official cross-border propaganda campaign including loudspeaker broadcasts.

It did not give details but had earlier threatened to open fire at the loudspeakers.

The North also said all inter-Korean issues would be handled “under a wartime law” but did not elaborate.

“There is no need to show any mercy or patience for such confrontation maniacs, sycophants and traitors and wicked warmongers as the Lee Myung-Bak group,” it said.

The statement came hours after the North’s military accused South Korea’s navy of trespassing in its waters around the disputed Yellow Sea border and threatened military action.

The communist North denies involvement in the sinking of the corvette, despite widespread international condemnation. It threatens full-scale war if there is any attempt to punish it.

In an apparent show of strength, the South’s defence ministry said the navy would stage an anti-submarine drill in the Yellow Sea on Thursday. The military also said a destroyer was stationed in the Jeju Strait off the south coast to stop the North’s cargo ships using it.

The South shut its sea lanes to the North as part of the reprisals announced Monday.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is due in Seoul Wednesday to show support to Washington’s close ally South Korea during its confrontation.

The United States has backed Seoul’s punitive measures and announced it would soon hold anti-submarine and other naval exercises with it.

Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the United Nations, told reporters Washington backs Seoul’s decision to refer the sinking to the UN Security Council.

Clinton, during two days of talks in Beijing, had pressed China to get tougher on its ally North Korea.

China — which could veto any UN move for new sanctions — has not blamed the North for the sinking but called for restraint by all sides.

“The two sides believe that ensuring peace and stability in east Asia and the Korean peninsula is critical,” State Councillor Dai Bingguo said in Beijing Tuesday at a joint press appearance with key US officials.

Clinton said the two sides share the objective of peace and stability on the Korean peninsula. “Now we must work together again to address the serious challenge provoked by the sinking of the South Korean ship.”

Financial markets across Asia responded nervously to the escalating crisis, with one unconfirmed report from a group of North Korean defectors claiming that the North had placed its armed forces on combat alert.

The North says the South’s “puppet” authorities have faked evidence of its involvement as part of a plot to ignite conflict.

Afghans wary of U.S. end game

By Alistair Scrutton

KABUL: Away from all the probable pomp, ceremony and firm handshakes in President Hamid Karzai’s trip to Washington next week, many Afghans will be seeking a strong signal that the U.S. will not cut and run from its 9-year-old war.

More than anything, U.S. President Barack Obama’s deadline to start withdrawing troops by July 2011 after a surge this year has reminded many Afghans of how Washington effectively abandoned the country in 1989-90 after the Soviet army were forced to retreat.

That feeling has been exacerbated by a public spat between Obama and Karzai this year, troubles in a stepped-up U.S.-led offensive against the Taliban, as well as mutterings from the U.S. ambassador that the Afghan leader is not a reliable partner.

It is a sentiment that some say could further pressure Karzai to reach early peace deals with the Taliban, something that worries the United States as its prepares an offensive involving at least 23,000 NATO and Afghan troops in Kandahar.

“We have to have a commitment to ensuring strategic partnership,” said Defence Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak. “There should be no faltering. This is exactly what the enemy expects — that the interest of the international community will wane.”

Washington has played down any deadline, saying they would withdraw troops only if conditions were right. Some Afghan experts see the deadline just as a way of Washington pressurising Karzai to get his act together.

But the perception among Afghans is different.

“When you start talking about exit strategies, these deadlines, these are interpreted by Afghans in another way and encourage the other side. Enemies expect a repeat performance. It makes Afghans remind themselves of ’89, ’90,” Wardak added.

Karzai had helped provoke a rift with Washington after a string of anti-Western statements, including accusing the international community of corrupting the presidential election.

Washington, on the other hand, is increasingly critical of corruption in the Afghan government and the ability of authorities to help implement billions of dollars of aid.

BOTH NEED EACH OTHER?

Karzai knows he still needs the Americans, analysts say, if only to speed up a transition to fuller sovereignty and appease Afghans critical of U.S. forces after they mistakenly killed scores of civilians in recent years.

“The quicker we get enablers, the quicker the transition,” Wardak said, referring to NATO help for the Afghan national army ranging from transport to reconnaissance capabilities. “But the transition cannot be premature.”

At the same time, Obama wants to stop Afghanistan from becoming a political obstacle ahead of congressional elections in November when voter anxiety over high unemployment and a fragile economy is already expected to take a toll.

“One of his achievements from Washington would be to buy time with the United States,” said Daoud Sultanzoy, a lawmaker. “Afghanistan is becoming an increasingly hard sell.”

“The U.S. government may be patient for now, but what about the U.S. people, the European people?”

There is evidence that regional neighbours like India and Pakistan have already taken an end game for granted, and are juggling diplomatically to ensure influence in a post U.S. world.

Afghans too believe this will eventually happen.

“If Americans or NATO see that they can’t defeat the Taliban, they will run away as the Americans abandoned us after the Soviets departed and left us a legacy of war and bloodshed,” said Noor Mohammad, a government worker in Kandahar.

Hashmat Ghani Ahmadzai, an Afghan analyst and politician, said Afghans were already preparing for an end game.

“On the local, mosque, village level, people are reaching out to the Taliban because they eventually believe the Americans will leave,” Ghani said. “And that is filtering up to the government.”

Karzai may be in for a hard time in Washington, especially among members of Congress. Little has been done, many observers say, to show improvements in governance as billions of dollars in aid flow. U.S. officials say the meet will focus on corruption.

Despite this, the Afghan leader hopes a good meeting will allow him to return home stronger politically to push for talks with the Taliban at a national peace assembly “jirga” planned from May. 29. The Taliban has so far dismissed Karzai’s efforts.

The U.S. administration remains wary of such overtures to the Taliban leadership. If anything is done at all, they would like it from a position of strength after the Kandahar offensive. But Karzai may see it as insurance for his political future.

“There is a danger Karzai will reach out prematurely to the Taliban,” said Sultanzoy.

So, many Afghan policy makers hope Washington will send out a strong message of support.

“We want him (Obama) to prove the partnership. If again they want to repeat the same mistake, next time they will pay triple,” said Shukria Barakzai, an independent lawmaker.

US offers training to Pakistani law-enforcement agencies

Daily Times

ISLAMABAD: The US has offered Pakistan the facility for training and building up the technical capacity of the law enforcement agencies of Pakistan. The US has also offered help for further strengthening the air wing of the Interior Ministry, and lauded Pakistan’s efforts against terrorism. A US delegation headed by Assistant Secretary for International Narcotics David T Johnson met with Interior Minister Rehman Malik on Wednesday. Both the sides discussed issues of mutual interest.

According to a press release, the meeting was held in a peaceful and friendly atmosphere and US Ambassador Anne W Patterson was also present. Separately, an Australian delegation headed by an advisor on national security called on the Interior Minister and discussed matters of mutual interest. The Australian High Commissioner Timothy George was also present. They discussed various issues, including those of controlling illegal arrival of Afghan nationals with Pakistani passports The minister directed the FIA DG to take steps to stop Afghan nationals from travelling to Australia with Pakistani passports. He also called upon the Australian advisor to work for early repatriation of Pakistani nationals in Australian jails.

Musharraf hints at political comeback

* Former president ‘thinks All Pakistan Muslim League has been registered’ to mark his return to politics

LAHORE: Former president Pervez Musharraf hinted that the All Pakistan Muslim League might have been registered to mark his comeback to Pakistani politics, a foreign news channel reported on Monday.

The channel said that Barrister Saif Ali would be the coordinator of the party. To a question about the registration of the party and whether he would lead it, the former army chief said, “I think the party has been registered.” Talking to journalists before a lecture in Seattle, Musharraf said that he would return to Pakistan if the country wanted him to do so and if he believed he had enough support to make a contribution.

“If I have to just go there and join the political fray and be involved in accusations and counter-accusations…like most politicians are doing, then I am not interested in that kind of politics,” he said.

Musharraf became Pakistan’s head of state in 1999 during a military coup, but he said any return to power would be through a democratic process. He was an ally of former US president George W Bush in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, yet was forced to resign in 2008.

Talking to an audience of several hundred largely Pakistani Americans in Bellevue, Musharraf said the Taliban’s brand of Islamic extremism poses a serious threat to the nation. “We need to ask ourselves, do we or don’t we want a Taliban and al Qaeda culture in Pakistan … because every action then flows from that decision,” he said, the Seattle Times reported.

Musharraf’s visit to Washington was sponsored by the Friends of Pakistan First, and after the speech his audience asked wide-ranging questions on Pakistan’s economy, India, feudalism and other topics.

He was asked about recent terrorist attacks that killed World Vision workers in Pakistan, to which he said the aid organisation should show resolve and not withdraw from the country.

Musharraf’s swing through the area came at a time when the Pakistan press has been speculating on whether he has a future political role in the country.

In December, Asian News International quoted Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid leader Sher Afgan Niazi as saying his party would welcome the former president’s return, which was likely to happen this winter. But an aide said this month that Musharraf had no plans of returning to Pakistan and rejoining the political fray.

His visit prompted more than 70 protesters to gather early on Sunday evening on a sidewalk outside the Westin Hotel in Bellevue where he spoke. One sign read “Dictator Not Welcome”, while others read, “Stand for Peace” and “Mister Commando is on the Run”.

“My biggest concern is that he was a dictator and now he is getting this welcome in America,” said Agha Khan, a Microsoft software engineer at the protest.

Musharraf also faces bitter opposition in Pakistan, where there are calls that he be put on trial for detention of Supreme Court justices and other alleged violations of the constitution.

“Security would be a huge issue for Musharraf if he returns,” said Ryan Crocker, former US ambassador to Pakistan. “So there would have to be some very solid understandings, backed up by the army,” he added.