Showing posts with label pakistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pakistan. Show all posts

Thursday, October 09, 2008

Pakistan on the verge of bust

Pakistan Faces Bankruptcy, Wants $100bn Handout

By Cernig

The UK's Daily Telegraph reports that Pakistan may be the first nation to go bankrupt as a result of the continuing global financial meltdown.

Officially, the central bank holds $8.14 billion (£4.65 billion) of foreign currency, but if forward liabilities are included, the real reserves may be only $3 billion - enough to buy about 30 days of imports like oil and food.

Nine months ago, Pakistan had $16 bn in the coffers.

The government is engulfed by crises left behind by Pervez Musharraf, the military ruler who resigned the presidency in August. High oil prices have combined with endemic corruption and mismanagement to inflict huge damage on the economy.

Given the country's standing as a frontline state in the US-led "war on terrorism", the economic crisis has profound consequences. Pakistan already faces worsening security as the army clashes with militants in the lawless Tribal Areas on the north-west frontier with Afghanistan.

... Mr Zardari told the Wall Street Journal that Pakistan needed a bail out worth $100 billion from the international community.

"If I can't pay my own oil bill, how am I going to increase my police?" he asked. "The oil companies are asking me to pay $135 [per barrel] of oil and at the same time they want me to keep the world peaceful and Pakistan peaceful."

The ratings agency Standard and Poor's has given Pakistan's sovereign debt a grade of CCC +, which stands only a few notches above the default level.

The economic crisis might yet end Pakistan's newly elected government, which is facing a crisis of confidence already as it battles 25% inflation, a drowning currency and a President with a reputation as "Mr 10%" for past corruption. It's also unclear that even a $100 billion bailout would be enough to stave off Pakistan's money woes, since the security situation is itself feeding the economic crisis there - investors don't want to know about a nation so obviously on the verge of failure.

Nor is it certain that even the US and Western allies will care to throw such a large sum of money into Pakistan. Sure, they could probably secure protestations of working harder to enact economic reforms after the mismanagement of the Musharraf years and to more strongly pursue the War on Terror, but what would those promises be worth? The question "whose side is Pakistan on?" is being asked in NATO circles nowadays, and more are coming to the conclusion that the Pakistani feudal elite are content to play the West for all it is worth while caring precious little for their own people's fate. Then again, Pakistan has nukes and the prospect of a truly failed state there is a terrible one to contemplate.

As usual with that nation, the situation is a Gordian Knot created by decades (dating back at least to Reagan and the Russian invasion of Afghanistan) of local and Western leaders ignoring very real problems. It's a knot with no easy, or short-term, solution. It will take decades of strategic containment, careful stick and carrots, law enforcement outwith Pakistan to catch the terrorists it gives safe haven to and some simple truth-telling to roll all that back. There are no fixes with a timeline of less than decades.

And, as John Robb at Global Guerrillas writes, don't expect Pakistan to be the last nation to find itself on the financial brink.

The global financial system is much LARGER, FASTER, and COMPLEX than the nation-states that are trying to bail them out. As a result, nation-state intervention won't return things to the status quo. What it will do, however, is tightly couple western nation-states to the now inevitable failure in the financial system (this is akin to lashing a dingy to the Titanic to prevent it from sinking). The rampant proliferation of bankrupt and hollow states is now likely inevitable.

If you've a good idea on where to go from here, you're doing one better than national leaders across the globe.

Original article posted here.

Sunday, September 21, 2008

Not so loved in Pakistan

Senior CIA officers were target of Islamabad blast

September 20th, 2008 - 10:13 pm ICT by ANI -

Islamabad , Sept 20 (ANI): Several senior officers of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) who are reported to be currently visiting Islamabad were the target of the blast at the Marriott Hotel which took place here tonight.

Well placed sources said that Marriott Hotel is usual hotel choice of the US officials and it seems that militants tipped off that certain high level US intelligence officers were currently staying at the hotel.

While no confirmation was available but Pakistan sources said it was clear that the explosion was aimed at specific targets based on a tip off.

At least twenty people were killed, and scores others seriously injured, when an explosives laden truck rammed into Marriott Hotel here today.

Over 50 people have been admitted in the local hospitals.

The powerful explosion caused fire in many parts of the hotel besides damaging the buildings around the hotel. (ANI)

Original article posted here
.

Monday, August 18, 2008

What a real change in Congress can bring. America should be ashamed.

Musharraf says he will resign Pakistan presidency

(CNN) -- Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf announced his resignation Monday after weeks of pressure to relinquish power.

Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf has until now stubbornly resisted pressure to quit.

Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf has until now stubbornly resisted pressure to quit.

Musharraf told the nation in a televised address that he would step down -- nearly nine years after he seized power in a bloodless coup in 1999.

"I don't want the people of Pakistan to slide deeper and deeper into uncertainty," Musharraf said.

"For the interest of the nation, I have decided to resign as president," he said. "I am not asking for anything. I will let the people of Pakistan decide my future." Video Watch Musharraf resign »

Musharraf has been a keen ally of the West in the fight on terror, receiving billions in military aid from the U.S. and launching attacks on militant groups near the country's border with Afghanistan.

He was expected to turn in his resignation to parliament Monday.

"It will be accepted, there is no second opinion about that," said Iqbal Zaffar Jhagra, the secretary general of the junior partner in the ruling coalition, the Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML-N).

Musharraf quit as the ruling coalition was taking steps to impeach him.

Local media reports said he had been granted "safe passage" out of the country.

Until now, Musharraf, 65, had resisted pressure to resign. But his power had eroded since parties opposed to his rule swept to victory in February's parliamentary elections.

Musharraf spent a large part of his speech delivering a state-of-the-union style list of Pakistan's "accomplishments" under his rule. He contrasted it with what he called the deteriorating economic situation now.

"After the elections, the nation wanted solutions from the new government," he said. "But the politicians could not do so. A personal vendetta was started." View a timeline of Musharraf's time in power »

A coalition committee spent last week compiling a list of charges against Musharraf including corruption, economic mismanagement and violating the constitution.

Pakistan's four provincial assemblies called on the president to give up power. Parliament was expected to consider an impeachment motion Monday or Tuesday.

"I am confident that not a single charge can stand against me," Musharraf said. "I have not done anything for my personal gain. Whatever I have done, I have done it for Pakistan."

Faisal Kapadia, a commodities trader in Karachi who runs a blog about Pakistan called Deadpan Thoughts, said Musharraf's decision would get a mixed reaction.

"Leading Pakistan is not an easy task, and anyone doing it comes under a lot of criticism," he said.

"In the start, most Pakistanis were for him. And he still has some supporters -- especially because the new government, which promised to do things differently, has failed to do much in the past 100 days in power."

Musharraf grabbed power in 1999. He was serving as military chief when then-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif dismissed him, setting off a confrontation.

As Musharraf was returning from an overseas visit in October 1999, Sharif refused to allow the commercial airliner with 200 passengers on board to land.

Within hours the army had deposed Sharif in a bloodless coup, and the plane was allowed to touch down with only 10 minutes of fuel left.

Musharraf was welcomed by a nation on the brink of economic ruin.

"I think at this point, his intentions were good," said Lt. Gen. Talat Masood, a political analyst. "He wanted to serve the country and to be different."

During his rule, Pakistan attained respectable growth rates and established a generally favorable investment climate.

Along with that came a growing middle class, a more aggressive media, and a more assertive judiciary.

"He brought parliamentary reforms. He brought women into the parliament," said Ahmed Bilal Mehboob, director of the Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency.

But, analysts say, Musharraf never lost his military mindset.

"He in a way, always believed in a unity of command, a very centralized command, which means his command, in fact," said Masood.

After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States, Musharraf found himself on the frontline of the 'war on terror.'

Pakistan had supported the Taliban during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s.

But after the 2001 attacks, Musharraf aligned himself with the U.S. to help rout the fundamentalist Islamic movement.

Washington gave Musharraf billions in aid as he vowed to deprive the militants of the sanctuary they had established along the country's border with Afghanistan.

He cast himself as indispensable -- to the West and to Pakistan, analysts said.

To Pakistanis he sold himself as the man who could deliver peace with India, a country with which Pakistan has fought three wars. To the West, he was the man to safeguard the country's nuclear arsenal.

However, Musharraf's popularity began to plummet last year following the March suspension of Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry.

The move triggered protests and accusations that he was trying to influence the Supreme Court's ruling on whether he could run for another five-year term.

Chaudhry was reinstated but the damage was done.

"Undoubtedly, that was the catalyst," Masood said. "This is where he went wrong, and he underestimated the value of democracy."

Four months later, in July 2007, Pakistani security forces seized the Red Mosque in the capital city Islamabad.

The raid, intended to rout Islamic extremists who hoped to establish a Taliban-style rule in the capital, killed more than 100 people. A raft of suicide bombings followed.

In October, Musharraf was re-elected president by a parliament critics said was stacked with his supporters. Opposition parties filed a challenge.

The next month, he declared a state of emergency, suspended Pakistan's constitution, replaced the chief judge again and blacked out independent TV outlets.

Under pressure from the West, he later lifted the emergency and promised elections in January. Video Watch a PPP leader discuss opposition to Musharraf »

He allowed Sharif, the prime minister he deposed, to return from exile. He also let in another political foe, Benazir Bhutto. She, too, had been a prime minister, and led the Pakistan People's Party.

However, in December, the country was plunged into further turmoil when Bhutto was killed at a rally in Rawalpindi.

Musharraf's government and the CIA contend the killing was orchestrated by Baitullah Mehsud, a leader of the Pakistani Taliban with ties to al Qaeda. But nationwide polls found that a majority of Pakistanis believe Musharraf's government was complicit in the assassination.

Meanwhile, several other factors compounded Musharraf's declining popularity: a shortage of essential food items, power cuts, and a skyrocketing inflation.

Original article posted here.


Sunday, August 17, 2008

It's sad when Pakistan's government has more credibility and legitimacy than the US's

Pakistan coalition gives two-day Musharraf ultimatum

ISLAMABAD (AFP) — Pakistan's ruling coalition tightened the screw on President Pervez Musharraf Sunday, saying it would launch impeachment proceedings within two days if the key US ally does not stand down.

Defence Minister Ahmed Mukhtar told AFP that "the charge sheet will be presented in parliament by Tuesday", as coalition officials put the finishing touches to the list of allegations against him.

His comment came a day after Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said that the former general had to make a decision on resigning to avoid being impeached "by today or tomorrow, as there is no room for any delay".

A spokesman for Musharraf -- who seized power in a bloodless military coup in 1999 and went on to become a lynchpin in the US-led "war on terror" -- has repeatedly denied that the president is going to resign.

But Musharraf's allies and coalition officials have said separately that his aides are in talks with the government in a bid to secure him an indemnity from prosecution if he does throw in the towel.

Saudi Arabia and, reportedly, the United States and Britain, have sent envoys in a bid to resolve the crisis in the nuclear-armed nation, which is also suffering from a severe economic crunch.

A coalition source said fresh discussions were under way Sunday.

"The emissaries of Musharraf are still in contact with the government and as far as we know, Musharraf's aides are advising him either to resign seeking an assurance for indemnity or try the Supreme Court," the source told AFP.

Local newspapers said Musharraf was consulting his personal legal advisers over the possibility of challenging any impeachment move in the country's Supreme Court.

With Pakistan's powerful army taking a neutral stance towards its former chief, the court is the only institution Musharraf can still count on, as he purged it of opponents during a state of emergency last November.

The talks on getting immunity for Musharraf have also been hampered by the opposition of former premier Nawaz Sharif, who leads the second biggest group in the coalition after the Pakistan People's Party of Benazir Bhutto.

A spokesman for Sharif's party, Siddiqul Farooq, said that coalition partners and constitutional experts were gathering in Islamabad on Sunday to give the charge sheet "final shape".

No president has ever been impeached in Pakistan's 61-year history.

The army's stance is still unclear and analysts say it could react badly to seeing its former leader humiliated by impeachment. Musharraf quit as army chief in November last year under international pressure.

The coalition is counting on independent MPs and defectors from Musharraf's camp to win the two-thirds combined majority it would need in the upper and lower houses of parliament to impeach him.

Musharraf's other courses of action -- either dissolving the national assembly or imposing another state of emergency -- are fraught with risk.

The White House has also struck a neutral tone on a man long regarded as a key ally in the US-led "war on terror", saying that the impeachment threat was an internal matter.

Western allies want Pakistan to resolve the impasse so it can deal with the fight against Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants in the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan, where nearly 500 people have died in the past week.

Dozens of Islamic hardliners protested against Musharraf in the central city of Multan on Sunday, witnesses said.

Musharraf's popularity first slumped after he tried to sack the country's chief justice in March 2007.

His Supreme Court purge in November allowed him to force through his re-election to another five-year term by the outgoing parliament, but his political allies were then trounced in elections in February.

Original article posted here
.

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

The cat is out of the bag about what Bush's Democratic Revolutions really mean


Explosively False Propaganda

Bush's Middle East legacy

by Muhammad Sahimi

No part of the world, not even the United States, has been more deeply affected by George W. Bush's presidency than the Middle East. From the lofty goals of starting a "democratic revolution," making a "new Middle East," and helping the Palestinians to have their own independent state, to the bogus "war on terror," invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and meddling in Lebanon, Bush's Middle East policy has been simply one disaster after another.

The reality is that the Middle East is of utmost strategic importance to the U.S. U.S. involvement in that region will not end after Bush leaves office in January 2009. Therefore, as the president's second term is coming to an end, it is important to consider the results of his Middle East policy, with the hope the next president will learn valuable lessons from Bush's many blunders and devise a more constructive Middle East policy. So let us consider his legacy.

Iraq

If there is one minor positive outcome of Bush's Middle East policy, it has to be the removal of Saddam Hussein and his Ba'ath Party from power. But at what price?

  1. Iraq has effectively been partitioned among the Shi'ites, Sunnis, and Kurds.
  2. Iraq became a vast training ground for extremists from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, and Kuwait.
  3. Iraq's infrastructure has been damaged greatly. It would take decades to put Iraq back to where it was before the war.
  4. Much of Iraq's cultural heritage was looted from museums.
  5. Iraqi prisoners were tortured at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.
  6. Two million Iraqis have left their country. Clearly, they are the highly educated (at least 3,000 of them professors), professionals, and the affluent, and, therefore, their departure is a great brain drain. Proportionally, it would be equivalent to 24 million Americans leaving the U.S.
  7. Close to 2.5 million Iraqis have been displaced within Iraq. Proportionally, it would be equivalent to 30 million American refugees within the U.S.
  8. As many as 1.1 million Iraqis may have been killed. Proportionally, it would as if over 13 million Americans had been killed, a staggering number. Notable among the dead are at least 230 Iraqi professors, with another 60 missing, presumably dead.
  9. At least 1 million Iraqi children have become orphans.
  10. Seventy percent of Iraqi children suffer from mental stress disorder.
  11. Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University, the 2001 Nobel laureate in economics, and Linda Bilmes of Harvard University estimated that the eventual cost of the war may reach $2 trillion. If, for a period of 10 years, the funding for cancer research were doubled, every American with diabetes or heart disease were treated, and a global immunization campaign that could save millions of children were carried out, the total cost would be about $600 billion.

As if the price that the Iraqis have paid so far is not enough, the Bush-Cheney administration has demanded the following in secret "negotiations" with Iraq's government :

  1. Fifty-eight military bases.
  2. Control of Iraq's airspace below 32,000 ft.
  3. The authority to kill or arrest, without Iraq's permission, anyone deemed "hostile."
  4. The authority to stage a war against terrorists anywhere from Iraq without Iraq's permission.
  5. Full immunity from prosecution in Iraq for the U.S. military and civilian contractors.

The last one the U.S. also demanded of Iran in the early 1960s, which sparked the June 5, 1963, uprising in Iran, which eventually led to the Iranian Revolution of 1979. As Ayatollah Khomeini said at that time:

"Capitulation means if we kill the dogs that the Americans bring to Iran, we will be jailed, but if they kill us, our spouse, or our children, or destroy our homes, they will not be even prosecuted in Iran."

Bush's Iraq legacy? A destroyed country, only nominally unified, and probably a quasi-colony of the U.S. for the foreseeable future.

Afghanistan

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, there was an ocean of good will toward the U.S., and great support for destroying al-Qaeda. What happened?

Afghanistan was attacked, even though the U.S. knew that the al-Qaeda leadership had already escaped to the border region with Pakistan, and Donald Rumsfeld reportedly said that "there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan." The Taliban were overthrown. But where is Afghanistan now?

  1. The Taliban are resurgent. They are gaining ground and the support of the ethnic Pashtuns, and they control most of southern Afghanistan. Recall that they were despised right before the 9/11 attacks.
  2. At least compared with Iraq, Afghanistan has received a dearth of aid. It is in turmoil, the best evidence of which is the assassination attempt on President Hamid Karzai and the recent assault by Taliban forces on a prison in Kandahar that freed at least 400 Taliban fighters. The unemployment rate is at least 60 percent.
  3. Karzai is viewed by many Afghans as the puppet of the U.S., and this in a nation that has historically had little tolerance for foreigners and their agents.
  4. Opium production, which was banned under Taliban, is thriving. It supplies 93 percent of the world's heroin and 53 percent of Afghanistan's GDP.
  5. The government hardly controls anything beyond the capital, Kabul. The country has been effectively partitioned among warlords.
  6. The number of NATO troops has increased from 20,000 in 2003 to more than 64,000, including 3,200 new U.S. Marines. Practically every day innocent civilians are killed by NATO bombing, causing a strong backlash against NATO.

Bush's Afghanistan legacy? An economic basket case that needs vast amounts of international aid to barely survive and will not be a viable state for decades, if ever.

Pakistan

Since 9/11, the U.S. has given Pakistan $11 billion in aid, in addition to forgiving its previous debts. Eighty percent of this aid has gone to the military to supposedly fight al-Qaeda. What has happened?

  1. Ninety percent of the military aid has been used by Gen. Pervez Musharraf to buy advanced weapons and put them on the Pakistan-India border, one of the most unstable areas in the world, where two nuclear nations are lined up against each other.
  2. Musharraf has, in fact, signed peace agreements with the Taliban's sympathizers in the western and northern Pakistan provinces, which means that both the Taliban and al-Qaeda have secure places to train terrorists.
  3. With U.S. consent or at least silence, Musharraf has violated Pakistan's constitution repeatedly. For example, last year he sacked and jailed Pakistan's Supreme Court judges who opposed him. He then appointed new judges who had to swear to loyalty to him rather than Pakistan's constitution. The jailed judges have yet to be released.
  4. The U.S. arranged for Benazir Bhutto to return to Pakistan to give a civilian face to the military dictatorship, without even making sure that she was secure. She was assassinated.

Bush's Pakistan legacy? An unstable nuclear nation with a large number of radicals in its military intelligence (the ISI) who support the Taliban.

Lebanon

After the assassination of Lebanon's former prime minister Rafik Hariri on Feb. 14, 2005, and the subsequent Cedar Revolution, Bush pushed for democratic elections in Lebanon. These were held in spring 2005, but the results were not to Bush's liking.

Not only did Hezbollah receive a significant fraction of the votes and send 14 representative to the parliament, but its partners in the March 8 coalition also received significant votes, and Hezbollah joined the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora in July 2005. Condoleezza Rice's "directed democracy" project was a failure.

But Bush did not stop meddling in Lebanon's affairs. He constantly provoked Siniora against Hezbollah and its allies, notably Michel Aoun, the Maronite ex-general. The result: Complete paralysis of the government.

Then came the summer 2006 war between Hezbollah and Israel. Hezbollah began the war, and was rightfully condemned by the world. But Hezbollah had carried out several such small operations in the past, and each time there was a quick cease-fire.

Not this time. With strong support by Bush and Cheney, Israel started a full scale war. Meanwhile, the U.S. prevented the United Nations Security Council from reaching any consensus regarding a cease-fire, buying time for Israel to supposedly crush Hezbollah. Condi Rice promised a "new Middle East," one in which Hezbollah would be defeated and Iran would be attacked. Twelve hundred Lebanese (1,000 of them civilians) and over 150 Israelis (40 of them civilians) were killed, and the infrastructure of Lebanon was greatly damaged by Israel's bombing.

Hezbollah, however, won the war. Although a U.S. official told Seymour Hersh that the Israelis viewed Lebanon as "a demo for Iran," the Pentagon had to revise its plans for attacking Iran. After seeing the types of weapons used by Hezbollah, Gen. John Abizaid, then the Centcom commander, said the Iranians "have given us a hint about things to come."

Hezbollah remained intact, its popularity in the Arab world greater than ever before. This was the second time it had won a war with Israel. The first time was in 2000 when, after fighting with Israel for 15 years, Hezbollah forced Israel to withdraw from southern Lebanon, which it had occupied since 1982.

Bush, however, continued his meddling. He provoked Siniora to sack the security chief of Beirut's airport, allegedly a Hezbollah member, and shut down Hezbollah's optical communication network, which had played a crucial role in its victory over Israel.

The result: Hezbollah swiftly took over West Beirut and routed forces loyal to Siniora. It demanded restoration of its communication network, giving the security chief his job back and veto power over all the government's decisions. Siniora had taken action against Hezbollah, counting on U. S. aid. The aid never came. Bush blinked. Siniora blinked.

The result: Hezbollah got all of its demands and more. Michel Suleiman, a general with whom Hezbollah has good relations, is now the president. Hezbollah is more powerful than ever.

Bush's Lebanon legacy? An organization that the U.S. has labeled as terrorist has won impressive strategic victories over both the U.S. and Israel and is in the driving seat.

Iran

Iran provided significant help to U.S. forces when it attacked Afghanistan in the fall of 2001. It opened its airspace to U.S. aircraft and provided intelligence on the Taliban forces. The opposition forces that it had been supporting for years, the Northern Alliance, were the first to reach Kabul and overthrow the Taliban government.

Then, during the UN talks on the future of Afghanistan, after the Taliban's ouster, in Bonn, Germany, in December 2001, Iranian representative Mohammad Javad Zarif met daily with U.S. envoy James Dobbins, who praised Zarif for preventing the conference from collapsing because of last-minute demands by the Northern Alliance [.pdf]. Thus, the National Unity government led by Karzai could not have come to power without Iran's help.

How was Iran rewarded? Two months later, President Bush made Iran a charter member of his imaginary "axis of evil." Then, in early May 2003 Iran made a comprehensive proposal to the U.S., offering to negotiate on all important issues, recognizing Israel within its pre-1967 war borders, and cutting off material support to Hamas and Hezbollah. The proposal was never taken seriously.

What have been the results of Bush's belligerence toward Iran and his constant demonizing of that nation?

  1. Iranians saw the double standards when the U.S offered security guarantees and aid to North Korea and advanced nuclear technology to India, but only sanctions and threats to Iran. Thus, in 2005 they elected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who had run on a platform partly based on standing up to the U.S.
  2. Despite all the declarations that Bush has made against Iran's nuclear program, the fact remains that Iran has made far more progress in its nuclear program during his presidency than in the previous 30 years combined. This has come about only because Bush has refused to negotiate with Iran without any preconditions.
  3. Because of events in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon, Iran's radicals are actually in the driving seat, and their popularity in the Islamic world is higher than ever.
  4. The hardliners have used Bush's idiotic proclamations of support for the reformists to label them as U.S. agents, and they have taken advantage of his threats against Iran to try to suppress the democratic movement.

Bush's Iran legacy? A nation on the verge of achieving uranium enrichment and becoming a regional power.

Palestine/Israel

When Bill Clinton left the White House in 2001, the Israelis and the Palestinians were tantalizingly close to a peace agreement. Today, the probability of peace is practically nil. No other U.S. president has supported Israel as blindly and one-sidedly. He is also the first U.S. president who actually recognized Israel's policy of building and annexing settlements in the West Bank, giving Israel a secret letter committing the U.S. to such a policy.

With Bush's support, Israel "evacuated" Gaza but created the largest jail on Earth: Gaza's land, sea, and air borders are all controlled by Israel. It attacks Gaza at will, and when it kills innocent women, children, and old men, what does Bush say? "Israel must defend itself."

Bush and Rice pushed for democratic elections among Palestinians. The radicals actually wanted such elections too! What happened? The elections were held and certified as democratic by Jimmy Carter, but Hamas won. It received more votes than any other group, including Fatah, and took control of the Palestinian parliament.

As usual, Rice was shocked. "Nobody saw it coming," she declared. (No secretary of state has made more trips to Israel and Palestine than Rice without having anything to show for it.) So what happened? Instead of trying to work with Hamas, which has never been a threat to the U.S., Bush began punishing the Palestinians by cutting off all aid and pressuring others to follow the U.S. lead. Hamas responded to this by routing the Fatah forces in Gaza, taking full control there.

Bush has paid lip service to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. In his recent speech before the Knesset, Israel's parliament, Bush promised the Palestinians that they would have a state of their own "over the next 60 years." Some promise.

Bush's Israel/Palestine legacy? Peace between Israel and the Palestinians is more farfetched than ever.

The Middle East

In addition to all the above, here is the rest of Bush's legacy in the Middle East:

  1. When Bush was elected, the price of oil was about $35/barrel. Today it is close to $140. Roughly half of the oil price is due to political reasons, the most important of which is the instability in the Middle East, caused by Bush's wars and threats of war.
  2. When the 9/11 terrorist attacks happened, there was much sympathy for the U.S. in the Islamic world. Today, the U.S. is despised in much of the Islamic world.
  3. When Bush was elected, the U.S. and Iran had a chance for reconciliation, after Madeleine Albright's speech of April 2000, which expressed regrets for the CIA's role in the 1953 coup in Iran. Today, there is no such chance for reconciliation until at least after Bush leaves office.
  4. Bush was elected only eight months after the Iranian reformists had taken control of Iran's parliament in the March 2000 elections, and only seven months after then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright had talked about "strong winds of change" in Iran. The reformists' victory, together with the election of Mohammad Khatami in 1997, had generated considerable discussions and soul-searching among the Arab nations of the Middle East about the need for reforms in their countries. In fact, some of them, such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan, had begun moving cautiously toward reforms. But after 9/11 and Bush's "war on terror," all the cautious moves toward reform were halted. The regimes of these nations chose instead to hide behind the "war on terror" and justify the repression of their citizens.

Bush still refuses to face the realities of the mess that he has created in the Middle East. His overall Middle East legacy is EFP, explosively false propaganda, through which he still tries to sell his fantasies to the public.

Yes, Mr. President, contrary to what you said recently, there is such a thing as "objective short-term history," and you have failed its test miserably.

Origianal article posted here.

Saturday, June 07, 2008

Another casualty in the Moron's war

‘Pak-US military relations at worst since 9/11’

* Kayani tells NATO he won’t retrain or re-equip troops to fight counter-insurgency war

WASHINGTON/LAHORE: Relations between the United States military and the Pakistan Army are at their worst point since September 11, 2001, senior Western military officers and diplomats have said, as Pakistani troops withdraw from Tribal Areas bordering Afghanistan. According to Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid, writing in the Washington Post, there are also signs that Washington is delaying delivery of US arms meant for the eastern front and is asking Western allies to do the same.

Kayani: The report says that army chief General Ashfaq Kayani has told US military and NATO officials that he would not retrain or re-equip troops to fight the counterinsurgency war along Pakistan’s western border. Instead, it adds, the bulk of the army would stay deployed on Pakistan’s border with India. While the US is training and equipping 100,000 troops of the Frontier Corps, it has rejected Pakistani requests to equip four to five new units, Rashid claims. According to the report, the Taliban virtually rule FATA. The Pakistani army, it adds, is ‘shaken’ because of the losses it has suffered, which is why it has offered peace deals to the Taliban, which unfortunately do not stop the Taliban from attacking NATO and Afghan forces in Afghanistan. These attacks from Pakistan are said to have risen sharply. Meanwhile, Baitullah Mehsud has vowed that jihad in Afghanistan will continue, even as Afghan President Hamid Karzai expresses frustration at Pakistan’s attitude on ‘sanctuaries’ in the Tribal Areas. The Afghan leader is said to have confessed that he has been unsuccessful in “convincing the world to end the sanctuaries for terrorism.”

Original article posted here
.

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Bush cronies in Pakistan can't win what was expected to be a rigged election (but maybe we need a bit of help from our friend as to what it means)

Pakistan ruling party concedes poll



Pakistan's newspapers heralded the
defeat of Musharraf's allies.

Pakistan's ruling party has conceded electoral defeat, as opposition parties won enough seats to form a new government that could threaten the rule of Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistani president, according to partial results.

Tariq Azeem, spokesman for the Pakistan Muslim League-Q (PML-Q), which backed Musharraf announced on Tuesday that the party would "accept the verdict of the nation".

"We officially concede defeat," he said.

Several of the leading PML-Q candidates, including its chief, lost their seats in Monday's election and unofficial results, announced on state television, showed they could not attain a parliamentary majority.

"This is the basic spirit of democracy," Azeem said. "We believe the elections were free and fair and everybody must accept the decision for the betterment of Pakistan."

Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, head of the PML-Q, said that his party accepted the result and "will sit on opposition benches".

With counting in from 257 constituencies, PML-Q and its allies had taken a total of 57 seats.

The Pakistan People's party (PPP), the party of Benazir Bhutto, the opposition leader assassinated in December last year, had 85 seats, according to preliminary results.

The Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) faction of Nawaz Sharif, a former prime minister, had 65 seats, with PML-Q, smaller parties and independents taking the rest, state television said.

Full results were not expected until late on Tuesday or early Wednesday.

Musharraf threatened

Musharraf has said he would work with the new government regardless of which party wins.

- Pakistan has 81 million registered voters, out of a population of 160 million people.

- Voters choose 272 members of the National Assembly, or lower house of parliament, for a five-year term.

- Another 60 seats are reserved for women and 10 for religious minorities.

- There are 106 parties, 15 of which were represented in the last parliament.


- More than 60,000 polling stations were set up across the country.

- Key issues include restoration of a full civilian government, reinstatement of sacked judges, rising militancy, economy and high unemployment.
"I will give them full co-operation as president, whatever is my role," he said after voting in Rawalpindi.

But with the support of smaller groups and independent candidates, the opposition could now gain the two-thirds majority in parliament needed to impeach the president.

Musharraf's popularity suffered last year following his decision to impose emergency rule, purge the judiciary, jail political opponents and curtail press freedoms.

Musharraf has also supported the US in its so-called "war on terror", sanctioning Pakistani military operations against al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters in northwest Pakistan where it borders Afghanistan.

By contrast, Sharif and others have called for dialogue with the fighters and have criticised military operations in the area because of their impact on civilians.

Electoral violence

Opposition parties had feared the polls would be rigged, but analysts from Washington-based Strategic Forecasting said the elections "seem to have been decently free and fair".

Sarwar Bari, of the non-profit Free and Fair Elections Network, said his group's 20,000 election observers reported a voter turnout of about 35 per cent, the same as in the 1997 election and the lowest in Pakistan's history.

Ayaz Baig, the election commissioner in Punjab, estimated the turnout there to be at between 30 per cent and 40 per cent, slightly lower than in the 2002 election.

In Baluchistan and Sindh provinces, turnout was estimated at about 35 per cent, officials said.

Although fear and possible apathy kept millions of voters at home on Monday, Talat Hussein from AAJ TV said turnout was similar to previous years.

"Going by previous trends in Pakistan it is not that disappointing. At the end of the day, the voting did pick up and 42 per cent is not exactly a big disappointment," Hussein told Al Jazeera.

The PPP said 15 of its members had been killed and hundreds more injured in scattered violence "deliberately engineered to deter voters".

In northwest Pakistan on Tuesday, witnesses said more than 2,000 tribesmen blocked the main highway from Peshawar to the Afghan border, protesting that their favoured candidate had been defeated by electoral fraud.

At least 24 people were killed in election-related violence, mostly in Punjab province.

Original article posted here.

Saturday, February 16, 2008

Bush style democracy in Pakistan

Tape caught Pakistani official saying vote will be rigged

By Jonathan S. Landay

FAISALABAD, Pakistan — A prominent U.S.-based human rights group Friday released what it said was a recording of Pakistan's attorney general acknowledging that next week's national elections would be "massively" rigged.

Human Rights Watch said a journalist made the recording during a telephone interview with Attorney General Malik Qayyum when Qayyum took a second call without disconnecting the first, allowing his end of the second conversation to be overheard and recorded.

In the recording, Qayyum, Pakistan's top legal officer, can be heard advising the caller to accept a ticket he is being offered by an unidentified political party for a seat, Human Rights Watch said.

"They will massively rig to get their own people to win," Qayyum said, according to a transcript released by Human Rights Watch. "If you get a ticket from these guys, take it."

The potentially incendiary recording was made the day that elections were announced for Jan. 8, according to Human Rights Watch, which said the Urdu-language recording could be heard on its Web site, www.hrw.org. The polls for the national assembly and four provincial legislatures were postponed until this Monday after large-scale violence ignited by the Dec. 27 assassination of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto.

The recording was certain to add to widespread fears that the polls will be rigged in favor of the Pakistan Muslim League-Q, the party that supports the authoritarian and hugely unpopular president, Pervez Musharraf, a retired army general who seized power in a 1999 coup.

On Thursday, Musharraf warned the opposition that it must accept the outcome of Monday's voting, without resorting to massive street protests.

"Let there be no doubt that anyone will be allowed to resort to lawlessness in the garb of allegations about rigging in the elections," Musharraf was quoted as telling a seminar of government officials in Islamabad by the state-run Associated Press of Pakistan. "Let this serve as a warning to all those who think they can disturb the peace of the country. They will not be allowed. Do not test the resolve of the government."

"No agitation, anarchy or chaos can be acceptable," he said. "I assure you that the elections will be fair, free, and transparent and peaceful."

Fears that the polls will be fixed have been stoked by a series of public opinion surveys showing the Pakistan Peoples Party and other parties poised to capture enough seats to begin impeachment proceedings against Musharraf for controversial constitutional changes he imposed last year to extend his grip on power.

Musharraf's standing, and that of the Pakistan Muslim League-Q, also has been hurt by skyrocketing prices, shortages of electricity, gas and wheat, a failure to contain the Islamic insurgency based in the tribal area bordering Afghanistan and Pakistan's support for the Bush administration's fight against al Qaida.

"There have been numerous allegations of irregularities, including arrests and harassment of opposition candidates and party members. There are also allegations that state resources, administration, and state machinery are being used to the advantage of candidates backed by President Pervez Musharraf," Human Rights Watch said in a statement.

Human Rights Watch said it had tried repeatedly to contact Qayyum, a staunch supporter of Musharraf, but had been unable to reach him.

In Washington on Friday, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said he was not familiar with the Human Rights Watch report. But he said the Bush administration has stressed to the Musharraf government that " the Pakistani people should have a reasonable degree of assurance that their ballot will in fact be reflected in the results."

"Look, you know, there have been in the past irregularities within the Pakistani electoral process," McCormack said.

On Thursday, the widower of assassinated former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, Asif Ali Zadari, held a final campaign rally in the same dusty park where his wife gave her first political address in 1977.

Security was intense, reflecting a surge in suicide bombings that's included attacks on opposition campaign rallies. Police sharpshooters scanned the crowds from rooftops and black-clad commandos stood among scores of security men deployed around the stage.

The stage itself was set far back from fences of steel scaffolding and barbed wire that restrained the flag- and banner-waving crowd of about 6,000. Zadari spoke from behind a podium made of bulletproof glass and steel.

Without mentioning Musharraf by name, Zardari, who assumed joint chairmanship of the party with his son after Bhutto's slaying, said that it was time "to change our system."

"Benazir was a martyr. She believed in you, in the brothers and sisters, and I also believe in you," he proclaimed.

Original article posted here.

Tuesday, February 05, 2008

The price of our action: How many of the world's most dangerous places has the US had a role in destabilizing? (Answer: All, but one)

Travel Picks: The world's top 10 dangerous destinations

NEW YORK, Jan 25 (Reuters Life!) - People are opting for more unforgettable holidays but some countries can be risky even for the most adventurous travelers.

Forbes.com has compiled a list of the most dangerous destinations. The list is not endorsed by Reuters.

1. Somalia

This Horn of Africa country has been in the grip of warlords for the last decade, fighting for control of drug and weapon trafficking rights. Risks include military clashes, kidnapping, landmines and pirates.

2. Iraq

Military action, collateral damage, insurgency and suicide bombings are daily occurrences in the country. Security experts say unstable areas include Baghdad and stretch from Tikrit in the north to Hillah in the south and from Mandali in the east to Ramadi in the west.

3. Afghanistan

Even though the ruling Taliban regime was officially ousted in Afghanistan in 2001, attacks from those still loyal to it and to al Qaeda continue. Military personnel and civilians are killed by improvised explosive devices daily.

4. Haiti

Sharing the Caribbean island of Hispaniola with top vacation destination Dominican Republic, Haiti, the western hemisphere's poorest country, is plagued by civil unrest, police corruption and readily available firearms.

5. Pakistan

The country, which borders Afghanistan, suffers from ongoing geopolitical turmoil. Bomb attacks and rioting between Shia and Sunni Muslim communities are a threat. In December 2007, opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was assassinated during a suicide bombing after months of strife over delayed elections.

6. Sudan

Despite a peace agreement in 2005, areas of extreme danger due to battles between government troops and militias and local insurgent groups dot the country. Areas to avoid completely include the western region of Darfur, Ethiopian and Eritrean border regions and all of southern Sudan.

7. Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)

A civil war that formally ended in 2003 still affects the country. As Rwandan and Ugandan troops pulled out of DRC towards the end of the war, rival militias have been fighting each other to fill the power vacuum this created. Crime is rampant in major cities and security conditions can fluctuate drastically even within minor distances.

8. Lebanon

Culminating in the 2005 assassination of Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri, Lebanon is split by pro- and anti-Syrian forces vying for control of the government. Other risks include military battles in the south with neighboring Israel and civil unrest.

9. Zimbabwe

Anti-western sentiment prominently expressed by officials, out-of-control inflation and oppression employed by the government to silence dissenting voices are common in Zimbabwe.

10. Palestinian Territories

The region is caught in a brutal tug-of-war between pro-Fatah and pro-Hamas factions. Political and military battles with Israel, especially in the Gaza Strip, have made the security situation in this territory very unstable. Poverty and chronic violence add to the instability.

Original article posted here.

Sunday, January 27, 2008

Every day cronies taking fewer order from Washington

Pakistan Rebuffs Secret U.S. Plea for C.I.A. Buildup
Published: January 27, 2008

WASHINGTON — The top two American intelligence officials traveled secretly to Pakistan early this month to press President Pervez Musharraf to allow the Central Intelligence Agency greater latitude to operate in the tribal territories where Al Qaeda, the Taliban and other militant groups are all active, according to several officials who have been briefed on the visit.

But in the unannounced meetings on Jan. 9 with the two American officials — Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, and Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the C.I.A. director — Mr. Musharraf rebuffed proposals to expand any American combat presence in Pakistan, either through unilateral covert C.I.A. missions or by joint operations with Pakistani security forces.

Instead, Pakistan and the United States are discussing a series of other joint efforts, including increasing the number and scope of missions by armed Predator surveillance aircraft over the tribal areas, and identifying ways that the United States can speed information about people suspected of being militants to Pakistani security forces, officials said.

American and Pakistani officials have questioned each other in recent months about the quality and time lines of information that the United States has given to Pakistan to use in focusing on those extremists. American officials have complained that the Pakistanis are not seriously pursuing Al Qaeda in the region.

The Jan. 9 meetings, the first visit with Mr. Musharraf by senior administration officials since the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, also included the new army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, and the director of Pakistan’s leading military intelligence agency, Lt. Gen. Nadeem Taj. American officials said the visit was prompted by an increasing sense of urgency at the highest levels of the United States government that Al Qaeda and the Taliban are intensifying efforts to destabilize the Pakistani government.

The C.I.A. has fired missiles from Predator aircraft in the tribal areas several times, with varying degrees of success. Intelligence officials said they believed that in January 2006 an airstrike narrowly missed killing Ayman al-Zawahri, the second-ranking Qaeda leader, who had attended a dinner in Damadola, a Pakistani village.

Pakistani authorities, in interviews, say they have more than 100,000 troops operating in the region, including a sizable force conducting what they said was a major offensive in South Waziristan. But in the White House, the Pentagon and the C.I.A., frustrations remain high, and there is concern that Mr. Musharraf’s political problems will distract him from what the administration regards as its last chance to take aggressive action.

Despite the insistence of administration officials that the United States and Pakistan have a common goal in fighting Al Qaeda, Mr. Musharraf has made clear in public proclamations that it is far from his first priority. At the Davos World Economic Forum in Switzerland last week, Mr. Musharraf said several times that the 100,000 Pakistani troops that he said were now along the border were hunting for Taliban extremists and “miscreants,” but he also said there was no particular effort being put into the search for Qaeda fighters.

In Washington, however, the Bush administration has said that fighting terrorists, chiefly Al Qaeda, is the primary purpose of the $10 billion in American aid that has been sent to Pakistan, mostly for reimbursements for the cost of patrolling the tribal areas. President Bush has often praised Mr. Musharraf for fighting terrorism, pointing out that Al Qaeda has tried to kill the Pakistani leader. But White House officials were silent when Mr. Musharraf said this week that his efforts were focused on the Taliban, and that the main problem the United States faced was in Afghanistan, not Pakistan.

Accounts of the discussions between Mr. Musharraf and the intelligence officials were provided by American and Pakistani officials over the past two weeks after The New York Times inquired about the secret trip. While officials confirmed some details of the discussion, much remains unknown about the continuing dialogue between Islamabad and Washington.

The trip by Mr. McConnell and General Hayden, a 14,000-mile over-and-back visit for one day of discussions, occurred just five days after senior administration officials debated new strategies for dealing with Pakistan. No decisions were made at that meeting of the National Security Council, which gathered all of Mr. Bush’s top national security officials but not the president.

In the ensuing three weeks, however, the debate appeared to be intensifying, as senior American officials said they believed that American forces — whether as combat troops or trainers — could enhance the efforts of Pakistan’s military in the mountainous and lawless Federally Administered Tribal Areas.

“The purpose of the mission,” a senior official said, “was to convince Musharraf that time is ticking away,” and that the increased attacks on Pakistan would ultimately undermine his effort to stay in office.

Other officials said that recent intelligence analysis indicated that Al Qaeda was now operating in the tribal areas with an impunity similar to the freedom that it had in Afghanistan before the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

The C.I.A. operatives in Afghanistan and the covert Special Operations forces there have made little secret of their desire to move into the tribal areas with or without Mr. Musharraf’s explicit approval. In the administration, there has been discussion of whether Mr. Bush should give orders to allow them more latitude. Mr. Musharraf has explicitly rejected that, and within days after Mr. McConnell and General Hayden’s departure, he told a Singapore newspaper that any unilateral action by the United States would be regarded as an invasion. In Davos, he dismissed the idea that Americans could be effective in the tribal areas.

On Thursday, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said the United States was willing to send combat troops to Pakistan to conduct joint operations against Al Qaeda and other militants if the Pakistani government asked for American help. Mr. Gates said that Pakistan had not requested American assistance, and that any American troops sent to Pakistan would likely be assigned solely to train Pakistani forces. The top American commander in the region, Adm. William J. Fallon, visited Pakistan last Tuesday to discuss counterterrorism issues with senior Pakistani officials, including General Kayani.

American and Pakistani spokesmen confirmed that the meetings between Mr. Musharraf and American intelligence officials took place, but they declined to offer any details. Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States, Mahmud Ali Durrani, said in an interview that the meetings were about “improving coordination, discussing the war on terror, and filling the gaps between intelligence and operations,” but he declined to provide details.

Last Tuesday, the State Department’s counterterrorism chief, Lt. Gen. Dell L. Dailey, echoed some of those concerns, telling reporters that there were gaps in what the United States knew about the threat in the tribal areas. “We don’t have enough information about what’s going on there,” said General Dailey, who retired from the Army with extensive experience in military Special Operations. “Not on Al Qaeda. Not on foreign fighters. Not on the Taliban.”

In dealing with the American requests, Mr. Musharraf is conducting a delicate balancing act. American officials contend that now, more than ever, he recognizes the need to step up the battle against extremists who are seeking to topple his government. But he also believes that if American forces are discovered operating in Pakistan, the backlash will be more than he can control, especially because the Taliban and Al Qaeda are trying to cast him as a pawn of Washington. One result appears to be a compromise: Mr. Musharraf is willing, they say, to accept training, equipment, and technical help, but has insisted that no Americans get involved in ground operations.

Pakistani officials insist they are taking the militant threat seriously and have completed major operations in the Swat Valley to drive out extremists. In the past few days, about 1,000 Pakistan Army troops and Frontier Corps paramilitary forces have also begun a three-pronged attack against the South Waziristan stronghold of Baitullah Mehsud, a militant leader with links to Al Qaeda who is the main suspect in the assassination of Ms. Bhutto.

Original article posted here.

Monday, January 07, 2008

The world changing before your eyes

US military not welcome in Pakistan: army, foreign ministry

ISLAMABAD (AFP) - Pakistan reacted angrily Sunday to reports that US President George W. Bush is considering covert military operations in the country's volatile tribal areas bordering Afghanistan.

"It is not up to the US administration, it is Pakistan's government who is responsible for this country," chief military spokesman Major General Waheed Arshad told AFP.

"There are no overt or covert US operations inside Pakistan. Such reports are baseless and we reject them."

The New York Times reported on its website late Saturday that under a proposal being discussed in Washington, CIA operatives based in Afghanistan would be able to call on direct military support for counter-terrorism operations in neighbouring Pakistan.

Citing unnamed senior administration officials, the newspaper said the proposal called for giving Central Intelligence Agency agents broader powers to strike targets in Pakistan.

Pakistan's western tribal belt is seen as a safe haven for Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants who carry out attacks in Afghanistan, as well as the most likely hideout for Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

The United States now has about 50 soldiers in Pakistan, the report said.

The new plan was reportedly discussed by vice-president Dick Cheney, secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and national security aides in the wake of the December 27 assassination of Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto.

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf had not been consulted, the New York Times reported.

Military spokesman Arshad also dismissed comments from White House hopeful Hillary Clinton that she would propose a joint US-British team to oversee the security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal if she was elected president.

"We do not require anybody's assistance. We are fully capable of doing it on our own," he said.

Pakistan's foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Sadiq late Sunday described the New York Times report as "speculative" but said any suggestion of US forces on its territory was "unacceptable".

On Clinton's remarks about nuclear weapons, Sadiq added: "It must be clearly understood that Pakistan alone is and will be responsible for the security of its nuclear assets."

Original article posted here
.

Sunday, January 06, 2008

Our own nuclear proliferators

For sale: West’s deadly nuclear secrets

A WHISTLEBLOWER has made a series of extraordinary claims about how corrupt government officials allowed Pakistan and other states to steal nuclear weapons secrets.

Sibel Edmonds, a 37-year-old former Turkish language translator for the FBI, listened into hundreds of sensitive intercepted conversations while based at the agency’s Washington field office.

She approached The Sunday Times last month after reading about an Al-Qaeda terrorist who had revealed his role in training some of the 9/11 hijackers while he was in Turkey.

Edmonds described how foreign intelligence agents had enlisted the support of US officials to acquire a network of moles in sensitive military and nuclear institutions.

Among the hours of covert tape recordings, she says she heard evidence that one well-known senior official in the US State Department was being paid by Turkish agents in Washington who were selling the information on to black market buyers, including Pakistan.

The name of the official – who has held a series of top government posts – is known to The Sunday Times. He strongly denies the claims.

However, Edmonds said: “He was aiding foreign operatives against US interests by passing them highly classified information, not only from the State Department but also from the Pentagon, in exchange for money, position and political objectives.”

She claims that the FBI was also gathering evidence against senior Pentagon officials – including household names – who were aiding foreign agents.

“If you made public all the information that the FBI have on this case, you will see very high-level people going through criminal trials,” she said.

Her story shows just how much the West was infiltrated by foreign states seeking nuclear secrets. It illustrates how western government officials turned a blind eye to, or were even helping, countries such as Pakistan acquire bomb technology.

The wider nuclear network has been monitored for many years by a joint Anglo-American intelligence effort. But rather than shut it down, investigations by law enforcement bodies such as the FBI and Britain’s Revenue & Customs have been aborted to preserve diplomatic relations.

Edmonds, a fluent speaker of Turkish and Farsi, was recruited by the FBI in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. Her previous claims about incompetence inside the FBI have been well documented in America.

She has given evidence to closed sessions of Congress and the 9/11 commission, but many of the key points of her testimony have remained secret. She has now decided to divulge some of that information after becoming disillusioned with the US authorities’ failure to act.

One of Edmonds’s main roles in the FBI was to translate thousands of hours of conversations by Turkish diplomatic and political targets that had been covertly recorded by the agency.

A backlog of tapes had built up, dating back to 1997, which were needed for an FBI investigation into links between the Turks and Pakistani, Israeli and US targets. Before she left the FBI in 2002 she heard evidence that pointed to money laundering, drug imports and attempts to acquire nuclear and conventional weapons technology.

“What I found was damning,” she said. “While the FBI was investigating, several arms of the government were shielding what was going on.”

The Turks and Israelis had planted “moles” in military and academic institutions which handled nuclear technology. Edmonds says there were several transactions of nuclear material every month, with the Pakistanis being among the eventual buyers. “The network appeared to be obtaining information from every nuclear agency in the United States,” she said.

They were helped, she says, by the high-ranking State Department official who provided some of their moles – mainly PhD students – with security clearance to work in sensitive nuclear research facilities. These included the Los Alamos nuclear laboratory in New Mexico, which is responsible for the security of the US nuclear deterrent.

In one conversation Edmonds heard the official arranging to pick up a $15,000 cash bribe. The package was to be dropped off at an agreed location by someone in the Turkish diplomatic community who was working for the network.

The Turks, she says, often acted as a conduit for the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan’s spy agency, because they were less likely to attract suspicion. Venues such as the American Turkish Council in Washington were used to drop off the cash, which was picked up by the official.

Edmonds said: “I heard at least three transactions like this over a period of 2½ years. There are almost certainly more.”

The Pakistani operation was led by General Mahmoud Ahmad, then the ISI chief.

Intercepted communications showed Ahmad and his colleagues stationed in Washington were in constant contact with attachés in the Turkish embassy.

Intelligence analysts say that members of the ISI were close to Al-Qaeda before and after 9/11. Indeed, Ahmad was accused of sanctioning a $100,000 wire payment to Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers, immediately before the attacks.

The results of the espionage were almost certainly passed to Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani nuclear scientist.

Khan was close to Ahmad and the ISI. While running Pakistan’s nuclear programme, he became a millionaire by selling atomic secrets to Libya, Iran and North Korea. He also used a network of companies in America and Britain to obtain components for a nuclear programme.

Khan caused an alert among western intelligence agencies when his aides met Osama Bin Laden. “We were aware of contact between A Q Khan’s people and Al-Qaeda,” a former CIA officer said last week. “There was absolute panic when we initially discovered this, but it kind of panned out in the end.”

It is likely that the nuclear secrets stolen from the United States would have been sold to a number of rogue states by Khan.

Edmonds was later to see the scope of the Pakistani connections when it was revealed that one of her fellow translators at the FBI was the daughter of a Pakistani embassy official who worked for Ahmad. The translator was given top secret clearance despite protests from FBI investigators.

Edmonds says packages containing nuclear secrets were delivered by Turkish operatives, using their cover as members of the diplomatic and military community, to contacts at the Pakistani embassy in Washington.

Following 9/11, a number of the foreign operatives were taken in for questioning by the FBI on suspicion that they knew about or somehow aided the attacks.

Edmonds said the State Department official once again proved useful. “A primary target would call the official and point to names on the list and say, ‘We need to get them out of the US because we can’t afford for them to spill the beans’,” she said. “The official said that he would ‘take care of it’.”

The four suspects on the list were released from interrogation and extradited.

Edmonds also claims that a number of senior officials in the Pentagon had helped Israeli and Turkish agents.

“The people provided lists of potential moles from Pentagon-related institutions who had access to databases concerning this information,” she said.

“The handlers, who were part of the diplomatic community, would then try to recruit those people to become moles for the network. The lists contained all their ‘hooking points’, which could be financial or sexual pressure points, their exact job in the Pentagon and what stuff they had access to.”

One of the Pentagon figures under investigation was Lawrence Franklin, a former Pentagon analyst, who was jailed in 2006 for passing US defence information to lobbyists and sharing classified information with an Israeli diplomat.

“He was one of the top people providing information and packages during 2000 and 2001,” she said.

Once acquired, the nuclear secrets could have gone anywhere. The FBI monitored Turkish diplomats who were selling copies of the information to the highest bidder.

Edmonds said: “Certain greedy Turkish operators would make copies of the material and look around for buyers. They had agents who would find potential buyers.”

In summer 2000, Edmonds says the FBI monitored one of the agents as he met two Saudi Arabian businessmen in Detroit to sell nuclear information that had been stolen from an air force base in Alabama. She overheard the agent saying: “We have a package and we’re going to sell it for $250,000.”

Edmonds’s employment with the FBI lasted for just six months. In March 2002 she was dismissed after accusing a colleague of covering up illicit activity involving Turkish nationals.

She has always claimed that she was victimised for being outspoken and was vindicated by an Office of the Inspector General review of her case three years later. It found that one of the contributory reasons for her sacking was that she had made valid complaints.

The US attorney-general has imposed a state secrets privilege order on her, which prevents her revealing more details of the FBI’s methods and current investigations.

Her allegations were heard in a closed session of Congress, but no action has been taken and she continues to campaign for a public hearing.

She was able to discuss the case with The Sunday Times because, by the end of January 2002, the justice department had shut down the programme.

The senior official in the State Department no longer works there. Last week he denied all of Edmonds’s allegations: “If you are calling me to say somebody said that I took money, that’s outrageous . . . I do not have anything to say about such stupid ridiculous things as this.”

In researching this article, The Sunday Times has talked to two FBI officers (one serving, one former) and two former CIA sources who worked on nuclear proliferation. While none was aware of specific allegations against officials she names, they did provide overlapping corroboration of Edmonds’s story.

One of the CIA sources confirmed that the Turks had acquired nuclear secrets from the United States and shared the information with Pakistan and Israel. “We have no indication that Turkey has its own nuclear ambitions. But the Turks are traders. To my knowledge they became big players in the late 1990s,” the source said.

How Pakistan got the bomb, then sold it to the highest bidders

1965 Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Pakistan’s foreign minister, says: “If India builds the bomb we will eat grass . . . but we will get one of our own”

1974 Nuclear programme becomes increased priority as India tests a nuclear device

1976 Abdul Qadeer Khan, a scientist, steals secrets from Dutch uranium plant. Made head of his nation’s nuclear programme by Bhutto, now prime minister

1976 onwards Clandestine network established to obtain materials and technology for uranium enrichment from the West

1985 Pakistan produces weapons-grade uranium for the first time

1989-91 Khan’s network sells Iran nuclear weapons information and technology

1991-97 Khan sells weapons technology to North Korea and Libya

1998 India tests nuclear bomb and Pakistan follows with a series of nuclear tests. Khan says: “I never had any doubts I was building a bomb. We had to do it”

2001 CIA chief George Tenet gathers officials for crisis summit on the proliferation of nuclear technology from Pakistan to other countries

2001 Weeks before 9/11, Khan’s aides meet Osama Bin Laden to discuss an Al-Qaeda nuclear device

2001 After 9/11 proliferation crisis becomes secondary as Pakistan is seen as important ally in war on terror

2003 Libya abandons nuclear weapons programme and admits acquiring components through Pakistani nuclear scientists

2004 Khan placed under house arrest and confesses to supplying Iran, Libya and North Korea with weapons technology. He is pardoned by President Pervez Musharraf

2006 North Korea tests a nuclear bomb

2007 Renewed fears that bomb may fall into hands of Islamic extremists as killing of Benazir Bhutto throws country into turmoil

Original article posted here.

Friday, January 04, 2008

More missteps in the Moron's War of Error

Al-Qaeda to the rescue for Bush's legacy

By M K Bhadrakumar

The Cassandra-like foretelling by American opinion makers almost uniformly makes out that Pakistan may not survive. True, it is hard to be optimistic. Setting right these disjointed times is way past the capacity of the present US administration.

The only silver lining seems to be that in an year's time another team will move into the White House and a clean break becomes possible. Even ardent specialists in the US security community admit as much. A commentator for Stratfor, a think-tank closely linked to the security establishment, says, "In this endgame, all that the Americans want is the status quo in Pakistan. It is all they can get. And given the way US luck is running, they might not even get that."

It isn't quite a matter of "luck". Plainly speaking, in the winter of 2001, the George W Bush administration bit off more than a superpower should chew in the Khyber Pass. Today, it has no Plan B. The best hope for the White House is that Pakistani military chief General Ashfaq Kiani "must become Washington's new man in Pakistan" (to quote Stratfor). That is to say, let's pin the blame for Benazir Bhutto's assassination last week on al-Qaeda, get on with old business and sit out the coming 12 months.

But smart soldiers like Kiani can't be that dumb, can they? Three types of prophets of doom are setting the tone in Washington. First come the FOBs - "Friends of Benazir". The people in the media, think-tanks and government in the US over whom Bhutto cast her spell - by way of her irresistible personal charm or through the skills of her top-class public relations handlers - simply cannot think of a Pakistan without her.

Second, there are America's legions of South Asia experts from an earlier era who are peeved that the administration with its neo-conservative agenda ignored their advice in the crafting of Washington's post- 2001 Pakistan policy. They feel vindicated the policy turned out to be a mess. Third comes the tribe of terrorism specialists who proliferated in recent years and are greatly experienced in the politics of fear - including some among them who seem to believe their phantom enemy is of absolutely cosmic significance.

US shuffles Iran cards
But theirs needn't be the only story. The shadow that Bhutto's assassination is casting on regional security is of varied hues. That is how it is already being felt in Tehran. In one swift sweep, almost overnight, Pakistan replaces Iran on the Bush administration's radar screen. Israel may not like what is happening, but Vice President Dick Cheney and company won't have even a fighting chance of reviving the Iran bogey in the remaining term of the administration.

The Bush administration cannot overlook that the crisis brewing in Pakistan and Afghanistan may turn out to be manifold more serious than all of Tehran's nuclear program and its support of Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Iraqi Shi'ite militia in Iraq combined together, let alone the political challenge posed by Iran's rising regional influence.

For the first time since it expounded the "axis of evil" theory, exactly six years ago - grouping Iraq, Iran and North Korea - the Bush administration is compelled to view Iran with a sense of proportion. The hardline policies aimed at destabilizing the Iranian regime look downright irresponsible in the changed circumstances. A military option is out of the question. A regime change in Tehran? Ridiculous.

But the "Iran question" as such may not fade away from the Middle East, though rhetoric - US and Iranian - has appreciably diminished in recent weeks. Part of the problem is that a bitterly contested parliamentary election looms ahead in March in Iran. Nonetheless, Iran-US relations are poised for a change of course. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's offer to meet her Iranian counterpart Manuchehr Mottaki "any place and any time and anywhere" testifies to that. There is guarded optimism in Tehran about the upcoming fourth round of US-Iran meetings regarding cooperation over Iraq's stabilization.

Rice said a week ago, "We don't have permanent enemies ... what we have is a policy that is open to ending confrontation or conflict with any country that is willing to meet us on those terms." Mottaki promptly responded, "Ground can be prepared." He welcomed Washington's "more respectful and logical approach" toward Tehran, which, he insisted, became possible since "they [US officials] have gotten a better understanding of Iran's key role in the region and its determination to obtain its legal rights [for enriching uranium]."

Iranians are pragmatists and after Bhutto's assassination they will have assessed by now that the developments in Pakistan leave the Bush administration with no option but to earnestly probe for ways of normalizing relations with Tehran.

To be or not to be ...
Iran may once again prove to be useful, as in 2001, for the logistical needs of Washington's "war on terror" in Afghanistan. Arguably, Iran can be a substitute route if the supply lines for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces in Afghanistan via Pakistan become choked. NATO and the US cannot get a more realistic partner than Iran for stabilizing Afghanistan. Iran's cooperation will be useful in forestalling the Taliban's northwardly march to the Amu Darya region and in stabilizing western Afghanistan, where NATO forces are coming under threat.

The alternative would be for Washington to go crawling back to Moscow and ask for air and land corridors to Afghanistan. It appears NATO made some soundings at the Russia-NATO Council meeting at foreign minister level in Brussels on December 7. Following the meeting, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said: "We discussed the situation in Afghanistan. The vital security interests of Russia and the NATO nations coincide here. It is both the threat of drugs and the lingering terrorist threat. They have to be fought by combined efforts."

Lavrov added, "We [Russia and NATO] are also considering other cooperation possibilities, particularly in logistic support of the International Security Assistance Force and in helping to equip the Afghan National Army. I think there is a good field in this regard where we can move towards finding mutually acceptable forms of interaction."

Writing in the Russian journal Ekspert a week later, in a lengthy essay on Russian foreign policy, Lavrov seemed to hark back to the discussions in Brussels when he revealed intriguingly, "We're [Moscow] also witnessing some gleams of qualitative shifts in the analysis of the contemporary phase of world developments in the US and Europe, although so far mostly at the level of the expert community. At the same time, it is obvious that our partners are thinking that the thought process has begun. One of the conclusions being drawn at that is the realization of the fundamentally non-confrontational character of Russian foreign policy."

With Bhutto's assassination, Washington must now hasten its "thought process". There is a hard decision to take. Both Iran and Russia would be sensible partners in the "war on terror" in Afghanistan. But neither would respond to a selective engagement by Washington. The Bush administration will need William Shakespeare's Shylock to weigh the relative advantage in engaging Iran or Moscow. That's where Bush's forthcoming tour of Israel, the Palestinian territories and the Persian Gulf allies could be useful.

One thing is already clear. The Iran nuclear issue refuses to go away. It may have taken a turn for the better lately, but, as China's People's Daily noted, this is far from a denouement. The US "will have to ferment new plans and work out new strategies over the Iranian nuclear issue both during and after the Bush administration ... Iran might benefit from the disparity among the world powers: it could strive for a more favorable international environment and strategic standing. In conclusion, concerned parties on the Iran issue are presently considering their own interests in relation to actual conditions in preparation for a new round of strategic contests."

Question mark on US global strategy
But Moscow poses even more fundamental difficulties. In the runup to the Russia-NATO meeting in Brussels, in exhaustive media comments, a Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman in Moscow underscored in December that "both successes and complications" bedeviled Moscow's relations with the trans-Atlantic alliance. He said the work ahead is not going to be easy.

Among problem areas, he listed "international legal implications" of NATO's transformation as a global political organization outside the control of the United Nations; NATO military structures "drawing closer to our borders"; further NATO enlargement plans; differences over the CFE (Conventional Armed Forces in Europe) Treaty; and "deployment of a third US global missile defense system in Europe and its conjunction with MD [missile defense] research and development within the framework of NATO."

In other words, in the post-Bhutto scenario, Washington needs to rework the agenda of the forthcoming NATO summit meeting in Bucharest, Romania, in April. NATO's third round of enlargement plans was listed as the key topic of discussion in Bucharest. Now, Pakistan and Afghanistan will inevitably overshadow.

Will Washington press ahead with earlier plans to get the NATO summit to endorse the admission of Ukraine and Georgia? In the present crisis situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, can the Bush administration afford to annoy the Kremlin? A Russian spokesman has warned, "We [Moscow] are convinced that the process of NATO enlargement has no relationship to the modernization of the alliance itself or to the ensuring of security in Europe whatsoever. On the contrary, it is a serious factor of provocation, fraught with the appearance of new dividing lines and a lowering of the level of mutual trust."

The Kremlin has clearly stated the bottom line, it will not be happy even if the US and the EU do not insist on forcing Kosovo's independence, or proceed to deploy NATO in the breakaway republic outside the framework of the United Nations Security Council. Lavrov underlined, "The main thing is the striving to jointly work on a basis of mutual respect, including respect for the analysis of each other regarding the threats, which today are common to us." He stressed that at the Bucharest summit, if NATO went ahead with its enlargement policy in parallel with the alliance's transformation, "we [Moscow] are convinced that this would not contribute to bolstering our common security or fighting the common threats to us". The implicit warning is that cooperation in the "war on terror" could be conditional on Washington rolling back its containment policy toward Russia.

It is obvious that both Moscow and Tehran now estimate that the crisis in Afghanistan and Pakistan has a direct bearing on US global strategies. If NATO fails in Afghanistan, a huge question mark would arise over the alliance's future. As a US Congressional Research report in October noted, NATO's mission in Afghanistan is "a test of the alliance's political will and military capabilities". But that isn't all. What the US think-tankers obfuscate is that the US's ability to retain its trans-Atlantic leadership role in the post-Cold War era is itself in the firing line.

Both Moscow and Tehran stand to gain in a multipolar world order in which their regional influence comes into greater play. If Washington fails in its post-Cold War strategy of bolstering NATO by whipping up enemy images (eg, al-Qaeda), the process towards multipolarity will substantially gain. Significantly, Tehran and Moscow refuse to characterize Bhutto's assassination as the work of al-Qaeda.

Beijing's reaction has been equally cautious. A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman initially condemned Bhutto's assassination as an "act of terrorism". But Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister He Yafei, who visited the Pakistan Embassy in Beijing to sign a condolence book the next day, didn't refer to terrorism at all, but expressed the hope that the people of Pakistan "could overcome the current difficulty as soon as possible and jointly safeguard social stability and development of the country".

Chinese commentators have noted that "the situation in Afghanistan proved far more sophisticated than predicted" and it had become difficult for NATO to "cover up the troops' embarrassing position in the country". A People's Daily commentary analyzed last year that the Afghanistan debacle, coupled with the deterioration of NATO's relations with Russia and the failure of Brussels' efforts to secure a footing in Central Asia, have hampered the alliance from fulfilling its target of making 2007 its year of "transformation".

The commentary assessed that consequently that "the US pull within NATO has declined, and the US's trans-Atlantic role is becoming uncertain. It was widely hoped that the shift of top leadership in Germany, France and Britain might inject new vitality to US-European Union relations. But it is still hard to say whether the new 'troika' can usher in a situation Washington optimistically predicted."

All three countries - Russia, China and Iran - openly share an interest in seeing that the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Collective Security Treaty Organization play a significant role in stabilizing the Afghan situation. None of them has remained content with the US's (or NATO's) monopoly over conflict resolution in a region of such vital importance to their security, though they are supportive of the "war on terror" in Afghanistan as such.

Clearly, with Bhutto's assassination and with Pakistan tottering on the abyss, what stares the Bush administration in the face is a potential unraveling of its global strategy built around the "war on terror" and "Islamofascism". The easy way out will be to goad General Kiani to become Washington's "new man in Pakistan" so that the hunt for al-Qaeda goes on.

M K Bhadrakumar served as a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service for over 29 years, with postings including India's ambassador to Uzbekistan (1995-1998) and to Turkey (1998-2001).

Original article posted here.