The Afridi Conviction

By Ghalib Sultan
ZoneAsia-Pk

An Assistant Political Agent in FATA has sentenced Dr Afridi to 33 years in prison and a fine under the Frontier Crimes Regulations for collaborating with the US CIA in the process that led to the unilateral US action to kill Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. Dr Afridi is a Pakistan national domiciled in FATA though his CIA directed activities were carried out in the town of Abbottabad that is not in FATA. Pakistan must have made sure that his trial under the FCR was legally correct because of his domicile status. According to media reports Dr Afridi’s wife is a US national and if true then that may have given the CIA a coercive advantage if any was needed—material gain was definitely involved.

The US by publicly defending and championing the cause of Dr Afridi has established beyond all doubt that Dr Afridi, a Pakistan government employee, was subverted and recruited to work for the CIA. What the US has not explained is why Dr Afridi was left to face the music and why he and his family were not taken out especially when his role was sure to be discovered. The US had abandoned Cuban collaborators after the Bay of Pigs fiasco in the Kennedy era. South Vietnamese collaborators were also abandoned to a horrific fate and now the Afghans are bracing for what awaits them. Angry US law makers have now woken up and demanded that Afridi be released as he has done nothing wrong. He hasn’t under US law but can Pakistan ignore the fact that a Pakistani government official collaborated with a fToreign intelligence agency in a clandestine manner? Not if they do not want to set a precedent for others. Dr Afridi under US direction also recruited other government employees to work with him and by using a vaccination campaign as a cover discredited the government’s health care programs. US law makers have proposed a cut of US$ 33mn—one for each year of Dr Afridi’s prison term—to be deducted from the aid to Pakistan and perhaps paid to Dr Afridi as compensation. This cut comes after a proposal to cut all aid to Pakistan by half for the continued closure of the NATO logistics route. The gloves are off and the strategy is to brow beat Pakistan into compliance. Pakistan, and Dr Afridi, are learning what collaboration with the US really means.

US lawmakers are calling Pakistan an extortionist because it has demanded adequate payment for damage to its infrastructure. Pakistan has been called a schizophrenic ally—living in Alice’s wonderland and one has speculated that if this is Pakistan’s idea of cooperation then what would its opposition look like? You do not want to go down that route not with the present situation in Pakistan. Many in the US are also questioning the timing of Dr Afridi’s conviction and asking who is orchestrating policy in Pakistan. Some media anchors, analysts and writers are answering the question exactly as the US wants it answered. Pakistanis are now realizing the full implications of the change in the US’ strategic direction in South Asia away from Pakistan and decisively towards India. If the down slide in US Pakistan relations is not arrested then Pakistan’s response options will be severely restricted and the US would have effectively destabilized another country and region with disastrous consequences. The Afghans are not the only ones bracing for a catastrophe.

7.2 rated Strong quake strikes PNG

A violent 7.1-magnitude earthquake has struck Papua New Guinea, shaking buildings and prompting residents to run into the streets and causing panic in the highlands.

The quake, initially rated at 7.3, hit at a depth of 115 kilometres (71 miles) southwest of the coastal city of Lae and 223 kilometres from the capital Port Moresby, the US Geological Survey said.

Macklyn Timbun, who works as a receptionist at the Lae International Hotel, said she was sitting on a bus when the quake hit and it was so large the driver ran away and the vehicle almost rolled in the upheaval.

“I was like ‘Oh my god what’s happening?’ Everybody started running, people were trying to jump out of the windows, it was the biggest earthquake,” she told AFP.

“Outside the hotel everyone was running out of the building because most of the time we never experience such earthquakes in Lae.”

Geoscience Australia put the quake at a magnitude 7.2 at 0504 GMT, but said it was not expected to create a tsunami because it was not an undersea rupture.

“That’s the assessment on the basis that it’s about 20 kilometres inshore and also it’s about 120 kilometres deep and that’s too deep really to cause any tsunami problems,” said seismologist Clive Collins.

Papua New Guinea’s earthquake observatory said there were no reports yet of damage but Collins said the tremor could have caused problems for the nearest large town Wau, about 20 kilometres from the epicentre, as well as Lae.

“It’s in a mountainous area so there may be issues of landslides and things like that, that’s what’s the main problem in that particular part of Papua New Guinea,” Collins said.

In Wau, a gold mining centre located between Port Moresby and Lae, US missionary Jim Bloom described the quake as “quite a good one”.

“The floor started sort of bouncing around a little bit like when a big truck passes nearby, and then the whole building really started shaking and rattling,” he said, adding he was not aware of any damage in his area.

“Just a lot of shaking and a lot of noise from the buildings, but we very seldom have damage because most of our buildings are made from timber and steel and so they’re very flexible. But the water tanks were sloshing around for about five minutes or six minutes or so afterwards.”

Another Lae witness, reached by telephone, said there was no major destruction evident.

“I was standing outside and the buildings shook, the ground shook,” he said, adding the quake likely lasted more than a minute.

“We have quakes here regularly but not like this.”

Papua New Guinea is regularly rocked by quakes due to its proximity to the so-called “Pacific Ring of Fire”, a hotspot for seismic activity due to friction between tectonic plates.

Collins said the impoverished but sparsely populated nation of 6.6 million would likely face aftershocks in the coming hours.

“I’m sure there will be aftershocks with something that big, whether they will be significant or not… it’s unknown really,” he said.

“NATO Gives Pakistani Nukes Safety Green Light”

Tacstrat

KABUL: The head of Nato said Tuesday he was confident Pakistan’s nuclear weapons were safe, but admitted it was a matter of concern, the day after the worst assault on a Pakistani military base in two years.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen was in Afghanistan on a one-day visit and met President Hamid Karzai to discuss the transition of security from Nato-led troops to Afghan security forces, which is due to begin in July.

Rasmussen was asked if Nato was concerned about Pakistan’s nuclear weapons after it took Pakistani forces 17 hours to reclaim control of a naval air base from Taliban attackers and following the death of Osama bin Laden.

“I feel confident that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is safe and well protected,” said Rasmussen. “But of course it is a matter of concern and we follow the situation closely.”

Rasmussen was scheduled to wind up his Afghan visit on Tuesday after spending a night and a full day in Afghanistan.

A NEW LEADER IS BORN?

By Fatima Rizvi
ZoneAsia-Pk

The former foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi has catapulted to fame after his public disclosure that he resisted pressures from no less than the US Secretary of State and the US Ambassador in Pakistan asking that diplomatic immunity for Mr ‘Davis’ be announced. He further complicated matters by stating that he did so after consulting ‘experts’ in the Foreign Office. This makes it difficult for the Foreign Office to declare immunity now though this is what it is probably being asked to do. His disclosure was timed with him being dropped as Foreign Minister in the ‘new’ cabinet and being offered the water and power ministry-an offer that he declined. His disclosure puts him in sync with the media, public opinion and the Punjab government—all opposing diplomatic immunity and insisting on a court trial that could drag on for months. In the first court hearing today (February 17th) the next hearing has been set for March 14th signaling the possible course of events.

Read Complete Article: http://www.zoneasia-pk.com/ZoneAsia-Pk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3628:a-new-leader-is-born&catid=70:free-talk&Itemid=84

The Numbers Game

By: Ghalib Sultan

An article in the Washington Post discusses Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal (a popular subject!) and makes the startling disclosure that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal has doubled and that its delivery system has improved vastly. Predictably there is no comment or denial from Pakistan because none is needed. Indeed if that is what people want to believe then so be it. Some in Pakistan have swallowed the bait hook, line and sinker and started commenting and criticizing this increase going on in difficult economic times without pausing to consider the veracity of the report by a foreign correspondent.

Pakistan does not publicly discuss its nuclear program disclosing only what is absolutely necessary for reassurance about its command and control and custodial security. A little research can however turn up enough to indicate that Pakistan will not carry out further nuclear tests, that it’s stance on ‘no first use’ is based on clearly stated ‘red lines’ and India’s policies on limited war and cold start operations exploiting conventional force superiority and that Pakistan is for minimum credible deterrence against the threat from India. Pakistan does not have an aggressive use of force strategy involving nuclear weapons. It is no secret that Pakistan and India have ongoing enrichment programs and are engaged in constant improvement of delivery systems. India has gained an enormous advantage with the Indo-US Nuclear agreement that gives it access to fuel while a number of weapon oriented reactors remain outside safeguards. At current rates India is expected to have over 280 nuclear weapons by 2020. Pakistan has suggested a ‘strategic restraint regime’ but India brings in the trilateral factor by stating that it is threatened by China. Pakistan is willing to discuss restraint even in a trilateral context. India is also moving towards SLBM’s and is not a status quo state as far as introduction of new technology and systems is concerned. Isolating Pakistan for doing something that is ongoing in India and other countries is therefore part of a larger Pakistan specific design.

Pakistan is placed in the dock for its opposition to the FMCT (Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty). Pakistan is for a more comprehensive FMT (Fissile Missile Treaty) that takes into account existing stockpiles but because of verification issues India and others oppose this. The Indo-US agreement giving India a vastly improved capacity for increasing stockpiles drives the Pakistani stance on FMCT—a stance that India favored till it got this advantage through the discriminatory agreement from the US. Pakistan’s quest for energy through nuclear reactors from China contracted earlier and therefore outside NSG procedures is being repeatedly opposed by India acting as the ‘front man’ for the US. There is no discussion of the enormous boost to nuclear trade that has resulted as a spin-off from the Indo-US Agreement and the contractual arrangements being made by India with a number of countries. Surprisingly with all asymmetric balance in its favor India is still insecure and feels threatened by Pakistan’s comparatively modest requirements. The terror threat to Pakistani nukes and thence to India and the US is regularly invoked as a mantra especially in the wake of the high profile assassination in Pakistan that is being used by India and by the US to stoke fears of terrorist or extremist inroads into the security apparatus for strategic assets. The US should be aware of the custodial controls in place but India’s motive is to bring into question the civil-military relations in Pakistan by insisting that there should be civilian control-something that will come but at a pace to be determined by Pakistan and not India. The other whip used is the past proliferation episode that is repeatedly floated with new ‘discoveries’-even though it is a dead issue for Pakistan. Pakistan has made it clear that it is supportive of all non-proliferation regimes as long as they are non-discriminatory.

Pakistanis who are deep into military and intelligence bashing because their new found freedom to do so gives them a good macho feel should seriously consider whose interest they are serving. Constructive criticism certainly helps and should go on but doing what others want us to do will be counter- productive. A deeper insight into Pakistan’s future security policy is required especially by those who want Pakistan to roll over and play dead just because it is in a transitional phase and has vulnerabilities that are being ruthlessly exploited by others.

COHEN ON PAKISTAN

By Ghalib Sultan
ZoneAsia-Pk

Dr Stephen Cohen’s interview with the Council on Foreign Relations has been published in Pakistan Today dated January 10, 2011. Dr Cohen is a respected scholar but he has strong views-especially on Pakistan though he is very critical of the Obama administrations’ policies too. Like many others he has a soft corner for India and, understandably for Israel that tends to color his perception of Pakistan.

Dr Cohen reads too much into the events unfolding in Pakistan after Governor Taseer’s assassination and while one can agree with him on the seriousness of Pakistan’s problems it would be folly to read too much into the power of the ‘extremists’ and ‘militants’ or the far right in Pakistan’s politics. There is no doubt that there has been degradation in Pakistan’s internal and external security environment but to say that ‘Pakistan is moving towards comprehensive failure’ is unfair, far too judgmental and only someone not quite friendly with Pakistan could say that. Suggesting that ‘we should prepare for Pakistan’s failure’ over five to six years is an opinion that is not based on any real data. It is surprising that Dr Cohen formed this opinion after a recent visit to Pakistan-perhaps he met the wrong people or only met his ‘friends’ or he ignored the views of some whom he met. Pakistan remains a functional state with its institutions intact.

Contrary to what Cohen says Pakistan’s importance is not just because of its ‘nukes and terrorist networks’ but because Pakistan is inching towards sustainable democracy, because it wants to be a moderate Muslim state, because it has put in place excellent custodial controls and because it actually wants to rid itself of all terrorists from its soil. The average Pakistani, and that means the majority, wants peace, security and an environment in which he can work and look after his family-not much different from what the average American wants and this applies to all areas of Pakistan including FATA. That is why the militants and extremists have never figured in elections. Election year is 2012 and political parties are preparing—this should explain the shenanigans of the religious right. They need an issue and think that they have found one.

Dr Cohen says that the military ‘cannot govern’. This is true. It does not want to govern. It does not even want to try. Dr Cohen should have got this message during his travels in Pakistan. No one wants military intervention and everyone wants a continuation of the present political system-warts and all. Pakistan’s current foreign policy obsession is not with Israel, Palestine or China-it is with a threat reduction strategy that allows it to shift focus to the economy and society. This is where the US can help Pakistan and if it does this sincerely then anti US sentiment will start changing. Dr Cohen says the military will never side with the ‘liberals’-the military will not side with the militants either and it is fully on board with the government on the road to democracy, economic uplift and threat reduction. The military is however not going to roll over and play dead anytime soon–nor is Pakistan. The relationship with China is strong and stable and multi-faceted. The Pakistan-Afghanistan relationship has to become stable-it is in the interest of both. The same applies to the relationship with India and Iran. Pakistan and indeed the region is looking at economic interaction, energy flows and infrastructure development-not at the doomsday scenario that Steve Cohen is predicting.

Muslim ‘Radicalization’ Is Focus of Planned Inquiry

By: RAYMOND HERNANDEZ

WASHINGTON – The Republican who will head the House committee that oversees domestic security is planning to open a Congressional inquiry into what he calls “the radicalization” of the Muslim community when his party takes over the House next year.

Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York, will become the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.

Representative Peter T. King of New York, who will become the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said he was responding to what he has described as frequent concerns raised by law enforcement officials that Muslim leaders have been uncooperative in terror investigations.

He cited the case of Najibullah Zazi, an Afghan man and a legal resident of the United States, who was arrested last year for plotting to bomb the New York subway system. Mr. King said that Ahmad Wais Afzali, an imam in Queens who had been a police informant, had warned Mr. Zazi before his arrest that he was the target of a terror investigation.

“When I meet with law enforcement, they are constantly telling me how little cooperation they get from Muslim leaders,” Mr. King said.

The move by Mr. King, who said he was planning to open a hearing on the matter beginning early next year, is the latest example of the new direction that the House will take under the incoming Republican majority.

Indeed, Mr. King, a nine-term incumbent from Long Island, said that he had sought to raise the issue when Democrats had control of Congress, but was “denounced for it.” He added: “It is controversial. But to me, it is something that has to be discussed.”

Mr. King’s proposal comes amid signs that deep anxieties about Muslims persist in the United States nine years after the 9/11 terror attacks and an outcry this year over a proposed Islamic center near ground zero in New York City.

Told of Mr. King’s plan, Muslim leaders expressed strong opposition, describing the move as a prejudiced act that was akin to racial profiling and that would unfairly cast suspicion on an entire group.

Abed A. Ayoub, the legal director for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, said Mr. King’s effort ignored that Muslim leaders around the country had been working closely with law enforcement officials since the 2001 terror attacks.

“We are disturbed that this representative who is in a leadership position does not have the understanding and knowledge of what the realities are on the ground,” Mr. Ayoub said, adding that Mr. King’s proposal “has bigoted intentions.”

Salam al-Marayati, the executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, also expressed deep concern and noted that his group would be holding a convention this weekend at which members would discuss the impact that the Republican takeover of Congress could have on Muslims.

“He basically wants to treat the Muslim-American community as a suspect community,” Mr. Marayati said of Mr. King. He added that Mr. King was potentially undermining the relationship that Muslim leaders had sought to build with law enforcement officials around the country. Tensions have occasionally erupted in recent years over counterterrorism measures that civil rights groups and others said had gone too far.

In 2007, for example, the Los Angeles Police Department was forced to abandon a plan to create a map detailing the city’s Muslim communities after civil rights advocates and Muslim leaders denounced the effort as a form of racial profiling.

Mr. King has used his position on the House Homeland Security Committee to elevate similar issues. In 2006, when his party controlled the House and he was chairman of the committee, Mr. King was the first Republican in Congress to break ranks publicly with President Bush over the president’s plan to give a company in Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates, control of six American ports. Mr. King joined Democrats in calling the port deal a potential threat to national security, and the deal eventually collapsed.

Mr. King also opposed the plan to build an Islamic center near ground zero, urging the developers of the project to meet with 9/11 families to identify a more appropriate location for the center.

“This is such a raw wound, and they are just pouring salt into it,” he said, referring to the developers of the proposed Islamic center.

Mr. King, who has conveyed his intentions to Republican leaders in the House, said he would seek comment from mainstream Muslim leaders so that the hearings he was planning to hold were not one-sided, with only people critical of Muslims.

But Mr. King suggested that Muslim leaders had minimized the extent of the problem he said he had identified. “They try to tell me that it is not as bad as it seems,” he said.