The Glasshouse

Honouring Our Heroes

2007-11-15T20:25:00.000-08:00

As fate would dictate, your Blogger happened to be away when Musharraf decided to inflict his constitutional illegality on the people of Pakistan.

Since my return I have been preoccupied with working with other citizens to defeat the state of oppression that has been placed upon us. Writing a Blog did not seem an adequate enough response to the changed world we suddenly find around us.

I began this Blog over thirty months ago with the sole aim of trying to convince people that the Musharraf regime was morally bankrupt and that its intentions were self-seeking and oppressive. Today it would be difficult to find any member of Pakistan’s civic society who would disagree with me. In other words The Glasshouse is now largely redundant.

Here is my list of modern Pakistani heroes:

Our Lawyers.
What a valiant and principled lot they have turned out to be. Bless them!An admiring US lawyer commented: ‘They may be beaten and gassed, but they are representing the last line of defense against a dictatorial regime bent on suppressing the law.’

In my personal roll of honour the following three lawyers have to be mentioned by name:
Aitzaz Ahsan
Muneer A Malik
Ali Ahmed Kurd

Members of the Press
Apart from the usual unmentionable rats that are found in every profession, most members of the press have resisted all attempts to become PR spokesmen for the regime. My personal favourites being:

Talat Hussain
Mushtaq Minhas
Nusrat Javed

The Judiciary
All judges of the senior judiciary who refused to take oath under the PCO are worthy of praise. They have ended a 50 year hiatus of subservience.

Imran Khan
Betrayed by a gang of student thugs bribed by the regime, he held his head high throughout. He once again proved to us what courage and leadership are all about.

We should all be proud of these people. There are others, of course, whom I have forgotten to mention. So, Readers, I would now encourage you to add to the list of our heroes in the comment's column. Let them get the praise they deserve for fighting for our rights in face of lathis, tear gas, imprisonment and physical brutality.

(And, yes, you are also welcome to compile a list of your favourite villains as well.)

______________________________________

There are currently tens of millions of Pakistanis who are currently unable to access news of ongoing events in Pakistan. To them I suggest a traditional alternative - BBC Urdu Service.

In view of the blanket media ban in Pakistan BBC has increased the time and frequency of its Urdu broadcasts. The live broadcasts are available at the following times:

6:30 am to 7:30 am (PST) on medium wave at 1413 kHz

12:30 to 1:00 pm (PST) on 6065, 7180, 11750 and 15510 kHz

3:00 to 4:00 pm (PST) on 5965, 7205, 9510 and 15160 kHz

5:30 to 6:00 pm (PST) on 6060, 7205, 9605 and 11690

8:00 pm to 9:00 am (PST) on medium wave at 1413 kHz

10:30 pm to 10:30 am (PST) on medium wave at 1413 kHz

And internet users can listen to all these broadcasts on http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/

______________________________________

Readers, many thanks for your concern.

As you can see Onlooker is alive and well. Unfortunately, due to the abounding political chaos he has been too busy these past few days even to check on the blog. (Only today did I finally manage to read my readers’ responses. Please accept my sincere apologies).

With the technology available to intercept Al Qaeda’s electronic communications, your Blogger is pretty sure that the authorities might have some clue to his identity, but then perhaps, lucky for him, they are simply to busy countering the latest terrorist threat – our lawyers!

Anyhow Onlooker is off again this coming week to attend a meeting in the capital where it is anticipated there will the usual welcoming lathi and a charming dose of tear gas thrown in for good measure. The important thing is that the people of Pakistan seem to be winning the battle. Good luck to us all!

Benazir Bhutto: Her Headaches Continue

2007-10-31T22:11:00.000-07:00

It appears that the regime is not altogether pleased with Benazir Bhutto now that she has returned.

The huge crowds gathered to receive her unnerved Musharraf and his stalwarts (most, if not all, of whom are in office by virtue of the cooked elections of 2002). Secondly, Benazir Bhutto has publicly hurled charges against some of Musharraf’s ‘nearest and dearest’ for planning the bomb that savaged her motorcade on 18th October killing and maiming hundreds of people.

So now the government has not only announced that the National Reconciliation Ordinance would not apply to cases pending against Benazir Bhutto in foreign courts but also that the government would provide necessary evidence and witnesses if sought by any foreign court.

Obviously the deal has suddenly been consigned to the rubbish heap and the gloves have come off.

Let us see if Bhutto crumbles or fights.

_______________________________________

The BCC recently provided a synopsis of the foreign cases currently pending against the PPP leader.

FOREIGN CASES THAT COULD HAUNT BHUTTO
By Richard Lawson
BBC News, London

Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto is preparing for general elections shortly after returning to the country after years of self-imposed exile.
She came back after President Pervez Musharraf granted her a controversial amnesty from the charges in Pakistan.

The Supreme Court may yet rule that amnesty illegal. But even if it clears it, Ms Bhutto, who has been in talks about a power-sharing deal with President Musharraf, could still face several cases outside of Pakistan.

One of the most advanced is in Switzerland, where in 2003 Geneva magistrate Daniel Devaud convicted Ms Bhutto of money-laundering.

In his judgment, he found she and her close associates received around $15m in kickbacks from Pakistani government contracts with SGS and Cotecna, two Swiss companies.

Mr Devaud sentenced Ms Bhutto and her husband Asif Zardari to 180 days in prison, ordering them to return $11.9m to the government of Pakistan.

"I certainly don't have any doubts about the judgments I handed down [which] came after an investigation lasting several years, involving thousands of documents," he has told the BBC.

Ms Bhutto contested the decision, which was made in her absence, and the case is being reheard, with the former prime minister now facing the more serious charge of aggravated money-laundering.

Not automatic

Asked about the case, her officials told the BBC: "These allegations are part and parcel of a campaign of a character assassination. Ms Bhutto has not done anything illegal. She and her husband, Senator Asif Zardari, both have defended themselves in every court in every country."

Many in Pakistan assume the Swiss case will now collapse because of the deal struck between Ms Bhutto and President Musharraf.

Yet under Swiss law, even if the government of Pakistan stops co-operating, that would not automatically end legal proceedings in Switzerland.

Vincent Fournier, the Swiss judge in charge of the current case, told the BBC he planned to hand the case over to Geneva's attorney-general this week.

A second international case involving Ms Bhutto is under way in England.

In this case, the government of Pakistan alleged that Ms Bhutto and her husband bought Rockwood, a $3.4m country estate in Surrey, using money from kickbacks.

Ms Bhutto and Mr Zardari denied owning the estate for eight years. But in 2004, Mr Zardari suddenly admitted that it was his.

Then, in 2006, an English judge, Lord Justice Collins, came to an interesting, though by no means final, conclusion about the estate.

Whilst stressing he was not making any "findings of fact", Justice Collins said there was a "reasonable prospect" of the government of Pakistan establishing, in possible future court proceedings, that Ms Bhutto and/or her husband bought and refurbished Rockwood with "the fruits of corruption".

Asked by the BBC about Rockwood, Ms Bhutto's officials denied any allegations of corruption, but gave no detailed response, although her husband's lawyers told Justice Collins that Pakistan's case was speculative.

The London case is a civil one. That means it could collapse should President Musharraf's government decide not to pursue it.

Iraq questions

Ms Bhutto also faces allegations concerning the United Nations oil-for-food scandal.

In 2005, the Independent Inquiry Commission led by former US Federal Reserve head Paul Volcker found that more than 2,000 companies breached UN sanctions by making illegal payments to Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq before 2003.

Among them was a company called Petroline FZC, based in the United Arab Emirates. Mr Volcker's inquiry found it traded $144m of Iraqi oil, and made $2m of illegal payments to Saddam Hussein's regime.

Documents from Pakistan's National Accountability Bureau appear to show that Ms Bhutto was Petroline FZC's chairwoman.

If these documents are genuine, and the oil-for-food allegations are proven, this would be especially damaging for the former prime minister.

The Spanish authorities are investigating financial transactions thought to be linked to Petroline FZC. In addition, President Musharraf's amnesty dropping corruption charges against public officials only covers the period 1986-1999.

The Petroline FZC transactions came after that, which means that in theory a charge is possible.

Ms Bhutto has always denied all corruption allegations, and her supporters say the allegations against her are politically motivated.

But her legal difficulties may not be over yet.

Trouble in Swat

2007-10-31T03:19:00.000-07:00

The crisis in Swat has gripped the attention of the nation these past few days.

The televised display of hovering helicopter gunships blasting away at militants, thousands of helpless civilians seeking refuge in the plains and crumpled bodies littering the countryside, has managed to numb most of us into a bewildered state of shock and grief.

Your Blogger who has over the years visited Swat three times, remembers it as a place of spectacular beauty painfully marred with human poverty. It is not a small area either - according to the 1998 census Swat had a population of 1,257,602, making it the third most populous district in NWFP. Area wise it is the fourth biggest district in the province.

Since its integration into NWFP in 1969, little has been done to improve the lot of the Swat's inhabitants. Geographic isolation combined with deprivation of progress allowed post-Afghan war fanaticism to make inroads among some of the populace.

__________________________________________

To make some sense of the conflict your Blogger now attempts a look at Swat’s recent history.
__________________________________________

In the last fifteen years Maulana Sufi Mohammed clearly emerges as a key player in Swat’s present state of chaos.

Sufi Mohammed quit the Jamaat-e-Islami in 1992 to form Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi (TNSM). In keeping with the stern Wahabi variant of Islam the TNSM sought to impose Sharia rule in Pakistan.

In 1994, under Sufi Mohammed, the TNSM led an armed uprising against the Benazir Bhutto-led PPP government by seizing the civilian airport in Saidu Sharif, Swat and taking over district courts and police station. Some 40 people, including 12 security force personnel, were killed in a week of fighting before the government launched a military operation to quell the rebellion. Following a cease-fire, on November 8, 1994 TNSM released 50 government officials in Matta, and the government agreed to enforce Sharia in Malakand and parts of Swat district.

(Interestingly enough, during this 1994 uprising a religious scholar, enlisted by the government to negotiate with the rebellious Sufi Mohammed, noticed the presence of one particular man during his meetings with the Malakand district commissioner and later with Sufi Mohammed. The DC had visibly deferred to him and the TNSM chief referred to the intruder as one of ‘his own men’. The interloper subsequently turned out to be NWFP’s ISI chief. This led the religious scholar to the understandable conclusion that Sufi Mohammed's campaign for the introduction of Islamic law was not a real one; rather, it was a move fully sponsored by ISI to destabilize Benazir Bhutto.)

In late October 2001 Sufi Mohammed took 10,000 or so armed volunteers of the TNSM to fight the US-organised Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. This motley crowd of jihadis went armed with ‘Kalashnikovs, rocket launchers, missiles, anti-aircraft guns, hand grenades and swords’.

Much to Sufi Mohammed’s embarrassment the Taliban announced that the TNSM volunteers were not welcome in Afghanistan and suggested that they return to their homes, “seemingly out of mistrust for the true motives of Sufi Mohammed, whom they believe to have been in contact with the powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of Pakistan.”

Despite Taliban’s rejection the TNSM volunteers entered Afghanistan to be mowed down by US air strikes, using lethal Daisy Cutter bombs, and then slaughtered by the battle hardened Northern Alliance troops. A few hundred survivors were captured by various Afghan warlords, who subsequently sold them back to their relatives in Pakistan for huge sums of money. Only a handful of lucky ones, including Sufi Mohammed, who deserted the battlefield, were able to flee back to Malakand.

After his ignominious return the Pakistani government detained Sufi Mohammed. He was tried by the Kurram Agency assistant political agent who found the cleric guilty, under the Frontier Crimes Regulations, of ‘entering the country without valid documents’ and for ‘possession of unlicensed arms’. Sufi Mohammed was sentenced to imprisonment for seven years.

The death of thousands of illiterate TMSM volunteers caused a substantial drop in political support for the cleric. His disastrous incursion in Afghanistan had revealed his incompetence and complete lack of combat skills.

And then on January 15, 2002 General Musharraf banned the TNSM as a terrorist organisation.

The TNSM remained inactive for a period of four years until the devastating earthquake of 8 October 8 2005. The followers of Sufi Mohammed soon capitalised on the human catastrophe and used it to revitalize their organisation. Soon volunteers from the TNSM led the vanguard of the relief work in the devastated areas of the NWFP. Not surprisingly, in the absence of timely official help, the locals came to admire these volunteers for their selfless devotion in helping the quake victims.

However, there was a downside to all this. The TNSM began promoting the idea that the earthquake was divinely sent punishment for the misdeeds committed by the locals. Its followers called upon the quake affected families to destroy their televisions, VCD players and audio CD/cassette players to avoid further retribution.

Fazle Hayat, the son-in-law of Sufi Muhammad, took over the TNSM under the nom de guerre of Maulana Fazlullah. He soon began making broadcasts from an illegal FM radio station installed in his mosque at Imam Dheri, in the Mutta Tehsil of Swat district. Delivering two sermons a day, he preached his version of militant Islam.

Now known also as ‘Maulana FM Radio’, he began drawing huge crowds to the weekly Friday prayers held in his Imam Dheri mosque – estimated at 30,000 by some reports. In April 2007, the press reported that some 10,000 people had set their electronic equipment on fire as a result of Fazalullah’s FM broadcasts which had declared television and music to be un-Islamic.

Soon barbers were being directed not to shave beards and shops selling CDs and music cassettes were ordered to close down. Girls' schools and colleges in the area were warned that unless all their students began wearing burqas, they would face a violent reaction. Even the local polio-immunisation program came under attack for being American-Zionist plan to make Muslim children sterile.

Fazlullah soon formed his law and order agency as well, which began taking charge of traffic regulation duties in Malakand and Swat areas. Recently a TNSM group travelling in 15 machinegun-fitted vehicles announced a new structure of judicial dispensation and local administration. Having distributed cell-phone numbers members of this new force asked all public complaints, problems and disputes should now addressed to them. In the meanwhile the local police, in fear of their lives, locked themselves in their thanas.

For all intent and purposes, due to the inactivity of Islamabad, Fazullah had taken control of Swat. As late as last week Newsweek was reporting: Mullah Fazlullah rides a black horse and commands hundreds of men under the noses of a nearby Pakistani Army division that seldom leaves its barracks.
__________________________________________

By ignoring the issue for so long Islamabad had allowed the militants to become entrenched in Malakand, Dir and Swat.

Violent action is never the surest way to success. Winning the hearts and minds of the locals should have been given precedence but that has never been Musharraf’s way.

Critics have already begun to question the timing of the action. With the Supreme Court verdict, on Musharraf’s legitimacy as a presidential candidate, due any day now, the Swat upheaval just adds the cherry to the existing state of disarray within the country.

By creating a perfect new storm in the NWFP, are we seeing an extra attempt to justify a martial law that may just be around the corner? Only time and the Supreme Court verdict will provide the answer.

Pakistan
Swat

The Return (or Not) of Nawaz Sharif

2007-10-27T04:00:00.000-07:00

This past week we have seen a ping-pong match of sorts in the press. There have been several reports in the newspapers indicating that Nawaz Sharif will soon be returning to Pakistan.

In return these reports have been vociferously contradicted by no less a person than Musharraf himself.

President General Pervez Musharraf has once again, and in authoritative and categorical terms, said that exiled former prime minister Nawaz Sharif will not be allowed to return to Pakistan before the general elections. His declaration before senior PML-Q leaders in Islamabad flies directly in the face of national and international demands that all political parties and leaders be provided a level playing field.

Why?

As Ziauddin Sardar mentioned in the New Statesman yesterday:
Musharraf's plans for the immediate future have two components. First, now that Bhutto has returned, he is determined to hold elections before mid-January. They will be "managed", just as he managed the 2002 elections, by "seat adjustment" - this time to the advantage of her party. He expects Bhutto to deliver her "blind" followers from Sind and Punjab, largely poor peasants at the mercy of feudal landlords. The intelligence agencies and the army will do the rest and ensure the desired results.

An early return by Nawaz Sharif will obviously lead to political turmoil in Punjab and put Musharraf’s plans for an engineered election favouring PML(Q) in serious jeopardy.

After Nawaz Sharif’s forced departure from Islamabad airport, few people expected him be out of Saudi clutches until after the elections. But there appears to be a serious change of heart in Riyadh.

As Newsweek reported two days ago:

It was the Saudis who took in Nawaz Sharif and his family when the Pakistani prime minister was deposed by

According to highly placed Pakistani sources, earlier this month Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah called on Musharraf to allow Sharif back into Pakistan. A source, requesting anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic, said that the king had written to the Pakistani president urging him to permit Sharif's repatriation because of a ruling by Pakistan's Supreme Court and in deference to "the wishes of the Pakistani people." NEWSWEEK's source said that Musharraf's response was to insist that Sharif stayed in Saudi Arabia but that his wife, Kulsoom, could return sooner.

Asked to comment, Tariq Azim Khan, Pakistan's state minister for information, told NEWSWEEK that Sharif would not be back despite foreign pressure--including from the European Union. "[Sharif] is not a political exile," says Khan, "he signed an agreement and is in Saudi Arabia on that basis." Khan said he had no knowledge of any letter from the Saudi king on Sharif's behalf and a spokesman for the Saudi Embassy in Washington said he was unable to comment. However, Khawaja M. Asif, a close aide of Sharif's, told NEWSWEEK that the Saudi monarch had "committed to Sharif that if Benazir Bhutto were allowed to come back, they would not stop his return." According to Asif, the Saudis want to "wash their hands off this matter and are pressing Musharraf for Sharif's return.

At this stage, there is no clear indication about why the Saudis--lately vilified in Pakistan for agreeing to take Sharif back after his abortive return attempt--have changed their minds. One possibility: their concern about the show of public support for Bhutto--who is more secular than Sharif--on her return. "The Saudis have reacted to the personal advocacy of Sharif demanding a level playing field when he met the king after his deportation," says Parvez Hassan, a lawyer and political analyst who has worked with Sharif.

This Newsweek report was corroborated by Daily Times as well.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is pressing President General Pervez Musharraf to allow former prime minister Nawaz Sharif to return home before the upcoming general elections, Daily Times has learnt.

Highly-placed intelligence sources said that King Abdullah communicated this appeal to Gen Musharraf on October 15.

In your Blogger’s opinion the Saudis are probably perturbed by heavy criticism they have received in Pakistan for their direct interference in Pakistani politics. Generals may come and go, but the last thing Riyadh would wish is to be at the receiving end of loathing from ordinary citizens of Pakistan. It is likely that as the 'Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques' the Saudi King would much rather prefer to be loved than reviled by the Muslims of Pakistan.

Let’s see who wins this current battle of wits.
__________________________________

One may make out the regime's desperation from the following item in today's Dawn

LAHORE, Oct 26: Former prime minister Mian Nawaz Sharif has refused to meet President Pervez Musharraf in Jeddah, a party leader said in a statement here on Friday.

Dr Saeed Elahi, who met the exiled leader at his residence in the port city, said on his return here that a leader of a brotherly country had told Mr Sharif that Gen Musharraf wanted to see him and offer concessions in the light of the National Reconciliation Ordinance. The PML-N leader was also told that he could also be allowed to return home like some other leaders.

According to the statement, Mr Sharif made it clear that he would neither meet the general nor accept any concessions.

The exiled leader, according to the statement, said the best formula for the national reconciliation was that he should be allowed to return home without any obstacles. Also, he said, free and fair elections should be held with a free hand to all parties to contest.

With Nawaz Sharif telling him to get lost, it's not surprising that Musharraf's denials are getting louder and louder.

Pakistan

Nawaz Sharif

Reconciliation and All-Out War

2007-10-25T03:51:00.000-07:00

The so-called National Reconciliation appears to be all but dead. The PPP and PML(Q) are now involved in a no-holds-barred nationwide slanging match.

Just take the vivid example provided last night on Aaj TV’s ‘Live with Talat’. Viewers witnessed the representatives of these two parties engaged in a furious shouting match accusing each other’s leaders of gross corruption (while an amused Iqbal Jhagra of PML(N) looked on). Things got so bad on air that the host, a troubled looking Talat Hussain, had to put an early end to the show.

Benazir Bhutto has accused the remnants of Zia ul Haq - in other words the dinosaurs of PML(Q) – of attempting to kill her. In return the Chaudhries & Co have announced that the bomb ‘drama’ was engineered by the PPP leader herself.

While the political atmosphere heats up, it appears that Musharraf may have finally embarked on an all-out war in the tribal areas. If he fails the risks for the country will be enormous.
__________________________________________

Instead of labouring pointlessly on the keyboard, it is easier for your Blogger to provide his readers with an accurate picture of the current situation provided by the seasoned Ziauddin Sardar in the latest edition of UK’s New Statesman magazine.

A COUNTRY AT WAR
Ziauddin Sardar
Published 25 October 2007

Musharraf's attempts to control his country are just paper over cracks. The very unity of Pakistan is under threat, writes Ziauddin Sardar. Plus Rageh Omaar reports on the wild borderlands of Waziristan where allegiances are to the ultra-conservative, rigid tribal system and not to Kabul
Pakistan is about to descend even deeper into violence and chaos, as the front-line state in the war on terror prepares for an all-out offensive on the jihadi militants entrenched in Waziristan, the country's lawless northern province. In what amounts to total war on the Taliban and al-Qaeda, President Musharraf is planning to bring the whole region under military control. This is a high-risk strategy, as the consequences of failure could be devastating for Pakistan. They could even lead to the break-up of the country.

Behind the headlines, the state's contradictions and tensions are being tested to the limit. The arrival of Benazir Bhutto, supposed to help marshal the forces of moderation and reform, has increased political instability. Supporters of the other former prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, who plans a second attempt to return from exile to Pakistan in the first week of November, are preparing a mass campaign against Musharraf that could lead to political gridlock. And the president himself has given a general amnesty to corrupt politicians - an act seen as handing a tabula rasa to plunderers and murderers.

Bhutto returned to Pakistan on the basis of a "power-sharing deal" brokered by Washington and vaunted in the international media as a positive move towards democracy. But it is little more than a conjunction of self-interests. Musharraf describes the proposed arrangement as a "troika", involving the president, the prime minister and the army chief of staff. The powers of the president, including being able to sack the prime minister at will, are to remain untouched for the next five-year term. Any premier would thus have little real power and would be forced to do the bidding of the other two members of the troika. A pliant prime minister with selected political parties on board means Musharraf remains in charge. The status quo is preserved.

In return for joining the arrangement, Bhutto's two main demands are met: her Swiss bank accounts have been unfrozen and she gets to keep her skyscraper in Dubai and properties in England and the US; and the rule against her serving a third term as prime minister is waived.

Musharraf's plans for the immediate future have two components. First, now that Bhutto has returned, he is determined to hold elections before mid-January. They will be "managed", just as he managed the 2002 elections, by "seat adjustment" - this time to the advantage of her party. He expects Bhutto to deliver her "blind" followers from Sind and Punjab, largely poor peasants at the mercy of feudal landlords. The intelligence agencies and the army will do the rest and ensure the desired results.

However, after the bloodbath in Karachi at Bhutto's return on 19 October, it is difficult to see how in the current atmosphere elections can be held. "Political rallies will be open to both militant attacks and sabotage by rogue intelligence elements," says Rashed Rahman, managing editor of the Post, the Lahore daily. "With intelligence apparatus as prime candidate for the attack, all previous assumptions of Bhutto riding back to power are scuppered."

Fear of suicide bombings will be a potent inhibition to voters from venturing into the polling booths. And given that large parts of the northern provinces are virtually no-go areas, it will be next to impossible to hold elections in that region. "A limited voter turnout at around 20 per cent will hardly constitute a credible election," says Rahman - no matter how the elections are "managed".

Second, a fully fledged assault on Waziristan is due within days. "This has now become inevitable," a high-ranking military officer told the NS. "We are taking daily casualties. If we don't take the militants on with our full might, the morale of the army will sink even further." Unlike previous operations, which targeted specific militant bases or tried to block guerrilla movement between Pakistan and Afghan is tan, "the aim now is to pacify the entire province".

Forces would be deployed in all major cities, such as Mir Ali, Angor Ada and Magaroti, with the aim of establishing permanent army bases manned by thousands of military and paramilitary troops. The entire region will come under Pakistani military control, administered under the direct command of the newly appointed vice-chief of the army staff, General Ashfaq Pervez Kiani. (When and if Musharraf removes his uniform, General Kiani will take over as chief of the army staff.) "We estimate the all-out assault will destroy the centralised command structure of al-Qaeda and the Taliban, making their operations sporadic and largely ineffective," says the military officer.

Language of liberation
However, given the Pakistani army's poor record in Waziristan, this seems rather optimistic. The militants will almost certainly stand and fight to the bloody end. Pakistan has already lost more than a thousand soldiers; 300 more are being held hostage. The Pashtun fighters, including the Pakistani Taliban, know the region well. They are used to guerrilla warfare and see death in battle as a great honour and a direct route to paradise. Most of the local population supports them. The chances of the Pakistani army "pacifying" the region are therefore slim.

At issue is more than terrorism. The fiercely proud and independent Pashtun people see the American and British forces in neighbouring Afghanistan as invaders. Pakistani troops marching into Waziristan will also be seen as a foreign invasion. A civil war will turn into a war of "national liberation". Many tribal leaders are already speaking the language of liberating themselves from the "Pakistani administration". The end result could be a new wave of suicide attacks and acts of sabotage throughout Pakistan.

Musharraf began putting his strategy in place two weeks ago. He secured the passage of the national reconciliation ordinance (NRO), as it is called, on 5 October. This dropped all corruption charges against politicians from "all parties". "We decided to wind up those cases that were pending for the past 15 years," Musharraf said, claiming that it would bring to an end the politics of vendetta and victimisation in the country. The NRO cleared the way for Bhutto's return and wiped out the last remaining charges against her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, who was released on bail in 2004 after spending eight years in prison. The next day, Musharraf had himself re-elected as president for another term by the current hand-selected parliament.

But the amnesty granted in the NRO does not include Nawaz Sharif, leader of the Muslim League, Pakistan's second-largest party. A conservative, staunchly anti-American politician, Sharif believes democracy and military dictators do not go together. He commands huge support among both the middle classes and religious groups and is more likely to win a fair election than Bhutto. Sharif, deposed in a bloodless coup in 1999, is determined to engineer Musharraf's downfall. On his first attempt to return to Pakistan on 10 September, he was arrested at Karachi Airport and given two choices: prison, or return to exile in Saudi Arabia. The cases against Sharif are still pending before the Supreme Court. Yet, despite Musharraf's efforts, the courts have refused to issue new arrest warrants against him. If Sharif succeeds in returning, the Bhutto/Mush arraf deal will be in serious trouble.

"The chances of that alliance holding are also slim," says Rahman. To begin with, the two despise each other. The Pakistan People's Party is not so much a party as a feudal institution that Bhutto runs as her fiefdom. But even she may find it difficult to suppress dissent in the senior ranks. Many PPP stalwarts believe that the power-sharing pact with Musharraf is damaging the party's reputation and electoral chances. A number of Bhutto family members have openly stated their criticisms. The poet and newspaper columnist Fatima Bhutto, Benazir's niece, holds her aunt responsible for the deaths in Karachi because of her insistence on "political theatre".

Her ratings in opinion polls conducted after the NRO have fallen sharply. Some senior PPP members hoped she would give a new lease of life to the party by behaving like a senior states woman and allowing younger politicians to lead. But not many are willing to defend an indefensible deal. There is thus a real chance that the PPP may split, as it did at the previous elections. And if Bhutto fails to deliver at these elections, even after seat manipulations, Musharraf will drop her as easily as he has abandoned other parties.

So far, Musharraf has had it all his way. His only remaining obstacle is a case currently at the Supreme Court over whether he can continue as president in uniform. It is not much of an obstacle, however, as everything is now in place for him to retain his power even if he has to dispense with his military position.

The power-sharing arrangement was conceived as a ploy to paper over the gaping cracks in the country. After Karachi, it looks more like another contributory factor in a more turbulent and dangerous era for Pakistan. The intelligence services, elements of which may be responsible for the attack on Bhutto's motorcade, are out of control. Suicide bombings have become an integral part of the militants' strategy in Waziristan, both to undermine the political process and to demoralise the army. Whether one player, or even power-sharing players, ultimately subservient to Washington can retain control of this explosive situation is a moot point.

Pakistan

PML(Q): Crowds are Dangerous

2007-10-22T21:44:00.000-07:00

Following last Friday’s deadly bomb attack the regime has announced plans to ban public rallies.

Some commentators are already alleging that that ban is in large part due to PML(Q)’s chronic inability to draw crowds out in its support. With elections supposedly around the corner this deficit, they maintain, would have become even more glaringly obvious.

On the other hand the 1973 Constitution guarantees the right of free assembly. So are we going to see yet another case proceeding to the Supreme Court?

(The above cartoon was published today in Dawn )

Pakistan

PPP Derailed by the Bomb

2007-10-20T04:08:00.000-07:00

One point that seems to have been overlooked by most commentators on Karachi’s horrific carnage is the size of the blast was unprecedented for Pakistan. Yes, suicide bombers are now unfortunately no longer a new-fangled phenomenon in our country, but one who comes packed with enough explosives to kill 140 people and injure over 400 people suggests Baghdad and not Karachi.

I accept that the crowded conditions of Benazir Bhutto’s rally meant larger casualties but nevertheless the number of dead and injured points to an abnormal increase in explosive power and sophistication.

Talking to some senior journalists I came across an uncharacteristic consensus of ideas. According to them, whenever an extreme and unexpected event, such as this, takes place, the logical question to ask is: Who benefits?

____________________________________________

Pakistani electoral politics has always been a game of numbers. Outside our ‘chattering’ drawing rooms, massive crowds have always mattered, as the game is all about perception. The party that draws the most crowds is commonly perceived to be the winner and gets the lion’s share of the votes. The general voting public obviously likes backing winners.

So should the number of people gathered for Benazir Bhutto on Drigh Road (and all the way to the Quaid’s Mazar) have come as a surprise to anyone?

Not really.

Those who had been monitoring the scene – which include even amateurs such as your Blogger – knew at least a week in advance that buses had been organised from just about every city, town and village in Sindh. Hundreds of more busloads were expected from southern Punjab and more than simply a few from distant NWFP as well.

Fact tell us - even after taking into account the police arrests and other barefaced attempts by the regime of political suppression - that the PML (Nawaz)only managed to muster some 5,000 people in Islamabad on the day of Nawaz Sharif’s arrival. As a result of this political fiasco the PML(N) leadership have had their political wind knocked out of them. The 'crowd failure' has also sent them to a period of media oblivion.

One should also recall that on 12 May even when the regime went into overdrive to produce ‘a sea of people’ for Musharraf’s rally at Islamabad, it could only assemble 35,000 that had been bussed from the much more populous province of Punjab. Even the MQM rally held that same afternoon in Karachi numbered, according to BBC World Service, no more than 25,000 to 30,000 people.

Even days before Benazir Bhutto’s arrival your Blogger expected at least some 200,000 people to turn up for the event. By that evening an impartial journalist suggested to your Blogger that if one roughly counted the buses and people, ranging from the airport terminal to the Mazar, the number was probably higher, perhaps somewhere in the region of 300,000 to 400,000.

Whether one loathes, detests, loves or simply tolerates the PPP leader, by 9 pm on the night of 18th October, the display of people power on the streets of Karachi confirmed that Benazir Bhutto had managed to completely disrupt the existing political equation.

But that was three hours before the scene of street carnage and destruction.

In the aftermath of the devestating bomb it is now almost certain that the electoral process has effectively been derailed.

Pakistani elections are all about rallies and meetings. The bigger and better the rally meant that rivals had to match them or else prepare themselves for electoral oblivion.

Now the chances of mammoth political rallies seem quite remote. Commonsense dictates that many people will now become averse to risking their lives just to see their political leaders in action. Why should anyone – excepting die-hard PPP jiyalas – attend a future Benazir rally knowing full well that there was more than a good chance of another bomb exploding?

So the answer to the question raised by the journalists about ‘who benefits?’ is not all that difficult to find. With the PML(N) playing defensively on a ‘Jeddah’ back foot and the agency-led Fazal Rehman causing implosions in the MMA, the derailment of PPP election campaign by the bomb is certainly fortuitous for Islamabad. But that doesn’t logically mean that the regime itself orchestrated the bombing. It is inconceivable to accept that any government would deliberately instigate the deaths of hundreds to prolong its stay in power.

However, if Benazir Bhutto’s accusations prove to be accurate then it means that there may be some people who have benefited – financially, ideologically or both - from the existing state of affairs and remain dead set against any political change. Obviously, if these people did exist, then they would have to have the wherewithal to recruit and assist jehadi ‘nutters’ to do the needful. If such turns out to be the case, then the finger could be pointed in only one direction.

Of course it always possible that it was the Jihadis themselves who were responsible. Nevertheless, there will always be those who will have to convinced that a Mahsud from remote tribal Waziristan would possess the sophistication and skill – with or without the help of Al Qaeda – to travel undiscovered to Karachi and merge with the throngs of PPP supporters and carry out such a deadly mission on his own (or just with the help of a few of his tribal colleagues).

Pakistan

Karachi Bomb

Benazir Bhutto

Here is Hoping!

2007-10-18T07:43:00.000-07:00

Most of your Blogger’s readers should by now be aware of his disapproval of Benazir Bhutto. But that should not detract from his major bugbear – the ruthless military dictatorship in Pakistan. After all, Onlooker is, if nothing else, a democrat by creed and by conviction.

A country belongs to its entire people and not just to its self-aggrandizing elites – military officers, bureaucrats, feudal landowners, and business magnates and senior executives – who consist of less than 1% of Pakistan’s population.

Simply put it is time that the battered and bruised people of Pakistan had their say.

So if Benazir Bhutto’s arrival in Pakistan helps destabilise Musharraf and his corrupt, power-obsessed cronies I am all for it.

So along with many others I am counting the crowds. The more the better!

__________________________________________________

ADDENDUM

At 12:09 am there were two horrific bomb explosions as Benazir Bhutto's vehicle passed the Karsaz area of Drigh Road. While Bhutto was rushed off to the safety of Bilawal House, it is reported that there are some sixty dead and over a hundred injured.

Senior PPP party members were quick to blame the regime's secret agencies for carrying out these blasts. A successful return for Benazir Bhutto does threaten the Musharraf regime, so these accusations do have a logical basis, particularly when these agencies are known for carrying out such incidents.

However, it could also have been carried out by South Waziristan's Baitullah Mehsud's men or some other extremists.

With elections not far in the future, preventing Benazir Bhutto from addressing large gatherings and other public activities, also makes a lot of sense if one happens to be a die-hard regime supporter.

The next few days will reveal if she now takes shelter within Bilawal House – as her opponents would wish – or continues with her self-proclaimed mission of "bringing about democracy in Pakistan".

Readers I must confess the death and injury of so many innocents makes me sick to my stomach. All I can do is simply curse the callous bastards who carried it out.

Unusual Praise for Musharraf

2007-10-17T22:35:00.000-07:00

These days it is rare to find anyone – with the exception of PTV and Ardeshir Cowasjee – praising Musharraf. However, there appears to be a new exception.

Jack Rosen, the Chairman of the American Jewish Congress-Council for World Jewry, had this to say in an Op-Ed titled In praise of Pakistani Pervez Musharraf published in yesterday's Jerusalem Post

As one who has developed a fairly close relationship with him over the past few years in my capacity as chairman of the Council for World Jewry of the American Jewish Congress, including hosting Musharraf's meeting with American Jews in New York in 2005 and visiting him in Islamabad several times, I have been dismayed by what I think is a lack of understanding of the very real dangers that would face Pakistan and the world if he were to be removed.

Intriguingly Jack Rosen not only refers to his 'fairly close relationship' with Musharraf but also mentions the fact of having visited him in Islamabad on several occasions.

Strangely these meetings were never shown to us on PTV…

The above picture has been borrowed from Saira Wasim’s collection of politically-charged miniatures which can be viewed on her website.

A Country in Waiting

2007-10-16T04:41:00.000-07:00

Everyone has a personal favourite.

In your Blogger's case, when it comes to TV journalists, it has always been that spry and often steely-gazed Canadian on BBC World - Lyse Doucet.

Doucet has toughed it out in several action-packed postings, including Pakistan, Afghanistan, Israel and more recently Iraq. At times when bullets were flying and bombs were exploding she always appeared completely calm and reported the facts to us in a clear no-nonsense fashion. In all the years of watching her on TV your Blogger has never seen her display even a trace of bias.

As Pakistan awaits the arrival of Benazir Bhutto and two Supreme Court judgements, Doucet had this to say in today’s Toronto Star:

PAKISTAN EDGES TOWARD DEMOCRACY
Oct 16, 2007, Lyse Doucet

KARACHI - "What's your definition of democracy?" A Pakistani journalist thrust his microphone through a noisy scrum of hacks besieging the information minister outside Parliament, minutes after General Pervez Musharraf was declared the winner in presidential elections in the national and state assemblies.

The minister, Ali Durrani, launched into an elegant treatise on the vote of the majority and the will of the people.

"Does it include the manipulation of democracy?" the journalist demanded again.

Such is the mood in Pakistan today as it struggles to move from military rule to a credible legitimate democracy. The press, with an explosion of local television channels, is vibrant and critical notwithstanding telephone calls that still come from the government's military and civilian offices.

Human rights activists continue to display the bravery and commitment they have deployed for decades on the streets – from the repressive military rule of General Zia ul-Haq in the 1980s to Musharraf's "enlightened moderation" that began with his widely welcomed military coup in 1999 to his controversial attempt to hold onto power.

And lawyers, recently emboldened by a more robust Supreme Court, have spearheaded legal and political battles to declare loudly and clearly a man in uniform cannot run for office.

Against all these remarkable strengths of civil society is the juggernaut of Musharraf's machine. "The electorate has spoken," emphasized the finely suited Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, "and that's democracy."

But will the general really keep his promise this time to remove his military uniform? "Absolutely," declared Aziz, his right-hand man.

Never mind that Musharraf got his mandate from assemblies packed with his supporters, whose terms are about to end. Never mind that the Supreme Court still has to rule on petitions challenging the general's decision to stand while still Army Chief. His supporters are blazing ahead with preparations for his next term in office.

Lawyers, who galvanized protests for months, could only take their campaign so far. They whipped up opposition to the president after he blundered in trying to dismiss the chief justice earlier this year. But a divided opposition proved unable to capitalize on this ferment in the streets.

The main opposition party, the Pakistan People's Party, has been focusing its energies on a deal to get all corruption charges dropped against their exiled former prime minister Benazir Bhutto and many others. Aziz called it an understanding to put aside the politics of victimization to make way for "national reconciliation."

Most of the country's commentators call it a cynical and sordid deal to allow Bhutto to come home to ease the political heat on Musharraf. It could still be overturned by the Supreme Court.

So for the next week or so, Pakistan is a country in waiting.

Waiting for the Supreme Court to rule on the deal between Bhutto and the general, and on the legality of the presidential election. Waiting for Bhutto to fly home on the morning of Oct. 18, even though Musharraf is now asking her to delay her return. She wants to fight in elections set for January, which she hopes will pave the way for her to become prime minister — if the general helps overturn a constitutional bar on more than two terms.

Backed by quiet support from Washington and London, Bhutto helps bolster Musharraf and sidelines the other ex-prime minister in exile, Nawaz Sharif, who recently tried to come home and was turned back.

Bhutto, whose previous terms in office are tainted by the corruption charges, admits she won't get the huge crowds, the millions who turned out to greet her when she ended her first exile in 1986. A general's fate also played into her hands then when a still mysterious plane crash killed the president, General Zia ul- Haq, and ended nearly a decade of martial law.

At a press conference after her resounding election victory in 1988, she was besieged by questions about how she would deal with a military that has always distrusted her and her Pakistan People's Party. When she confirmed she would meet the generals, I asked her then who had requested the meeting, "You or the generals?" In other words, who is really in charge?

Nearly 20 years later that is still the answer to the definition of democracy in Pakistan. Bhutto didn't answer my question then. She may not want to answer it now.

____________________________________________

No one that I have met (and I've come across a fair few people in the past couple of weeks) expects the Supreme Court to spring a surprise on the legality of Musharraf's so-called 'election'. The full judgement, once it comes out, will make for an interesting read (as we will then be informed about the legal justifications for the court's decision).

As far as the National Reconciliation Ordinance is concerned the Attorney General has himself informed the press that he found it near impossible to defend this new piece of law in the courtroom.
____________________________________________

Lyse Doucet

Pakistan

Supreme Court: Things Back to Normal?

2007-10-03T00:34:00.000-07:00

On the front page of today’s Dawn Zaffar Abbas expressed amazement at the Chief Justice’s selection of the nine-judge panel to hear the two constitutional petitions that were filed against General Musharraf’s candidature by Wajihuddin Ahmend and Amin Fahim.

Hmm … If one considers the fact that the CJ also chose the nine-judge bench that delivered last Friday’s unusual judgement, the makeup of this new bench should not really cause surprise to anyone.

___________________________________________

For those interested, here is the composition of this new bench:

Justice Javed Iqbal
Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar
Justice Sardar Raza Khan
Justice Mohammad Nawaz Abbasi
Justice Faqir Mohammad Khokhar
Justice Nasirul Mulk
Justice Raja Fayyaz,
Justice Syed Jamshed Ali
Justice Ghulam Rabbani.
___________________________________________

Supreme Court of Pakistan

Pakistan

A Pathetic Victory

2007-10-02T11:54:00.000-07:00

Benazir Bhutto has been constantly belabouring us that her demands from Musharraf have been based purely on democratic principles, in that she has been negotiating for free and fair elections and the end of military involvement in politics.

All along most us have suspected that her most important ‘deal’ stipulatation was in fact related to the ending of the corruption cases against her and her family, followed by the cancellation of the two-term restriction on the re-election of past prime ministers.

Last Sunday a visibly desperate Benazir Bhutto told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer “I am under pressure and worried that the time is running out”. She admitted that she was facing pressure from both within her party and supporters to discontinue the talks and reach out to other political forces for a joint struggle for the restoration of democracy.

A day earlier she had appeased Musharraf by nominating Amin Fahim for the presidential election. Why so? Because now the PPP has an excuse for not resigning from the assemblies (on the pretext that they are committed to voting for their candidate), thereby providing a modicum of respectability to Musharraf's efforts to get 're-elected'from lame duck assemblies.

Fortunately for her Musharraf is also a desperate man these days. He is frantic in wanting his 6th October ‘re-election’ to become a fait accompli as soon as practicably possible.

As so as Bruce Loudon of The Australian informs us:

General Musharraf sent two of his top aides - including his newly appointed head of Inter Services Intelligence - to London for talks with former prime minister Benazir Bhutto to convince her to stop MPs from her Pakistan People's Party joining the walk-out from national and provincial parliaments.

The spymaster, General Nadeem Taj, accompanied by national security adviser General Tariq Aziz, were reportedly preparing to offer Ms Bhutto a power-sharing deal that would ensure her an unfettered return to Pakistan this month and immediate access to bank accounts frozen over corruption charges.

Ms Bhutto would be asked to "quietly help" ensure General Musharraf's re-election on Saturday by not joining other opposition parties to cripple the credibility of the presidential ballot due to take place in an electoral college that consists of members of the national and four provincial assemblies.

And so after all her bombast of winning 80% of her deal, in the end all she appears to have pathetically ended up with is a law (‘National Reconciliation Ordinance’ or a similar sounding artifice) which will be promulgated probably tomorrow, allowing her refuge from the multitude of corruption cases stacked against her.

While this move will put a possible end to her sleepless nights over the Swiss Case, little else was achieved from the much hyped deal of the century.
_____________________________________________

The appointment of Lt. Gen Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani as the designated Army Chief comes as no surprise. Such a move was expected the moment Musharraf felt reassured that there were no further obstacles in achieving his goal.

Whether there will a further obstacle depends on the Supreme Court decision on Justice Wajihuddin Ahmed’s petition challenging the legality of Musharraf’s nomination as a government employee who has not been out of office for the constitutionally stipulated two-year term.

Perhaps Musharraf knows more than we do.
_____________________________________________

Meanwhile Strafor maintains that Musharraf had little choice but to select Lt. Gen Kiyani as his successor:

"It is unprecedented for an ISI leader to go on to become military chief, so Kayani's appointment demonstrates that Musharraf, even before he steps down as head of the military, has been forced to take into account the views of his senior generals.

The rise of Kayani and Majid is in keeping with Stratfor's June report that these generals would get the top two four-star positions, though we expected Majid to become the military's second-in-command and Kayani to head the joint chiefs. Our view was based on the fact that Kayani and Musharraf are known to disagree. In the last four months, however, Musharraf's grip on power has significantly weakened, which has allowed the top generals to more aggressively assert their positions with regard to the military's future -- a process that brought Kayani to the fore.

When Kayani does become military chief, his tenure as ISI head will put him in a better position to streamline the country's intelligence agencies and seal the leaks that jihadists are exploiting within the security network. Kayani already had used his positions as ISI head and Pakistan's top three-star general to become a player in the affairs of governance. For example, he has been directly involved in the president's negotiations with self-exiled former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, leader of the country's largest opposition group, the Pakistan People's Party.

Another related development is the Sept. 21 appointment of Lt. Gen. Nadeem Taj as head of the ISI. Taj is considered a close ally of Musharraf, and his appointment could allow Musharraf to maintain a certain balance within the army, which will be crucial for him as he tries to settle into his position as civilian president.

The emerging system, in which a civilian Musharraf is forced to share power with an army chief and a prime minister, will ultimately depend on the president's ability to contain political unrest and the triangular balance. Musharraf's failure on either count will allow Kayani to step in and make the tough decisions.

Ultimately, the military institution, not its chief, is paramount. Therefore, the military will dominate the political system -- but with an increasingly assertive judiciary, civil society and media limiting its room to maneuver. But as long as political forces -- and hence, parliament -- remain weak, the military will have a significant say in the affairs of the state."

If one goes by this account then it would appear that Musharraf's key appointment would be in promoting and naming the loyalist (and his wife's nephew) Lt. Gen. Nadeem Taj as the head of ISI.
_____________________________________________

Your Blogger is off on a work assignment and will consequently not be logging on for the next few days.
_____________________________________________

Benazir Bhutto

Pakistan

An Imminent Crackdown?

2007-10-01T12:40:00.001-07:00

With the much publicised self-seeking manoeuvrings of politicians, like Benazir Bhutto and Mullah Fazalur Rehman, their threat factor to Musharraf is considerably less than those offered to him by the media and, to a somewhat lesser extent, the lawyer community.

The media in the shape of TV news channels has on a daily basis continuously exposed the regime’s unlawful sins and omissions, as it plots and schemes to ensure Musharraf’s ‘re-election’ on 6 October.

It is these wide daily disclosures that have unswervingly led to the increasing unpopularity of the regime. Currently with the Supreme Court being percieved as 'behaving' itself, free dissemination of information is now being regarded in Islamabad as the biggest menace of all. It is widely believed that the violent thrashing of journalists outside the Islamabad office of the Electoral Commission was a deliberate message to the Fourth Estate that all levels of tolerance have ceased.

Rumours are now rife of an imminent crackdown on press freedom by use of a PEMRA legislation or ordinance that includes a law which will render the office of the president to be ‘above and beyond public comment’.

In this age of satellite TV, the internet and mobile phones censorship is extremely difficult to enforce. Nevertheless one should be prepared for a period of draconian measures as the dictatorship heads towards its well-earned twilight.

Press Censorship

Pakistan

Press Freedom

In Contempt of Public

2007-09-30T00:35:00.000-07:00

Here is the text of the ‘short order’ that dismissed the constitutional petitions against the dual offices of General Musharraf.

“For reasons to be recorded later, as per majority view of 6 to 3, these petitions are held to be not maintainable with the contemplation of Article 184(3) of the Constitution.

As per minority view of Mr. Justice Rana Bhagwandas, Mr.Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Mr. Justice Mian Shakirullah Jan, all the petitions are held to be maintainable"

Simply put, by a 6-3 majority decision the Supreme Court has allowed a usurping general to follow his election game plan on the basis of mere legal technicalities.

Reality informs us that in the 21st century world military rulers are now a rarity. Therefore when an apex court of a country seemingly turns a blind eye towards a uniformed army chief engaged in grasping the highest civilian office in the land, serious questions are bound to be raised.

_______________________________________

Now instead of your Blogger adding his two bits of 'wisdom', it would be more appropriate if the task was left to two of Pakistan’s most respected senior jurists.

Retired Justice Fakhruddin G Ibrahim - who was sacked after refusing on principle to retake his judicial oath under Ziaul Haq’s post-coup Provisional Constitutional Order – was reported having made the following comments:

- “Friday’s decision was not understandable….the Supreme Court should have mentioned, at least, [a brief] reason in the short judgment that on what grounds or under which articles of the Constitution the superior judiciary declared the entire petitions not maintainable.”

- “The petitions couldn’t be rejected only by declaring that these were not in accordance with Article 183(4) … [instead] the apex court should have declared on the very first day that these petitions were not maintainable and there was no need to hang the nation in air for so many days.”

- “The plain rejection of all the petitions without assigning any reason or ground had raised many eyebrows.”

- “In fact, nothing has been decided still and all issues raised in different petitions will be challenged again in a more effective manner now… a better way to fight Musharraf’s rule was that first his nomination papers should be challenged in the Election Commission (EC) and on failure to get justice, the lawyers should then knock at the door of the superior judiciary.”

Not surprisingly a more stinging attack was delivered by the other highly regarded former member of the Supreme Court, retired Justice Wajihuddin - who was sacked after refusing on principle to retake his judicial oath under Musharraf’s post-coup Provisional Constitutional Order. He also happens to have been nominated by the the lawyer community as a rival candidate for the presidency.

Appearing on Dawn TV shortly after the controversial verdict was announced on 28 September, Justice Wajihuddin declared that according to law once a legal decision is delivered it becomes public property. And as such, honest criticism of the decision and the judges involved was quite permissible under law. Having made this point he then embarked on some damning criticism:

- The majority decision was incorrect in law.

- If these six judges had been convinced that these petitions were not "maintainable" then they should have said so at the onset and not wasted time, effort and money by stretching the proceedings for nearly a fortnight and should not have delved into the nitty-gritty of the case by asking so many ‘irrelevant’ long-drawn-out questions from the legal counsels of both parties.

- He also questioned the impartiality of three of the judges supporting the majority decision. According to him they should have recused themselves (Justice Wajihuddin then made reference to the Islamabad Club, where two of the judges are known to have openly dined and socialised with the leading member’s of Musharraf’s legal team in a complete contravention of proper judicial behaviour).

- And, according to him, when the Court earlier rejected the application asking for a full Supreme Court bench to hear the case in view of the public importance of the issue involved, the bench disregarded proper legal procedure by not naming the judges who had supported and those who had opposed this very important ruling.

- He also noted that on two recent occasions - the CJ Case and the Nawaz Sharif Exile Case- when the verdict went against the regime, both Sharifuddin Pirzada and Abdul Qayum had not bothered to await the verdict but had much earlier on opted instead to decamp from the court precincts. However, quite remarkably, on this occasion they both had remained at the Supreme Court (which understandably raises fears of advance notification).

Retired Justice Wajihuddin’s criticism probably proved all too scathing and I don’t think it was re-broadcast by Dawn News during primetime news later that evening.

_______________________________________

For the record the three dissenting judges were:
Justice Rana Bhagwandas
Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan
Justice Shakirullah Jan

And those supporting the majority decision were:
Justice Javed Iqbal,
Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar
Justice Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi,
Justice Faqir Muhammad Khokar,
Justice Falak Sher,
Justice M Javed Buttar

As your Blogger is not particularly familiar with the career history of Supreme Court judges, he wishes to share this relatively informative (and quite non-PC) web entry with his readers. It certainly provides food for some thought.

An aggrieved Pakistani by the name of Ammar Qureshi made the following comments on Pakistaniat.Com yesterday:

I did not want to bring in the ethnic factor into this debate, but as a Punjabi I feel really ashamed that 6 Punjabi judges have favored General Musharraf and 3 non-Punjabi judges (one Sindhi Hindu and 2 Pathans) ruled against General Musharraf.

CJ Iftikhar Chaudhry made a big mistake by constituting the 9 member bench in such a manner that it included 5 judges known for their association with the establishment or government:

Justices Nawaz Abbasi and Khokhar had served as law secretary during Musharraf’s time;

Justice Javed Iqbal took the oath of acting chief justice when CJ Iftikhar was illegally suspended on 9th of March;

Justice Buttar gave the verdict in favour of the government during CJ case and against CJ Iftikhar;

Justice Dogar has served as Acting Chief Election Commissioner;

Justice Falaksher was the only judge about whom one was not [sure] whether he would favour the government or not but at the end he also sided with other Punjabi judges.

_______________________________________

Final Comment:

In your Blogger’s opinion this disagreeable verdict clearly does not provide legal sanction to Musharraf to contest the presidential election in uniform – instead it simply ignores the issue altogether.

As that pathetically supine Chief Election Commissioner, retired Justice Qazi Muhammad Farooq, is bound to reject all the objections raised against Musharraf’s nomination by Justice Wajihuddin, the matter will be raised once again in the Supreme Court on appeal. This time (hopefully)it will not be all that easy for some of these judges to shirk their responsibilities.

Pakistan

Supreme Court of Pakistan

‘Heads I win, tails you lose’

2007-09-26T10:19:00.000-07:00

Well, it is finally all out in the open.

Musharraf has announced, through a one of his minions, that he will remove his uniform only if he is ‘re-elected’ as President. And, if for some reason or another he fails to get ‘re-elected’ he will then insist on continuing to hold his office as the all-powerful army chief.

His message to the advocates of democracy in Pakistan is quite simple: ‘Heads I win, tails you lose’.
_____________________________________________

As we all await the Supreme Court judgement on Musharraf’s legitimacy as a presidential candidate, your Blogger has come across a lot of despondency among those who claim to know the current workings of the Supreme Court. According to these people the apex court’s decision will go against the public’s aspirations of judicial independence.

In your Blogger’s humble opinion (he is an LLB by education and has done his bar) the law on this issue is fairly clear-cut. However, in Pakistan, history constantly reminds us that our Supreme Court’s constitutional decisions can be quite nebulous at the best of times.

So now all I can do is cross my fingers and hope that all that I have been recently hearing proves to be totally wrong.

Having said that, it would only be fair to share with my readers the following item that appeared in today’sThe News . According to this report some judges of the nine-member bench deciding the case have already become victims of the government’s ruthless intimidatory tactics.

__________________________________________________

Is govt trying to influence SC judges?
By Ansar Abbasi

ISLAMABAD: The government is allegedly trying to influence the nine-member Supreme Court bench, hearing the petitions challenging the dual offices held by the President, through behind-the-scene intimidation of some of the honourable judges and their families.

However, Attorney General Justice (retd) Malik Qayum has denied that any pressure is being exerted on the judges of the Supreme Court. "Somebody might have some sort of misunderstanding," Qayyum said, adding the executive's pressure on the judiciary was a thing of the past.

A family member of one of the judges, claimed to have been facing extreme pressure, shared with this correspondent the tale of the alleged unending pressure that the family is facing to make the honourable judge, who is a member of the nine-member bench, fall into line with the government.

"You can never think of what they are doing to us," the family member of the honourable senior judge of the Supreme Court said, adding that the situation had gone to an extent that the government was sending officials even to the judges to persuade them to support the government in these petitions.

According to another member of the same family, the messenger who brought the government's message seemed to be over-enthusiastic, showing that he was more loyal than the king.

Close relatives of the judges are being approached and told that in case the decision of the Supreme Court does not meet the government's expectations, the country might see another martial law. According to the source, they are also being warned that it is hard to fight with the government and there are precedents of un-ceremonial removal of judges.

Both the honourable judge and his family, the source claimed, were undeterred and clearly told the messenger that they would not commit anything and would only uphold the merit and the rule of law no matter what price they had to pay.

During one of his contacts, according to the family member of the honourable judge, the messenger had also referred to the murder case of additional registrar of the Supreme Court Hammad Raza. "You cannot believe what they are doing to us," the member said, adding that the messenger had also claimed to have developed contacts with some other honourable members of the bench.

The messenger's name, designation, and contact number have also been shared with The News but these details are not being published to protect the source. The messenger was also said to be contemptuous while making some predictions.

Disturbed with these contacts, a member of the concerned judge’s family also contacted a senior government authority but got a disappointing response.Meanwhile, the Attorney General denied that the government was engaged in any such activity. "Let me assure you that there is no such thing," he said, adding that had there been any such thing, then all the recent decisions would not have gone against the government.

He admitted that the judges were pressurized in the past but that was not the case anymore. He said most of the judges of the Supreme Court were personally known to him though he did not meet them. This is only to ensure that no one should have doubt of any sort, he said.

In the post-March 9 scenario and during the hearing of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry's petition by the 13-member court, there were reports of government agencies trying to influence the judges to "seek accommodation" for the government. However, no such tactic worked as proved by the landmark Supreme Court decision of July 20.

Pakistan

Some Pieces of Weird News

2007-09-20T09:30:00.000-07:00

In the past week since my last post little seems to have changed. Having said that, there is no denying that there has been a spate of rather peculiar news items.

Here are some of them:

____________________________________

From Dawn:

PML-N president Shahbaz Sharif announced here on Tuesday that former prime minister Nawaz Sharif would soon return to Pakistan from Saudi Arabia and lead his party in the forthcoming general election.

He did not give any specific date for his elder brother’s return but insisted that it would be soon, “immediately after Eid or even before”.

Comment: Yes, we all saw the pic of Nawaz Sharif meeting the Saudi King. Does this mean the whole drama was staged by Saudis just to allow Musharraf some ‘re-electoral’ breathing space?
____________________________________

From the Daily Times:
Benazir told Dawn News that it was unfortunate that her party could not reach a deal with the government, but said she would return to Pakistan on October 18. “Unfortunately, we couldn’t reach an agreement despite our negotiations with the government, but I will definitely return on October 18.”

Comment: Dear lady, if there is no deal (or secret understanding) then why are you arriving after the so-called presidential ‘re-election’. If you were the ardent democrat that you have perpetually claimed to be then you should have been here yesterday.
____________________________________

The Daily Telegraph reporting on the 250 or so missing soldiers in Waziristan since 6th September quotes a Pakistani army spokesman as saying:
"A situation developed where they preferred not to fire and they had to give up their weapons but that cannot be called surrender."

Comment: Hmmm…so when General ‘Tiger’ Niazi handed over his revolver to the Indian General Jagjit Singh Aurora he didn’t actually surrender either. It is likely that he must also have volunteered to go 'missing'.
____________________________________

However the strangest piece of news comes from Amir Mir. This journalist claims that Musharraf is now planning to clip the wings of the next Army Chief so that his ‘civilian’ presidency is protected from future upstart bonapartist generals (like himself).

Moves to weaken the next army chief
by Amir Mir

Having made up his mind to take off his controversial military uniform, President General Musharraf has moved to curtail the powers of the next army chief by reorganising the command and control structure of the Pakistan army – establishing three regional commands, which will be headed by three lieutenant generals in addition to the nine corps commanders, with each command having three corps under it.

A decision to create three new regional commands of the Pakistan Army – the Northern, Central, and Southern commands – has already been taken in principle, on the pretext of improving its operational efficiency and working. Under the revised command and control structure, all existing nine corps of the army will fall under one of the three commands, to be headed by a three-star general. The newly created Northern, Southern and Central Commands will be responsible for the administrative arrangements of the corps falling under their respective commands. According to well-informed sources in the military establishment, the army would be the second arm of the Pakistani defence forces to have three separate commands since the Pakistan Air Force already has three commands. While the Central Command of the army will be headquartered in Rawalpindi, the Southern Command will have its headquarters in Quetta and the Northern Command is most likely to be based either in Gujranwala or Mangla. The military circles say the idea to have three separate regional commands was conceived after a thorough study of the military systems of various countries having large contingents and the reformation was primarily meant to help build the Pakistan Army on modern management lines.

However, those familiar with the command and control structure of the Pakistan Army say the move reflects General Pervez Musharraf’s deep desire to erode the authority of the next army chief, assuming he decides to take off his uniform in the coming days. General Musharraf was elevated to the coveted slot of the army chief in October 1998 by his present foe Nawaz Sharif and his nine-year tenure is coming to an end by November 15, 2007. While the attorney general of Pakistan recently told the Supreme Court that President Musharraf is entitled to continue as the army chief until he appoints his successor, there is a strong possibility of the General elevating one of his closest military confidants to succeed him, but not without clipping his wings by restructuring the command and control structure of the army.

The successive rulers have always selected the army chiefs after careful scrutiny, but in many cases the chosen ones became the tormentors. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto chose General Ziaul Haq, who later toppled his government and eventually sent him to the gallows. Nawaz Sharif chose an Urdu-speaking Mohajir from India, hoping that he would remain loyal to him, but he too was overthrown and sent in to exile. As far as Musharraf is concerned, he has never hesitated to shuffle the command structure of the army when he has thought it warranted it. But he has always rewarded his friends and loyalists while acknowledging merit. That is probably why there is no serious sign of internal discomfort or unease in the army, although the fundamental factor for stability in the army remains its rigid discipline and organisational philosophy.

As things stand today, Musharraf has three options to relinquish the office of the army chief and appoint a new commander of his choice to succeed him. The first option is that he would immediately doff his khaki uniform before his re-election as president and make public the appointment of a new army chief, who would take charge on October 7, 2007. The second option is that he would only make the announcement that he would leave the office of the army chief on November 15, as provided in the Constitution, after his re-election in the third week of September. And at the same time, he would appoint the new army chief. The third option is that Musharraf would make known that he would appoint the new army chief on October 7, 2007, and leave the office after that, and his re-election would be held without uniform after this date but before October 15, 2007.

Before taking off his uniform, Musharraf is to fill the posts of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (CJCSC) and the Vice Chief of Army Staff (VCOAS), which are next to that of the army chief. Presently, there are two four-star generals in the army besides Musharraf – Vice Chief of Army Staff, General Ahsan Salim Hayat, and Chairman Joints Chief of Staff Committee, General Ehsanul Haq. General Ahsan Salim Hayat can automatically succeed Musharraf if the latter chooses to doff the uniform before the retirement of the former, due on October 7, 2007. General Ahsan may also be granted extension to assume the COAS office if Musharraf quits the army after October 2007.

However, military circles simply rule out the possibility of Musharraf letting a senior general like Ahsan Salim assume the powerful office of the army chief. These circles believe Musharraf would most probably appoint a true loyalist who would be ready to act as a subservient army chief under the command of his former senior. These circles even say the incumbent CJCSC General Ehsanul Haq and VCOAS General Ahsan Salim Hayat are not interested in seeking extension in their terms and they have already initiated plans for the process to relinquish their respective assignments through farewell meetings in various formations of the army. One thing thus becomes clear that Musharraf would choose the next army chief from amongst the present top 12 lieutenant generals. A cursory glance at the list makes interesting reading and provides some idea about the diverse possibilities that exist, and the kind of choice that Musharraf has for selecting his successor.

As a matter of fact, the 12 Corps Commanders, currently heading vital divisions of the army, were all hand-picked by General Musharraf and some were even part of the military coup staged by him. They include (in the order of seniority): Lieutenant General Khalid Ahmed Kidwai (Director General Strategic Plans Division), Lieutenant General Ashfaq Pervez Kiani (Director General Inter-Services Intelligence), Lieutenant General Malik Arif Hayat (Serving in the GHQ), Lieutenant General Tariq Majeed (Corps Commander, Rawalpindi), Lieutenant General Mohammed Safdar (Chief of Logistical Service), Lieutenant General Ather Ali (Director General at the Joint Staff Headquarters), Lieutenant General Wasim Ahmad Ashraf (Corps Commander, Gujranwala), Lieutenant General Mohammed Sabir (Military Secretary, GHQ), Lieutenant General Imtiaz Hussain (Adjutant General, GHQ), Lieutenant General Muhammad Afzal Muzzaffar (Quarter Master General, GHQ), Lieutenant General Hamid Rab Nawaz (Inspector General Training and Evaluation, GHQ) and Lieutenant General Muhammad Salahuddin Satti (Chief of General Staff, GHQ).

Lieutenant General Khalid Ahmed Kidwai, Director-General of the Strategic Plans Division tops the list of the incumbent lieutenant generals. But the problem is that he is already on extension and is not likely to be considered for the post of the army chief or the VCOAS. But there are those in the military circles who believe that due to his deep involvement with the military’s strategic nuclear assets, he may have an outside chance to become the CJCSC. If a combination of seniority and competence remains the criterion, then the Director General of the all-powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Lieutenant General Ashfaq Pervez Kiani, may pair with Kidwai to be the new VCOAS. But if Lieutenant General Kidwai is out, insiders say, the two senior most three-star generals who qualify for the two coveted posts are Lieutenant General Ashfaq Pervez Kiani pairing with the Commander 10 Corps, Lieutenant General Tariq Majeed, with the former being elevated to the largely ceremonial post of CJCSC and the latter being made the VCOAS.

Informed military circles say unblemished loyalty and a meeting of minds had always been more important considerations for Musharraf than formal traditions or institutional niceties. Lieutenant General Ashfaq Pervez Kiani and Lieutenant General Tariq Majeed both are known as hardcore Musharraf loyalists, as well as hard-line professional soldiers. They are from the Baloch Regiment and had earlier headed the Military Intelligence (MI) in different times, one after the other. Yet, Lieutenant General Kiyani has more chances to be elevated because of his having emerged in recent times as a close confidant of Musharraf. His role as a negotiator for the president trying to strike a power-sharing deal with Benazir Bhutto during their recent London parleys is proof of the closeness he shares with his boss. He had been directly involved in the Musharraf-Benazir talks because of his past association with Benazir, being her deputy military secretary during her first tenure as prime minister.

However, in case a new tradition is established and General Musharraf opts to depart from tradition by bringing in a dark horse to replace him, Lieutenant General Salahuddin Satti, the Chief of General Staff, who ranks number 12 on the seniority list of the top 12 lieutenant generals, could be the choice for the slot of the VCOAS, along with Lieutenant General Muhammad Sabir, currently the Military Secretary to the GHQ, being appointed the CJCSC. Over the course of the last eight years in power since his October 1999 military takeover, General Musharraf has shunted, transferred, promoted, sacked or retired scores of army officers in order to suit his idea of the sort of army high command that he needs. And that is why when it is time for some of the top generals to go home, they will do so without a whimper because of once being the beneficiaries of Musharraf’s systematic largesse.

Pakistan

The Nawaz Sharif Decision

2007-09-12T22:02:00.000-07:00

Three days have passed now since Nawaz Sharif’s forced expulsion. The passage of this brief period should have given your Blogger an opportunity to overcome any unconscious emotionalism. It is therefore time for him to try and take a more detached view of the events that took place at Islamabad airport. And also, to make an attempt to answer as to why they took place and what these actions may portend for the near future.
__________________________________________

Clearly, the presence of a belligerent Nawaz Sharif in Pakistan would have completely jeopardised Musharraf’s efforts to get ‘re-elected’. Not only would it would have drawn unwanted attention towards Benazir Bhutto’s unpopular collaboration with the military regime but it would also have led to a flood of further desertions from PML(Q)parliamentarians.

Faced with this unprecedented challenge, it appears that Musharraf opted to risk confrontation with the judiciary (which had upheld the former prime minister’s constitutional right of return), rather than face electoral failure.

A few hours after the event, on the evening of 10th September, the PML (Q) chief Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain appeared on Geo television and disingenuously announced that the deportation had taken place entirely at the behest of the Saudis. And further, that while he and his party had demanded that Nawaz Sharif be given an unobstructed right of return to Pakistan, the written request of the ‘Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques’ had rightly been given precedence over domestic concerns.

Now let us take the Gujrat Chaudhry’s utterances to their implied logical conclusion: A previously disinterested Saudi King becomes adamant that Nawaz Sharif keep to his commitments made eight years previously. Why the sudden change? Why, of course, it must be due to US pressure. Now then why would Washington wish to see Nawaz Sharif quickly shunted out of Pakistan? The answer, of course, is that it wishes to protect Benazir Bhutto’s deal with Musharraf from unravelling under political pressure.

So should we heap all the blame for Nawaz Sharif’s disgraceful deportation on Benazir Bhutto and the US?

A knowledgeable source in Islamabad suggested otherwise. Over the telephone he told me that the regime had cajoled, pleaded and begged the Saudis to honour the ‘commitment’ made to Musharraf which prevents Nawaz Sharif from returning to Pakistan for a period of ten years.

While a spokesperson at the US Embassy in Islamabad declared:

“The Pakistani government’s decision to deport Mr Sharif to Saudi Arabia runs contrary to the Pakistani Supreme Court’s decision on his return. Since this is still a matter under legal consideration, we’re not going to offer further comment at this time…With regard to the pledge that Mr Sharif made not to return to Pakistan, these are matters between Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Mr Sharif himself. The United States plays no part.”

Even if the US played no role in the deportation, there is no denying that it remains an extremely involved party. As the New York Times reported:

“The Bush administration official said that one hope now was that General Musharraf’s strong move against Mr. Sharif would enable him to stand up to Mr. Sharif’s allies in Pakistan and go ahead with the power-sharing deal.”

__________________________________________

Once it decided to deport Nawaz Sharif, the regime and its agencies have embarked on a ruthless approach towards its opponents. One of its obvious intentions is now to crush PML (N) so that the party is unable to influence the presidential ‘re-election’, and also to make it a less attractive option for those in the PML (Q) currently contemplating jumping ship in Punjab.

Evidently, according to several reports received by your Blogger, the regime is also involved in a multi-pronged approach to deal with potential threats it perceives as emanating from the lawyer community and the senior judiciary.

Some senior lawyers are seething at the recent antics of the ‘defrocked’ judge. Apparently, this regime appointee is being blamed for doling out prodigious amounts of money and official patronage among the legal fraternity. The underlying aim is to fracture the unity among the lawyer community and, unfortunately, it has already borne results. As a Nation editorial noted:

After an extraordinary success the legal community scored in the struggle for the restoration of the Chief Justice because it acted as a united force, it is unfortunate that differences should have emerged within the Executive Committee members of the Supreme Court Bar Association. However, it sounds strange that nine out of its 20 members should have assumed the authority to dismiss Mr Munir A. Malik from the office of its President and nominate Khawaja Naveed Ahmad, Vice President, as Acting President in place of Mr Malik. Its Secretary Zulfikar, who has declared the dismissal as unlawful, supports Mr Malik’s claim that the bar’s roll does not contain any clause of his dismissal or suspension.

Then there was also the 10th September killing of Raja Riaz, a former vice president of the Karachi bar association, who had been an active member of the anti-regime campaign protesting the March dismissal of the Chief Justice. Some lawyers have gone on record claiming that it was a targeted killing aimed at intimidating the lawyer community.

The independent Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) termed the murder as a “clear attempt to suppress and undermine the process of justice.” The HRCP went further by noting that “The fact that in some cases the State and its agencies are directly involved in threatening the lawyers recently is all the more reprehensible.”

And, of course, the storming of the Sindh High Court by a huge unruly mob on 11 September is a chilling harbinger of things to come as far as the judiciary is concerned. The resulting pandemonium forced a seven-member bench of the provincial high court to temporarily suspend its inquiry into 12 May carnage in Karachi.

According to the Hong Kong-based Asian Human Rights Commission

The government of General Musharraf attacked the Sindh High Court building today (September 10, 2007), beating several lawyers and using abusive language against the judges on the bench which was conducting an inquiry into the carnage of May 12, 2007 in Karachi, where more than 50 persons were killed. The same day the attackers also shot dead a senior lawyer, Mr. Raja Riaz, outside the High Court building as he was proceeding towards the court. These attacks were lead by the Mutehda Qaumi Movement (MQM) which is the leading party of the ruling coalition.

A Blogger quoting from Daily Jang has reported that on the day of mob invasion several unidentified armed men were seen hovering around the precincts of the Sindh High Court building. According to this report the police remained a silent spectator and did absolutely nothing:

The press is now talking about an executive policy of “defiance of the courts… Scary days are ahead, as the judiciary stands its ground and prepares to redress the plaints of those hurt by the government action of September 10."

With the deportation of Nawaz Sharif the scene of conflict has now shifted from the streets to the courts. The Supreme Court remains under pressure like never before. Already rumours have started about secret meetings with Musharraf’s emissaries. How long can its recent unity hold out against the might of the executive heaven only knows.

The short term future of the country is looking decidedly bleaker.
__________________________________________

I’ll let an editorial from the New York Times have the last word

NYT Editorial:RUNNING ON EMPTY
Published: September 12, 2007

The dangers of America’s Faustian bargain with Pakistan’s military dictator are growing more obvious by the day. Gen. Pervez Musharraf was on his way to declaring a state of emergency last month until Washington rightly warned him that such a move could set off a political explosion. This week General Musharraf defied Pakistan’s Supreme Court and blocked the return of his longtime political rival, Nawaz Sharif, and then arrested nearly the entire top leadership of Mr. Sharif’s party.

Mr. Sharif is no Washington favorite, and this time the Bush administration’s criticism of the general’s overstepping has been pro forma. The violent street protests in Pakistan, however, are raising new fears of cataclysmic political upheaval in a country that is both armed with nuclear weapons and the fault line in the fight against terrorism.

Mr. Sharif, a wealthy industrialist, is certainly no hero. His two stints as prime minister were seriously marred by corruption. And there is particular irony in his self-promotion as an opponent of military rule, since the military first helped put him in office. That is until General Musharraf decided to oust him in a bloodless coup. General Musharraf has spent the eight years since squandering his popular support. Pakistanis — professionals, ordinary people and even some in the military — have made clear that they are now sick of the general’s rule. Most want a return to civilian democracy. That should include elections in which all candidates, even deeply flawed ones like Mr. Sharif, can participate.

Despite his much-ballyhooed “freedom agenda,” Mr. Bush acquiesced in the general’s authoritarian rule as the payment for his help in the war on terrorism. General Musharraf delivered far less than he promised, and today Al Qaeda and the Taliban are resurgent along Pakistan’s border regions.

Mr. Bush is compromising his democratic ideals again by encouraging a power-sharing deal between General Musharraf and another exiled and flawed former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, whom Washington considers more moderate and more sympathetic than Mr. Sharif. Even if they can pull it off, such a deal is unlikely to produce a stable political structure because the two leaders fiercely distrust each other.

With neighbors like Afghanistan, Iran, India and China, Pakistan is one of America’s most important allies, and its stability is vital. And there was a time when General Musharraf could have led his country’s peaceful transition to democracy and been a hero. Instead, General Musharraf increasingly risks being toppled, to the likely benefit of militant minorities — armed Islamists or conspiratorial military nationalists — who would gain control over Pakistan’s frontiers and nuclear arsenal.

If the general won’t listen to his own people, Washington needs to tell him the facts of Pakistan’s increasingly precarious political life. It’s time for General Musharraf to leave the military, for Pakistan to hold free and fair elections and for the army to find ways to support, not sabotage civilian democratic rule.

Pakistan
Nawaz Sharif

The General and his Uniformed ‘Traitor’

2007-09-03T03:12:00.000-07:00

Your Blogger just came across this piece in today’s edition of the Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail and thought it well worth sharing with his readers.

If anyone of you knows who the ‘traitor’ is, do kindly share the information with the rest of us.
_____________________________________________

THE GENERAL'S DILEMMA: CIVILIAN DRESS OR CIVIL UNREST
By Graeme Smith
Globe and Mail, September 3, 2007

ISLAMABAD — It was only a whisper, but it was enough to put Pakistan's military ruler in a dangerously foul mood. At a recent dinner party, one of President Pervez Musharraf's senior officers leaned in close to him and muttered a few words. The general, who took control of Pakistan in a 1999 coup, has been hearing similar things for months, murmured in private or chanted in the streets: "Give up your command."

This single idea, the hope for a return to civilian leadership, has caught Pakistanis' imagination at the start of what promises to be a tumultuous election season.

Gen. Musharraf's reaction to the quiet aside from his trusted officer, however, shows how passionately he intends to defend his dual role as President and army chief, and helps to explain why observers are predicting turmoil in the coming months.

"Gentlemen," Gen. Musharraf said, raising his voice and hushing the room, according to a guest, "We have a traitor among us."

He grabbed the sleeve of the officer who had spoken to him and hoisted his arm up like a victorious boxer, identifying him to the gathering of military commanders.

_____________________________________________

Musharraf

Pakistan

Stratfor on Pakistan & Other Comments

2007-09-02T22:36:00.000-07:00

Two days ago the Texas-based private intelligence agency Stratfor (Pakistan: Systemic Change in the Making) came to the conclusion:

It no longer is a matter of if, but of when Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf will leave the helm in Islamabad. The judiciary and the man he ousted from power, former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, are threatening to throw a monkey wrench into his evasive maneuvers. The issue, however, now turns from the day-to-day drama of internal Pakistani politics to the much deeper issue of whether Musharraf's fall from grace will be paralleled by that of the Pakistani military as a whole.

Stratfor’s report also made the following points:

- Today, a vibrant civil society and increasingly independent and assertive judiciary have emerged within the country.

- The country's media, particularly the private television news channels, also have emerged as a powerful driver of events

- Pakistan also has witnessed an unprecedented surge in civil society activism. Instead of the political parties that historically have led protests, civil society groups -- especially the legal syndicates -- drove the protests during the legal crisis. There also has been an unprecedented outbreak of social debate on national issues, not only regarding the military's role in politics but also on the issue of rule of law. This debate has included criticism of men in uniform, as well as politicians.

Okay, so far this private intelligence agency, as far as your Blogger’s is concerned, has been stating the obvious. However the following comments made by Stratfor are more than a little interesting:

…within the military, Musharraf's repeated reshuffling of positions has contributed to his own undoing. It has brought to the fore a junior crop of generals that is inexperienced in politics and government. For a long time, this worked to his advantage by preventing any of his subordinates from rising up to challenge him. Now, however, as he faces challenges from Pakistan's civilian sectors, his top generals are unable and/or unwilling to support him.

In essence, the law of unintended consequences has worked against Musharraf. Moreover, it has weakened the military's ability to dominate the state. For now, this is limited to the political sphere. Eventually, the judicial branch can be expected to empower the legislative branch by forcing the military and the intelligence community to open up their books to parliamentary scrutiny. The weakening of the military's hold over the country's economic sector will be the next stage in the ongoing systemic change.

The question moving forward is: How far will the military's grip slacken before arrestors force the generals to take a firmer role? For now, the trend is running against the military -- and historical positions are being reversed. As the civilians entrench their power, it is the military -- not the civilian politicians -- that will mostly have to contend with limitations imposed by the judiciary. And civil society will serve as the watchdog.

____________________________________________

Now for some local analysis.

On Nawaz Sharif

The News today confirms our recent assumptions:

Intelligence agencies have reported that there has been a phenomenal rise in the popularity graph of Nawaz Sharif and if he returns to Pakistan according to his announced schedule, he would be invincible because of his fame.

A top official source in Lahore, referring to the intelligence reports that were prepared and filed before the latest Supreme Court’s decision in the Sharifs case, said that Benazir Bhutto’s desperation for a deal with General Musharraf had made Nawaz the most popular leader in Pakistan.

In their assessment of the ground situation, these agencies indicated that the Punjab had slipped out of the hands of both the ruling Q-League and Benazir Bhutto and was now sympathetic towards Nawaz Sharif.

“According to the agencies’ estimation, out of the total 13 National Assembly seats in Lahore, at least, 11 will go to the PML-N,” the source revealed, adding that the agencies had a similar assessment about other parts of urban Punjab.

… In case he comes to Pakistan on September 10 despite the official threats and claims, Nawaz is expected to get an unprecedented reception, particularly in the Punjab. However, in case Nawaz fails to fly back home as hinted by some ruling party leaders and certain ministers, his ascendancy would vanish.

On Benazir Bhutto

Having given Musharraf a 48 hour ultimatum till 31 August to deliver, Benazir Bhutto promptly backed out once the deadline expired.

As Dawn reported:

Contrary to expectations, former prime minister Benazir Bhutto has put off at least by 13 days the decision on when to return home, perhaps still hoping to hear from President Musharraf on the seemingly deadlocked talks on the proposed power-sharing arrangement between them.

She told a crowded press conference here on Saturday at the end of a two-day meeting of PPP’s Central Executive Committee that on Sept 14 her party would make known in Pakistan the date of her return home.

Despite being closely questioned on the matter she assiduously avoided agreeing with the suggestions that the talks had failed or were even in a deadlock mode…“Since I have received no word from Musharraf, either way, I cannot say whether the talks have failed or are still alive,” she added.

Your Blogger believes that the PPP leader is still naively relying on the US and the UK to pressurize Musharraf into making a deal.

So it is not surprising to learn, as the Daily Telegraph reported, that Ms Bhutto met the UK Foreign Secretary, David Miliband last Friday to discuss her plight.

And as the Washington Post points out:

Bhutto's own Pakistan People's Party, however, had also been resistant to the deal. Many of her strongest supporters have expressed grave reservations about the idea of negotiating with a military man. They have urged her to abandon the talks and return to Pakistan to oppose Musharraf's reelection.

Despite the efforts of Aitzaz Ahsan and others, the lady persists in clinging to the notion that only the Army and America can return her to power. It appears that the people of Pakistan - in particular the newly invigorated civil society - seemed to have completely escaped her outdated political radar screen.

On Musharraf

Apprehensive about Nawaz Sharif’s announced return to Pakistan on 10 September, Musharraf has sent the Senate chairman Mohammad Mian Soomro, on a desperate mission to prevail upon the Saudi royals to do their utmost to prevent this from happening.

However Nawaz Sharif’s impending return is not the only problem facing Musharraf. Now he even lacks support in his ISI-fashioned assemblies to get Benzir Bhutto’s constitutional demands ratified.

According to The Daily Times:

Constitutional amendments package: Two-thirds majority for govt unlikely
ISLAMABAD: Growing dissent in the ruling PML on re-electing President Gen Pervez Musharraf in uniform and likely defections to the PML-Nawaz in case of Nawaz Sharif’s return to Pakistan have brought the government to a numerically weak position, and even if PPP Chairwoman Benazir Bhutto finally comes to terms with President Musharraf, the government may not manage a two-thirds majority in parliament to pass a package of constitutional amendments.

The announced return of PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif ahead of the presidential election on September 10, if it materialises, would further complicate the situation with ‘expected’ defections from the ruling PML. Daily Times has learnt that a ‘soul-searching’ session of NA officials was held at the NA secretary’s office to work out numerical calculations for the two-thirds majority, but it ended on a negative note after analysing the current situation and in the wake of reports of treasury MNAs opposing the ‘deal’ in their private meetings

However hard Musharraf, Benazir Bhutto, the US and UK may try, it appears that the deal is dead as a Dodo.

Pakistan

Nawaz Sharif

Musharraf

Benazir Bhutto

Another View on Current Events

2007-08-30T19:46:00.000-07:00

Politically everything remains in a state of complete flux. No one - and that includes the players, Musharraf, Benazir Bhutto and the Sharif brothers - has any clear idea on what is going to happen next, let alone what the future holds.

Your Blogger can only give his own perceptions on the events - and, of course, all of you are entitled to disagree with him.

Benazir Bhutto
By loudly revealing to the international press that 'Musharraf had agreed to remove his uniform', she was trying to prove to her detractors that her policy of negotiating with a military dictator was bearing fruit, as well as, using the opportunity to apply further pressure on Musharraf.

In your Blogger's opinion the Charter of Democracy was a splendid foundation on which the future establishment of democracy could have been laid. It tacitly admitted the failings of the past civilian governments, and endeavoured to chart a new course of based on mutual tolerance and acceptance of democratic principles.

Arguably there could have been no more powerful symbol of change than Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif returning to Pakistan on the same plane.

Unfortunately (and in your Blogger's view, unforgivably) this was all scuppered by Benazir Bhutto acts of naked self-interest.

Nawaz Sharif
The public mood is not pro anyone. It is instead profoundly anti-Musharraf and against the military's persistent interference in politics. By refusing to compromise with Musharraf, Nawaz Sharif is now winning the public's accolades.

Musharraf
With desertions and dissension within PML(Q)the game is largely over. It is also unlikely - unless major last minute concessions are made - a deal with Benazir Bhutto is ever going to materialise. Besides, there is the ever-present shadow of the Supreme Court to wreak further havoc on the general's unrealistic dreams and unlawful ambitions.

Anyway enough from me. That old liberal warhorse, Tariq Ali, is in Lahore these days and here is his take on the events.
___________________________________________

The Guardian: Sinking together

Tariq Ali, August 30, 2007

President Musharraf is isolated and unpopular, but the notion that Bhutto can deal with the Taliban more effectively is risible.

For a politician whose sycophantic colleagues boast that she is closer to the pulse of the people than any of her rivals, Benazir Bhutto's decision to do a deal with Pakistan's uniformed president indicates the exact opposite. She is sadly out of touch. General Musharraf is now deeply unpopular here. It is not often that one can actually observe power draining away from a political leader. And the lifeline being thrown to him in the shape of an over-blown Benazir might sink together with him.

An indication that she was not completely unaware of this came a few days ago when she declared that her decision was "approved" by the "international community" always a code-word for Washington) and the Pakistan army (well, yes). In short, Pakistani public opinion was irrelevant.

The mood among sections of the street - I am currently in Lahore - is summed up in a cruel taunt: "People's Party de ballay, ballay / ade kanjar, ade dallay" (Marvel at the People Party / half-whore and half-pimp). This is slightly unfair and could apply to all the Muslim Leagues as well. The fact is that people are disgusted with politics and see politicians as crooks out to make money and feed the greed of the networks they patronise and which double up as useful vote banks.

But it should be acknowledged that Benazir Bhutto's approach is not the result of a sudden illumination. There is a twisted continuity here. When the general seized power in 1999 and toppled the Sharif brothers (then Benazir's detested rivals), she welcomed the coup and nurtured hopes of a ministerial post. When no invitations were forthcoming, she would turn up at the desk of a junior in the South Asian section of the State Department, pleading for a job. Instead the military charged her and her husband with graft and corruption. The evidence was overwhelming. She decided to stay in exile.

In March this year, Musharraf's decision to sack Iftikhar Hussein Chaudhry, the turbulent chief justice of the Supreme Court, backfired unexpectedly and sensationally. Tens of thousands of lawyers protested and took to the streets, demanding his immediate reinstatement. Political and social activists of almost every political hue joined them and a country usually depicted abroad as a den of bearded extremists on the verge of seizing power was suddenly witnessing an amazing constitutional struggle that had nothing to do with religion. Even the cynics were moved to see lawyers insisting on a rigid separation of powers.

The use of force by Musharraf's supporters in Karachi who opened fire and killed peaceful demonstrators created a further backlash against the regime. The Supreme Court voted unanimously to re-instate their chief. The general was becoming increasingly isolated.

The politicians who surrounded him pleaded for a state of emergency or even a new declaration of martial law, but according to many sources here in Pakistan the joint chiefs said that the military was too over-committed on the western frontier to police the rest of the country, which was a nice way of saying "No". With this route blocked, Washington now insisted on a deal with Ms Bhutto. The inner preoccupation to which she was a prey (power at any cost and the withdrawal of corruption charges) prevented her, I think, from having complete control of herself.

The Bush administration, which has brokered this deal, is basically ignorant of Pakistani politics. To isolate the Sharif brothers instead of including them in the "secular package" will drive them in the other direction. Nawaz Sharif is posing as a man of principle, forgetting how under his watch Muslim League thugs raided the Supreme Court and journalists were harassed and locked up. Memories are always short here and the fact the Sharif refused to negotiate with Musharraf has made him more popular in the country.

The notion that Bhutto can succeed in dealing with the Taliban more effectively than the general is risible, as Kamran Nazeer has already pointed out on Cif. Every time innocents are killed in bombing raids in Afghanistan or Pakistan increases support for the Taliban increases. Militants now control or dominate Tank, parts of Swat, North and South Waziristan, Dir, and Kohat inside Pakistan. The solution is political, not military. Killing more people will not help and there have been cases of soldiers refusing to fire on fellow-Muslims and junior officers taking early retirement after a tour of the duty on the Pak-Afghan border.

Pakistan being Pakistan, many observers are convinced that even if the deal is consummated it will be of short duration.

Pakistan

Musharraf

Benazir Bhutto

Nawaz Sharif

Analysing Benazir’s Motives

2007-08-29T21:53:00.001-07:00

Yesterday the Daily Times reported that Benazir Bhutto was persisting with her policy of keeping the PPP in the dark about her dealings with Musharraf.

Ignoring her party faithful, she apparently now relies on Rehman Malik - the policeman turned multimillionaire, currently absconding from the law in Pakistan – who, according to The News, has taken over the role as Benazir's top “adviser and broker” …on important matters ranging from politics to business…[because of his] "pragmatic and practical" approach.
___________________________________________
In an attempt to comprehend her behaviour let me begin with reiterating some facts that seem to have fallen by the wayside.

In July 2003 a Swiss court convicted Benazir Bhutto and her husband Asif Zardari of Money Laundering - the charge of corruption was not included as the funds had been placed in Geneva banks prior to the recent enactment of Swiss anti-corruption legislation. The Court sentenced them to a six-month suspended jail term, fined them $50,000 each and ordered they pay more than $2m to the Pakistani Government.

Having appealed this decision Pakistan’s ‘illustrious’ political couple were then confronted, in 2005, with a enhanced charge of Aggravated Money Laundering as subsequent legal investigations had revealed that the money in question now involved a sum of 12 million dollars. Conviction under this charge meant a maximum sentence of five years in jail as well as a fine of about one million Swiss francs.

In September 2005 Benazir Bhutto appeared before a judge in Geneva’s Palais de Justice and underwent intensive questioning - during an eight hour period of hearing - about various deposits of millions of dollars, as well as that well-known necklace worth of £120,000 which was found in a Swiss deposit box.

Interestingly, after it had been legally established that the necklace had been purchased for Benazir by a company controlled by Asif Zardari, Benazir told the court that she refused to accept the gift of the necklace. Reportedly when she was asked why she had refused to accept the gift, Benazir said her mother had told her that the gift was “inappropriate”. She also said that it was her personal affair to accept or reject any gift. (Your Blogger’s comment: If such was the case, then why was the necklace not returned, instead of being kept concealed in a deposit box for all these years?)

Throughout the hearing Benazir Bhutto proclaimed her innocence - partly by pleading ignorance and partly by implicating other parties (notably her husband). However, there is nothing to suggest that the Court accepted her protestations.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For further details on the Swiss case see the following Glasshouse blogs:

A Damoclean Sword that continues to swing
The Timebomb Begins to Tick Louder
Benazir and the Swiss Chamber of Secrets

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not surprisingly, after the last court hearing Benazir Bhutto was scared out of her wits. A likely conviction by an impartial foreign judiciary would not only have finished her political career for good but it might also have involved a period of imprisonment for her.

Therefore it came as no surprise to your Blogger to learn that in early 2006 the PPP leader was prepared to publicly accept a President Musharraf-in-uniform providing the Swiss case was done away with it. But like all bullies, Musharraf preferred to control her rather than enter into any deal with her.

So, the military regime, rather than bringing the Swiss case to a logical conclusion, preferred instead to keep dangling it threateningly before Benazir Bhutto, to browbeat her with the hope of making her capitulate under pressure.

In view of these facts her foremost concern these days would be to get rid of all the corruption cases against her.

Her second probable concern, notoriously money-minded as she is alleged to be, would relate to all the millions of dollars that have been legally frozen in Switzerland, Spain and elsewhere. She would, of course, want these monies restored to her control.

While negotiating over these personal issues it is hardly likely that she wanted any of her party men around. Besides, unfortunately, her eleven years of self-exile has not resulted in a liberal metamorphosis, she remains as authoritarian as ever, particularly towards her party underlings.

Now your Blogger comes to her other concerns.

Try and imagine a future scenario where with the blessing of the establishment the PPP wins the next election (please note that Musharraf has already offered to ‘adjust’ the election in PPP’s favour). With the existing law preventing Benazir from becoming a third-time prime minister, the office would have to go to one of her party members. She would regard such a situation as a definite threat to her three decade long grip on the party.

Therefore, her third concern would be to have the law, barring two-term prime ministers from attaining the office again, cancelled.

Only once she has achieved these three goals, do the other demands come into play. These being the removal of Musharraf’s uniform, free and fair elections, date of her return to Pakistan, et al.

Pakistan

Musharraf

Benazir Bhutto

When Musharraf’s Luck Ran Out

2007-08-28T01:07:00.000-07:00

While a crumbling Musharraf is now prepared to even concede his uniform just to get re-elected, it might be all too late.

One should always try to negotiate from a position from strength, but then the General’s heightened sense of self-esteem and arrogance prevented him from doing so. And so it happens that it was only when he was finally driven into a corner that he felt the need to commence negotiations - but by then he had little choice other than to negotiate from a weakened position.

On the other hand, Benazir Bhutto, adrift in some cloud cuckoo land of pre-1996 vintage, has failed to recognise the radically altered political environment in the Pakistan of 2007. Thanks to the lively new media she has been exposed as a self-interested politician keen to be absolved from the potentially crippling Swiss Money Laundering Case, be allowed to keep her ill-gotten millions, as well as, be provided with a third go at the prime-ministership. In return for all this, she has been more than willing to betray the commitments she made under the ‘Charter of Democracy’ and dance a political tango with a military dictator.

However, in doing so she has provided Nawaz Sharif with a chance of a lifetime. If Nawaz Sharif returns to Pakistan, like he seems determined to, he can lead a nationwide anti-Musharraf movement (even if he is sent to jail) and win popular acclaim for himself.

One often wondered when a modicum of reality would descend on the lady’s cerebrum. Recent reports suggest that the moment might have arrived. Today’s Dawn reports

PPP insiders said that Ms Bhutto was gradually coming round to the thinking of most of her party’s senior members who believe that any power-sharing pact with the president at this juncture would greatly damage the party’s electoral chances.

The PPP sources said she seemed to have realised that by continuing her negotiations with Gen Musharraf, she was alienating most of the moderates in the country, most of whom have become hostile to the US after 9/11 and since the presidential move against the chief justice, do not want to see Gen Musharraf occupying the presidency any more.

“There is no way the two could help each other any more. Now by continuing to cling to each other they are only dragging themselves further down the drain,” said a PPP stalwart who was opposed to the deal from the very beginning.

He blamed the Americans for, what he said, delivering Ms Bhutto to Gen Musharraf and breaking up the ARD, which was ‘the most potent and winning political combination’. “The two (Ms Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif) would have received the widest national acclaim and support had they landed in Pakistan together and started implementing the Charter of Democracy, which is perhaps the best document ever produced by Pakistani politicians,” he remarked.

If she dumps Musharraf at this stage, then he will be left high and dry. In any case Musharraf’s chances of getting re-elected through the current assemblies are looking progressively uncertain. PML (Q) desertions are not only increasing by the day, but some of its leadership is getting more and more vocal against a uniformed re-election.

According to the Nation newspaper:

[M]any PML-Q leaders have viciously turned against the re-election in uniform only because they considered it unconstitutional. Senator S.M. Zafar and PML Senior Vice President Kabir Ali Wasti top the list.

When contacted, Wasti claimed that the decision has been taken that Musharraf would contest for the presidential slot sans uniform. “We will support him (Musharraf) only if he doffed off his uniform and tried to get reelected from fresh assemblies,” Wasti said, adding that if the case was not so, he and many other PML leaders would strongly resist the re-election.

Adding to this is yesterday’s widely publicised resignation of Ishaq Khakwani, the minister of state information technology and telecommunication. He is said to have resigned ‘to protest President Pervez Musharraf's plans to run for re-election while remaining head of the army’.

If Benazir Bhutto ditches Musharraf at this critical moment, the only honourable step open to Musharraf is for him to resign.

Such an event will, of course, not lead to a state of chaos. We already have a well-known precedent of a military dictator suddenly vanishing from the scene in a blazing C130. So was there chaos after Zia’s unexpected death? The answer is, of course, no.

Musharraf’s departure would mean the Chairman of Senate, Mian Muhammad Soomro, becoming the acting President. Soomro can then appoint a transparently neutral and above-board caretaker government which will be assigned the task of ensuring completely free and fair elections (i.e. without any interference from the ‘Agencies’).

If Musharraf refuses to resign – which will be the probable case anyway – some commentators believe this could lead to an impasse in the presidential elections, which would then ‘leave the army with no option but to impose martial law minus Gen Musharraf’.

Hmm…

In event of such national chaos, it is more likely that the army will ‘request’ its Chief - who is already way past his superannuation age - to retire ‘with grace and dignity’ (in other words, give him the boot).

On the other hand, with the majority of the public solidly opposed to very idea of martial law, if by some stupid misfortune it does come about, it will have to be very brief in nature as the army will be unable to confront the public in the streets of Lahore or Rawalpindi.
_____________________________________________

As I began this blog by blaming Musharraf’s ‘heightened sense of self-esteem and arrogance’ for his impending downfall, it is now well worth reflecting as to when his downward spiral actually commenced.

_____________________________________________

Amidst all this re-election ballyhoo a noteworthy date which almost slipped past everyone’s attention was that last Sunday was the first anniversary of Nawab Akbar Bugti’s death.

To mark the event virtually all of Balochistan came to a standstill for two whole days (with the exception of the Pushtun-populated northern areas where the provincial-wide strike was only partly carried out).

Intriguingly, this two day strike was carried out at the request of one Brahamdagh Bugti, who is not only the murdered Nawab’s grandson but also officially one of the two most wanted rebels in Balochistan (the other being Balach Marri, the son of Nawab Khair Buksh Marri). And, almost to a man, all the Baloch heeded Brahamdagh Bugti’s appeal.

This makes a mockery of Musharraf’s claims of having crushed the Baloch insurgency by killing the Bugti chieftain. The other night Hasil Bizenjo was on Geo TV admitting to all that in death Akbar Bugti had achieved the status of becoming the greatest Baloch hero and his fame had easily eclipsed Mir Chakar Rind and all other historical Baloch figures of note. (This admission carries all the more weight as Bizenjo is perceived by many in Balochistan to be an ‘Agency’ man).

The memory of Bugti now appears to fuel the flame of a widespread insurgency in Balochistan and, I am told, that a palpable hatred for a ‘murdering’ Musharraf is not an uncommon sentiment found among the Baloch people - particularly among the younger lot.

The irony is that ISI is said to have repeatedly warned Musharraf that the problems of Balochistan were political and would only be exacerbated by military action. Deluded by the arrogance of power, Musharraf instead listened to the hawks in the Military Intelligence - and some suggest, also the views of the chairman of Pakistan Petroleum Limited (PPL), the company that owns the Sui gas facility.

In the last few days of August 2006 it is believed that Musharraf secluded himself in the hill station of Murri, where he received regular reports from his troops who had by then successfully encircled Bugti’s hideout. It is from there that he is supposed to have issued instructions for the elimination of Akbar Bugti.

Unfortunately for him, after this brutal act of supreme arrogance the fortunes of Musharraf began taking a downward spiral. This is how Adil Najam, writing in The News, perceives it:

If one looks back and seeks the one turning point of political inflection in General Pervez Musharraf's rule; that point will be the killing of Nawab Akbar Bugti on August 26, 2006. From that moment on it was clear that Gen Musharraf was on his way out. It was not clear --- and still is not -- exactly when or exactly how he would go. But suddenly there was the sense that his departure was not only likely, but imminent. Something dramatic happened that day. It was not just Nawab Akbar Bugti who died but also the silent consensus that had propped up Gen. Musharraf's military rule in Pakistan the previous five years. From then on Gen. Musharraf has been on a downwards trajectory and it is clear that his personal survival can come only at increasing costs to him and to the country.

Up to that point there was a sense that even if there was not a majority that actually supported his rule, there was in fact a plurality of Pakistanis who were willing to tolerate it. Or, at the least, were not actively opposed to it. This is what really changed on August 26, 2006. The killing of Nawab Akbar Bugti -- or, more precisely, the manner in which he was killed and the government's reaction to it -- forced many people who were willing to sit on the sidelines to actually choose sides. Invariably, they choose to distance themselves from the general. There was a clear sense that a line had been crossed. It was obviously not the first time that line had been crossed, but it was one crossing too many. Like the proverbial last straw on the camel's back, this was the one decision that decided the issues for the then undecideds.

Much like those who would later march for the reinstatement of the Chief Justice were moved to do so not because they 'liked' the Chief Justice but because they vehemently disliked the way he was treated by Gen. Musharraf. Similarly, many of those who were repulsed by the killing of Nawab Akbar Bugti were moved not because they approved of Bugti's agenda or tactics, they were revolted by the arrogance of power that was evident in the manner of his removal. It is this recognition of the arrogance of power, the obvious desire to retain that power at all costs and for purely personal satisfaction that has turned the tide against Gen. Musharraf. And the tide was turned on August 26, 2006.

Akbar Bugti

Pakistan

Musharraf

Delving in the Recent Past

2007-08-26T21:45:00.000-07:00

With Musharraf’s emissaries in London, engaged in last ditch efforts to win over Benazir Bhutto, everything remains in a state of flux.

There are also some reports in the press suggesting that the team - ISI chief Lt. Gen. Ashfaq Pervaiz Kiyani, the chief of staff to Musharraf, Lt. Gen. Hamid Javaid, and the ubiquitous Tariq Aziz - might try and meet the Sharif brothers as well.

In absence of anything new to report, I hope readers won't mind if your Blogger instead reprints two of his earlier blogs. These were written in earlier days when The Glasshouse, being new, had much fewer readers - most you of will therefore be reading these pieces for the very first time.
_____________________________________________

CNN - Predicting Pakistan's Future
(Previously posted on Saturday, May 28, 2005)

Dateline: 27 May 2105

Transcript of CNN’s interview at Army House, Rawalpindi

CNN: General, will you be standing for re-election and more importantly, will you be keeping the uniform?

Musharraf: No and Yes and, of course, Yes and No.

CNN: Sorry. Sir, could you kindly clarify that.

Musharraf: (Chuckling) You people never really understand what I’m trying to say. As I have always said we have to place the interest of Pakistan first and foremost.

CNN: Yes? (Interviewer nodding her head and looking quizzical at the same time)

Musharraf: As a straight shooter I don’t dilly dally, you see. So really, whatever is in the interest of the nation is the only path to follow.

CNN: So you will be standing again?

Musharraf: Yes and No.

CNN: And in uniform?

Musharraf: No and Yes.

CNN: Sir, do you realise that at the age of one hundred and sixty-three you are the most ancient Army Chief in world history.

Musharraf: So what? Pakistan needs me, my uniform fits me and I am positive that we will catch that rascal Osama by the end of the year.

_____________________________________________

Those Damned Chowkidars
(Previously posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006)

Here is a modern parable

Years ago the head of a family died leaving two separate groups of family members. Neither side was rich, but the older family clan had much larger numbers and more resources. The less powerful and anxious younger clan decided to breakaway and divide the joint family holding as they feared they would be overwhelmed by their more numerous cousins.

After having broken away the junior clan continued to feel intimidated. Convinced that their more powerful cousins would not tolerate the property division, they employed a bunch of Chowkidars to protect their property and counter any potential aggression from their neighbouring cousins and their employees.

As year went by there was a great deal of acrimony between the two clans, which led to several serious scuffles involving employees on both sides of the divided fence. The Chowkidars of the younger clan kept warning their employers that things were going to only get worse as the rival clan was not only more powerful, but, according to these employees, held very hostile intentions. The younger clan got decidedly nervous and not only employed more Chowkidars and enhanced their status and remuneration, but also began involving them in their family council meetings.

As years went by the Chowkidars grew more powerful within these family council meetings. Why? Well they managed to convince some of the family members (especially those that loathed the other clan), that the family would not survive without the Chowkidars, who were not only qualified to protect them, but were the only ones able to defend their community.

A few years later the Chowkidars decided to take over the council and dismissed the family altogether. Why? Well, according to these employees, the family had become too weak and feeble; thus unable to defend itself. To bolster the family’s defences the Chowkidars insisted that the larger part of the family income be handed over to them, as they were now not only shielding the family from aggression but were now obliged to run the family’s affairs as well.

After a number of years an odd thing came to pass – the Chowkidars had by now taken over the property and the family that had originally employed them, found themselves working to the bone to provide for their once-upon-a-time employees. Whenever the family members – by now completely powerless and impoverished - tried to raise their voices and attempted to remind the rich and powerful Chowkidars that the property they now controlled wasn’t really theirs, these unfortunate people would be smacked on the head, be accused of criminal ingratitude, and told that they didn’t really know what was good for them.
-----------------------------------------------

Does the story sound familiar?

It definitely ought to. After all it is our bloody Chowkidars that have taken over our property – Pakistan.

Musharraf
Pakistan

Hatching Plans Against the CJ

2007-08-25T05:43:00.000-07:00

There was an interesting revelation by Shaiq Hussain in today’s Nation newspaper.

According to Hussain’s sources Musharraf was yesterday engaged in “hectic” and “‘behind-the-scenes” discussions at his Rawalpindi Camp Office with his political and legal advisers, who included:

Shaukat Aziz
Chaudhry Shujat Hussain,
Chaudhry Pervez Elahi
Muhammad Ali Durrani
Sharifuddin Pirzada
Justice (Retired) Malik Abdul Qayyum

According this report, the ‘main focus’ of the meeting was on how to limit the power and tenure of the Chief Justice.

The regime’s obsession with attempting to constrict the judicial freedom of the Chief Justice has already been doing the rounds. In a column in another newspaper The News, Nasim Zehra had this to say:

There was some talk of government considering some amendments to curtail the power of the judiciary. This cannot be more than mere speculation. Such a move would prompt a replay of the judicial crisis-like lawyers' and peoples movement. It would be unquestionably suicidal for the government.

Nasim Zehra is right. Such a move would lead to intense chaos in the streets of the country, which would then bring about a swift end to Musharraf and his regime. It appears that in Commando-led Pakistan desperate times lead to desperately dim-witted thoughts and deeds.
_______________________________________

Apart from discussing the ways and means of limiting Chief Justice’s authority, other topics of discussion included:

New efforts to win the support of Benazir Bhutto in the face of growing political crisis created by Nawaz Sharif’s possible return.

Legal advice was also given to Musharraf (probably by Pirzada and Qayum) that the Sharif brothers could be arrested after their return as the verdict of Supreme Court only demanded that there be no obstacle preventing their return to the country.

Pakistan

Chief Justice of Pakistan

Nawaz Sharif

Consequences of SC’s Nawaz Sharif Verdict

2007-08-23T22:26:00.000-07:00

In your Blogger’s view there are a number of important political implications resulting from the latest Supreme Court verdict.

On Nawaz Sharif

After the SC’s ruling, the question on everyone’s lips is when is Nawaz Sharif going to return?

If he is a true champion of democracy, as he now holds himself out to be, it is imperative that he does not dillydally and returns to Pakistan at the earliest opportunity, even if it means risking jail. The fact that he had been convicted of some serious offences – such as hijacking and terrorism – and that the regime may attempt to reactivate the prison sentences, is a reality he has to confront.

By any display of dithering, he risks exposing himself to charges of cowardice. As one of his local party leaders told the press yesterday: “If he does not come now after such a conducive verdict, it will rock his credibility”.

Daily Times reported today that Nawaz Sharif and his plan to return to Pakistan by the end of November:
Nawaz held a meeting with his family members before the Supreme Court gave a ruling on his petition and it was decided that the Sharif family would first go to Saudi Arabia to perform Umrah and spend the last two weeks of Ramazan in Mecca. They would also call on the Saudi royal family to thank them for their hospitality.

But this decision, as the newspaper indicated, had been made prior to the Supreme Court judgement. Let us see what Nawaz Sharif decides to do now with the sudden change in his circumstances.

On Musharraf

Some people believe that the SC judgement has completely destabilized the government and it may soon fall.

Your Blogger does not buy this view. The answer lies, worryingly, deep in Musharraf’s psyche. As the latest Time magazine points out:
Musharraf has a history of getting out of a mess by taking out his weapons. As [a US official put it], "The question still becomes, At what point does his tendency as a commando to, you know, blow his way out of the situation, take over?"

If Musharraf becomes convinced that his ambition to be re-elected by the existing assemblies will be thwarted by Nawaz Sharif’s presence in Pakistan (in jail or out of jail), there remains a strong possibility he will attempt to declare martial law - as opposed to imposing a state of emergency.

Why not an emergency? Because in your Blogger’s opinion the constitutional conditions required for imposing an emergency do not exist and such a move will most likely, and quite correctly, be reversed by the Supreme Court.

By declaring martial law Musharraf can abrogate all existing laws at the point of a gun. Using the draconian powers of a Chief Martial Law Administrator he can then easily dismiss or lock up all the Supreme Court judges and prevent them from ruling against his unilateral decree.

However, a successful imposition of martial law will require two important fundamentals:

(i) That Musharraf’s subordinates - the corps commanders and services chiefs – support him without question.
(ii) That the public of Pakistan does not openly and violently resist the imposition of martial law in the streets (particularly in urban Punjab).

Your Blogger has little idea of what the mood of the corps commanders and other senior army officers will be to another bout of martial law. One point which has become increasingly obvious is that Musharraf’s politics have made the army extremely unpopular in its traditional heartland of central and upper Punjab. Such a situation has never occurred before and how this has impacted on the psyche of the senior officers - taking into account their traditional obedience to their chief - one has little way of knowing.

However, when it comes to the reaction of the public the answer is clearer. It is important to remember that all our four historical impositions of martial law found a large degree of support among the public.

1958 - Ayub Khan was welcomed as a CMLA in 1958 after a series of political crises.
1969 – Violent public protests led to Ayub Khan’s resignation and the arrival of Yahya Khan as CMLA
1977 -Nationwide rioting led to the dismissal of ZA Bhutto’s and the entry of Zia-ul-Haq as CMLA
1999 - Fed up with the repetitive political mismanagement of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, Musharraf was widely welcomed in as “Chief Executive”.

Today the public mood is extremely hostile to Musharraf and to a large extent the military as well. If martial law is re-imposed by Musharraf, your Blogger foresees our lawyers marching in the streets from the very day that martial law is declared. This time the public will be right behind the ‘black coats’in extremely large numbers. There will be tumult and upheaval and, as was the case in 1977, the army will find it difficult to shoot citizens in Lahore, Rawalpindi and other urban centres of Punjab. Logically this can only lead to the ouster of Musharraf. How this will be done, we have no way of telling as there are no precedents for this.

On Benazir Bhutto

If Nawaz Sharif returns rapidly to Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto is going suffer immense political damage. Her meeting and attempts to make a 6-point deal with Musharraf have already tarnished her badly, even in the eyes of her own supporters.

As Kamila Hyat recently reported in The News:

[As] a petulant Benazir Bhutto continues to suggest that promises made to her by President Pervez Musharraf have fallen through and that she has been 'betrayed', it is already obvious that the 'deal' attempted in Dubai has caused her party possibly irreparable damage. Certainly, many mid-level party workers seem pleased the deal has not been forged, and are reassuring angry party workers that much of the conjecture regarding an agreement was the result of speculation.

Despite this, in a tiny, cramped street along Mozang, a traditional PPP stronghold, young men have refused to once again raise the red, green and black party emblem on their homes, after pulling it down a few weeks ago, as news of the Benazir-Musharraf dialogue came through. It is not known in how many other cities, towns and villages, similar displays of anger have been made and gone unnoticed by the party's leaders.

With her political graph heading southwards, she will have no option but to dump the Dubai deal and salvage her sinking fortunes by returning to Pakistan and stringently and publicly opposing Musharraf.

Pakistan

Nawaz Sharif

Musharraf

Benazir Bhutto

The Sharif Deal and Musharraf’s men

2007-08-22T22:08:00.000-07:00

To delay the possible arrival of the Sharif brothers, yesterday the regime leaked parts of the Sharif-Saudi deal to the press.

Last Friday your Blogger informed his readers ( Blog: Saudi-Nawaz Sharif Exile Deal, etc) that the ‘deal’

consisted of a few papers on the Saudi Arabian Interior Ministry’s letterhead listing out a number of conditions which are signed by Nawaz Sharif and countersigned by Prince Nayef bin Abdul Aziz, the Saudi Minister of the Interior.

Readers were also told that the ‘Deal’ was a result of Saudi royals fears that Nawaz Sharif would share a fate similar to his predecessor Z A Bhutto and their lack of confidence in Musharraf’s personal declarations to the contrary.

Even if the original document is produced it obviously will have no legal validity in Pakistan. At the same time the Saudi silence on the ‘deal’ is quite deafening. Your Blogger believes that as the deal was pushed through simply to protect Nawaz Sharif’s life, the Saudis have little interest in the matter now.

By asking for an adjournment for three weeks to get the original documents from Saudi Arabia, Musharraf’s legal team is all too obviously playing for delaying tactics. Musharraf will make his problematic attempt to get re-elected through the existing assemblies probably within the next two or possibly three weeks. Having the Sharif brothers present in Pakistan during that period poses a nightmare scenario for him, as many unnerved PML(Q) members of the existing assemblies will then simply refuse to vote for him.

Latest: According a new press report the original ‘Deal’ document is already in possession of the military regime. If that is the case, then the refusal to present it in the Supreme Court and the request for a three week adjournment is not only deceitful subterfuge, but more importantly, a blatant act of perjury.

_____________________________________________

Now something about Musharraf’s legal team.

In recent weeks your Blogger has been fascinated by the ‘eminence’ of the individuals handpicked by Musharraf to fight his legal battles in the Supreme Court.

Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada

While everyone knows that this gentleman has provided legal advice to every Pakistan military dictator on how to circumvent the laws of our nation, apparently there might be more to him than meets the eye.

Ask senior members of the Karachi society who were out and about in the early 1950s, and they will tell you that Pirzada’s first wife is supposed to have died in strange circumstances. And, that soon after the incident the man apparently married his deceased wife’s sister. According to some of these now elderly citizens, at the time a few people suspected that Pirzada had been up to no good but in the absence of proof nothing ever came of it.

It would of course be improper and inappropriate on your Blogger’s part to presume that Pirzada had something to do with his first wife’s death, but the fact that there was suspicion about him at the time does indicate the kind of reputation he enjoyed during his younger days.

Malik Muhammad Qayyum

In 2001 Qayum was forced to resign in disgrace from the Lahore High Court after the Supreme Court ruled that Qayum’s decision in a case involving Benazir Bhutto and her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, had been politically motivated.

The Supreme Court said that the judge had "acquired a personal interest" in the case and that there was "close liaison" between the judge, Saifur Rehman, the minister in charge of the anti-corruption bureau, and Nawaz Sharif himself.

The Supreme Court also noticed that Qayyum and his wife had applied for diplomatic passports on 17 April 1998 after taking up the case against Bhutto and Zardari. The Foreign Office initially opposed their applications on the ground that diplomatic passports could not be issued to a judge and his wife. However, three days after Qayyum issued an order on 27 April 1998 freezing the properties and assets of Bhutto and Zardari, Qayyum and his wife were granted diplomatic passports

Also, quite revealingly, at the Supreme Court appeal hearing defence lawyers produced taped conversations, which exposed the then law minister, Khalid Anwar, Saifur Rehman and Qayum discussing the case and the forthcoming verdict. ‘Give them full dose," was what Saifur Rehman told Qayum.

Ahmed Raza Kasuri

In 1979 Zulfikar Ali Bhutto met his death at the gallows as a result of being convicted in the murder of Nawab Mohammad Ahmed Khan, the father of Ahmed Raza Kasuri.

Shortly after the death of his father on 9 November 1974, Ahmed Raza Kasuri lodged a First Information Report (FIR) with the local police station accusing Bhutto of having plotted the killing - it was this FIR which formed the basis of Bhutto’s trial for murder during General Zia-ul-Haq’s military regime. Some ten days after the murder, on 20 November 1974, Ahmed Raza Kasuri arrived in the National Assembly, carrying the blood-soaked shirt of his slain father and a bottle filled with his blood, and publicly vowed to avenge his father's death.

What few people know is that after holding Bhutto responsible for the killing of his father, Ahmed Raza Kasuri applied for a PPP ticket in 1977 and contested the elections as a member of the PPP under Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s leadership.

With these facts before us, I will leave it to the reader to make a judgement on the moral worth of the man.

From the onset of the Chief Justice case very few members of the legal fraternity were willing to present the regime’s case in court. It is not surprising, therefore, to discover that the men who eventually turned up to defend Musharraf, are, putting it mildly, not known for sturdiness of character.

Pakistan

Nawaz Sharif

Latest Asides

2007-08-21T00:53:00.001-07:00

Parting of Ways

The US-brokered ‘love match’ between Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto may be coming apart at the seams.

Two days ago Bhutto (during an interview with Canada’s CBC television channel) directly blamed the Musharraf and the military for sustaining terrorism.

“As long as we have a cabinet ... that needs the threat of terrorism to sustain a military dictatorship in Pakistan we’re never going to get rid of terrorism."

“The military is the problem...True democracy will deal with the social and economic needs of the people of Pakistan."

Then using the services of to Canadian columnist Eric Margolis she went above Musharraf’s head and directly made an appeal to ambitious army officers.

`We must deal with reality,’ she politically answers. Power sharing with Musharraf, I asked? `We can get along with some generals,’ comes her cautiously reply. She used to accuse me of being too chummy with `your beloved Pakistani generals.’ Now, she is playing a dangerous game with them.

`Musharraf needs to resign to clear the way to promotion for younger, capable generals,’ says Bhutto, ` otherwise the army will loose some of its best men.’ A lot of mid-ranking officers will be listening to her.

These kinds of remarks will do little to endear her to Musharraf. As an editorial in The News commented today:

It would be fair to say that both the former prime minister and the general seem to have dug into their positions. Given that the latter is ostensibly in a weak position these days, this doesn't reflect too well on Ms Bhutto's negotiating capabilities. In any case, if the military is a problem then why enter into a deal with it?

_____________________________________________

Police and the VIPs of Islamabad

According to Dawn official records show that crime has been rising in the Capital Territory of Islamabad despite regular increases in the city’s police’s budget.

Dawn’s investigations reveal that of the 10,000-strong police force:

57% or 5,700 are detailed into proving security and protocol for VIPs.
13% or 1,300 perform traffic and intelligence duties.

This leaves just 3,000 policemen to maintain law and order and fight crime in a city with a population of over 1 million.

According to Dawn, all if not most of this city’s police department budget is spent on providing services to VIPs. The newspaper doubts if the eleven police stations providing law enforcement and crime prevention duties, forgetting even their proportional 30% share of the budget, get anything.

Dawn, print edition of 21 August, 2007 (page 2)
_____________________________________________

Brand Marketing Shortcut style

According to The News, Shaukat Aziz announced yesterday that “[Musharraf] is a brand in the world”.

Well, according to your Blogger, so are ‘Preparation H’ and ‘Marlboro’ cigarettes - but that doesn’t mean that they are good for us!

(On second thoughts, unlike Musharraf, Preparation H is at least useful for Pakistanis suffering from Hemorrhoids).

Pakistan

Military Justice

2007-08-20T12:53:00.000-07:00

From today’s proceedings in the Supreme Court in the Missing Persons case, it appears that a person sentenced to eight years imprisonment under Field General Court Martial (FGCM) on spying charges, was in fact only guilty of having an affair with a female relation of an ISI Brigadier.

Imran Munir, 35, has been missing since July 8, 2006. According to family members, he was invited by Brig Mansoor Sheikh of the ISI for a dinner in the Blue Area of Islamabad. He has been missing ever since that night.

Munir, a dentist by profession, was apparently settled in Malaysia and was already married. He had been on visit to Pakistan and had been here only a fortnight prior to his disappearance.

The redoubtable Asma Jehangir is on record for having told the Supreme Court that:

.. the Ministry of Defence has denied having any knowledge about Imran Munir before the Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench. And now [in the Supreme Court]they say that he is a spy. In fact Imran had an affair with a girl related to an ISI official and he is now levelling personal grudges against Imran.

Today the Attorney General announced that Munir’s conviction has been set aside and a retrial has been ordered.

It appears that wonders will never cease!
_____________________________________________

Luckily for the ordinary citizens of Pakistan the Supreme Court appears to be in an unforgiving mood. Today the court threatened to imprison the Director General of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA),Tariq Pervez, unless he produced the missing Abdul Basit - whom Pervez had arrested in January 30 2004 - within the next twenty-four hours.

As Aaj Television reported:

The Supreme Court on Monday gave one day dead line to Director General FIA to produce a missing person of Faisalabad after knowing that he was in the custody of Military intelligence and was picked up on his orders.

Earlier the court was informed that the then Additional Inspector General Police and Present Director General of FIA Tariq Pervez directed Faisalabad Police to arrest Hafiz Basit and ordered him to hand over to an officer of Military Intelligence at Pindi Bhattian interchange of Lahore-Islamabad Motorway.

A four-member bench of the court comprising the Chief Justice Mr.Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Mr.Justice Faqir Muhammad Khokhar Mr. Justice Nasir-Ul-Mulk and Mr. Justice Raja Fayyaz Ahmed directed the DG FIA to produce the man in the court on Tuesday otherwise he will be put behind the bars.

The Attorney General (AG) for Pakistan requested the court to give him some time so that he can contact the authorities concerned.

“I am new in the office and don’t know how to contact the key persons”, the AG said.

“This is very simple case that police had handed over the custody to Army…its not our job to run after constables”, the Chief Justice said.

There must be a few military moustaches being twirled tonight in angry frustration.

missing persons case
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Pakistan

Some Answers to Difficult Questions

2007-08-20T01:01:00.000-07:00

A reader recently asked your Blogger a number of pertinent questions and the questions were:

Which political leader/entity do you think presents the best hope to take Pakistan in the direction you want?

And do you think this person or party can be voted to power if fair elections are held this year?

What do Pakistanis really want?

Not easy questions to answer. But as the reader has put your Blogger on the spot, he will attempt to answer these questions as candidly as possible.
_____________________________________________

Some readers will disagree with my views, and they are perfectly entitled to express their contrary comments - providing of course it is done in a civil manner. Recently a reader described one of the blogs as a ‘big fudge and an outright lie’. No one appreciates being called a liar. Is it too much to expect readers to be tolerant of views they disagree with?

_____________________________________________

A Preamble

Musharraf has to go!

Why the vehemence?

In my mind’s eye I can still picture the television shots of Musharraf gloating over the fact that Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s attempt to address the Karachi lawyers had failed. The reality of the bloody carnage at Karachi – some fifty dead and over a hundred badly wounded with bullet wounds - seemed of little significance to him.

Unfortunately Pakistani military dictators have all be prone to such callousness. The fact that fifty civilians (as in Karachi), a thousand plus (as currently in Balochistan) or a million (as they did in East Pakistan) may die is a matter of no consequence to them as long their self-interest is protected.

Today it is believed that Musharraf is prepared to do anything to stay in power, even if it means letting Pakistan sink into a chaotic social, political and economic quagmire. Therefore, the quicker he goes the better for all of us!

________________________________________

The Attempted Answers

From a purely Pakistani perspective, your Blogger believes to replace him we need a leader who:

- is honestly determined to cleanse the political system from military interference for good. While it will not be easy to remove such an entrenched political ‘foe’, the task should be commenced soon and with earnestness.

- is sincere in strengthening institutions such as our judiciary and refrains from using the law enforcement agencies as a personal tool for extracting political vengeance.

- will provide smaller provinces a greater clout over their natural and other resources and provide for greater provincial autonomy for the sake of national harmony.

- will allocate sufficient funds and restore life to the debacle currently known as our educational system.

- will genuinely tolerate a completely free press and media and show respect for dissenting views.

- does not fall victim to the traditional political system based on sycophancy, corruption and crony capitalism.

Okay this idealistic wish list can go and on, but the realistic question that was asked remains as yet unanswered: Which political leader/entity do I think presents the best hope to take Pakistan in the direction you want?

Recently I was a spectator at the All Party Conference which was recently held in London and had a chance to observe some of current political leadership, in particular Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan, at close hand for a period of two days.

Ten plus years ago I had a one-to-one with Benazir Bhutto for a period of half an hour or so and subsequently had a chance to witness her in action with some of her team as she dealt with a political crisis.

Having said all this, this does not render me an expert on any of them, but it does give me something to work on, by adding flesh and bones to what I already know about them.

In my opinion if free and unrigged elections do take place, the voters in Pakistanis will unfortunately have only two realistic options left to chose from: Nawaz Sharif of the PML and Benazir Bhutto of PPP.

(Other parties such as MQM, ANP, etc are regional parties and possible future government coalition partners and no more. And in my book PML(Q) does not qualify as a party as it is widely recognised as consisting of a motley crew of political ‘lotas’ and self-seeking sycophants who are now happily faced with a dismal future.)

Unfortunately for us, the eleven years in political wilderness have, it appears, done little to change Benazir. Over a year ago she was reportedly prepared to go to any lengths to make a deal with Musharraf – even accepting him in uniform as president – as long as he got her off the Swiss and other overseas money laundering / corruption cases. Sadly she has proved to completely unchanged and remains utterly self-centred and opportunistic to do any good for the future of this country.

The uncerebral and crony capitalist Nawaz Sharif was packed off five years ago into exile. These days, much to my surprise, he seems to be somewhat of a changed man. Not only does he appear to be reasonable and tolerant of dissenting views, but also seems genuine about the need for change in Pakistan’s political system. His uncompromising stand against the military’s role in politics has won him many public plaudits. (However, only time will tell how authentic his conversion has been).

(In London the person who actually appealed to me was Imran Khan but his national political muscle, if it exists, lies in the future. It will take him at least another election or two to consolidate his party in the national scene, but he can play a valuable role in the meantime. His political strength - and possible weakness - lies in the fact he is a straight shooter, but his sincerity of purpose will always be his strongest asset.)
________________________________________

And now to answer two questions:

Which political leader/entity do you think presents the best hope to take Pakistan in the direction you want?

And do you think this person or party can be voted to power if fair elections are held this year?

In the given circumstances Nawaz Sharif currently presents the best hope for Pakistan in the near future.

And yes, with Benazir Bhutto’s declining popularity as a result of her publicly perceived rank opportunism, Nawaz Sharif has probably the best chance of getting voted into power if fair elections are held this year. In all likelihood he will sweep central Punjab and with his current alliance with nationalist and the mullah parties he will have little difficulty in forming a government in Islamabad.

But we hope for better leadership to emerge once democracy is allowed to take root in the country. It must be borne in mind that with an aggressively free press and a recently liberated judiciary, all future governments will be kept under close scrutiny for all their acts or omissions. And Hurray for that!

________________________________________

And now to the final question: What do Pakistanis really want?

In the past year, thanks to Aaj and other TV news channels - beginning with Akbar Bugti’s murder and followed by the crisis over the Chief Justice and the Lal Masjid debacle - Musharraf and his generals have been exposed as arrogant blundering incompetents out only to preserve their own selfish interests. These people are also now widely blamed for the insurgency in Balochistan and the cancerous spread of extremism in FATA and elsewhere.

Not surprisingly the vast majority of the public in Pakistan (as opposed to a few non-resident Pakistanis in the UK and US) want to get rid of military interference in politics for good.

They long for an independent judiciary, a free press and an accountability of their political rulers – in short they want a full-fledged democracy with all its trappings.

With an accountable government there is hope that a rule of law will finally emerge. People desperately wish for justice and an end to the corrupt anarchy that currently exists.

________________________________________

This of course does not concur with what the US wants.

As one of Washington Post’s leading columnists Jim Hoagland wrote yesterday: The Islamabad regime is being 'aided by the hidden hand of U.S. diplomacy working to preserve President Pervez Musharraf's dwindling power in Islamabad.'

Washington’s priority remains fixed on Al Qaeda and its associates. Just because Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld took their eyes off the target in Tora Bora in 2001 and foolishly (and quite calamitously) opted to attack Iraq instead, does not mean that 160 million Pakistanis have to indefinitely forgo our rights to a democracy. If they insist on supporting Musharraf (via Benazir Bhutto or some other route) then Washington will be loathed by secular moderate Pakistanis like never before.

________________________________________

There is perhaps a lot I have left said unsaid but then again a blog has to end somewhere.

Pakistan
Nawaz Sharif
Benazir Bhutto

Putting the Boot into Benazir

2007-08-18T05:43:00.000-07:00

Today one of Pakistan’s senior journalists, Mariana Baabar, lets it rip into Benazir Bhutto.

Does the PPP leader deserve it?

In your Blogger’s opinion, for someone who is so selfishly bent upon betraying the cause of democracy in Pakistan, she most definitely needs to be exposed for her behaviour
____________________________________________

Et Tu, Mohtarma?
Benazir, Musharraf make up. Now to see if it's boon or bane
Mariana Baabar

Lust for power can make even dictators do funny things—like compromise their dignity, undermine their own authority, even sup with their enemies.

Take Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf. He was wont to be virulent about ex-prime minister Benazir Bhutto, describing her as so corrupt that she could never be allowed to return to plunder Pakistan again. In a TV chat show, he became so enraged at the host for taking her and Nawaz Sharif's names that he said he wouldn't hesitate to "kick them".

Intemperate remarks, threats, moral posturing: all was quickly forgotten after Musharraf and Benazir sealed a deal during their July 27 meeting in Abu Dhabi. There's no doubt about it, the implacable general is eating crow. Look at the developments since then—the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) has withdrawn cases against Benazir in the Swiss and Spanish courts; the government isn't to pursue cases against her in Pakistani courts, leaving the judges to decide their future; it's been decided to defreeze her foreign bank accounts (estimated to have $1.5 billion); and the Sindh high court has ordered the government to seek withdrawal of the Interpol "red notices" issued on its advice.

Lust for power can do funny things to politicians as well—they become myopic, court infamy, even risk the people's support. Former editor Shaheen Sehbai left Pakistan because he feared the diabolic intent of the military regime. Today, his wrath is directed against Benazir: "Of course, all she's interested in is getting back her billions, withdrawal of cases against her and Asif Zardari and an amendment to the Constitution that would allow her to become prime minister for the third time. Party workers have never been her top priority." Adds Mir Afzal Khan, a confidant of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and now a political commentator, "She is an unscrupulous politician who's ready to throw away the sacrifices of her father—a man who had refused to negotiate with the generals, even went to the gallows for it."

Always the quintessential politician, Benazir will surely harp on aspects of the July 27 deal which show her as contributing to the restoration of democracy in Pakistan. The deal will apparently (nothing's been made public officially) see Benazir's Pakistan People's Party (PPP) abstain from the National Assembly (NA) during the vote to elect Musharraf as president in uniform. Once elected, Musharraf is to doff his uniform and conduct a free and fair general election. The new NA will then delete from the Constitution Clause 58 2-B that allows the president to dissolve legislatures. Another amendment will remove the provision that bars a person from becoming PM thrice.

But even these salutary aspects didn't cushion PPP workers from the shock of the July 27 deal. An old party hand who has braved several hostile regimes for the Bhuttos told Outlook, "The general is at his weakest. Why did Mohtarma agree to the deal? We are the followers of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Shaheed, and we are confused.

Can't she read the mood on the street? If she returns to Pakistan through a deal with Musharraf, then many like me will sit at home rather than vote for a PPP-GHQ alliance in the polls."

The faceless PPP worker's anguish is echoed by Shafqat Mahmood, a former minister whose disenchantment with Benazir prompted him to leave the party some years ago. He feels the deal may compel Musharraf to hold a free and fair election, but it will be the PPP's Waterloo. "Should the PPP join the general and the ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Q in an alliance, then I am sure they will get an electoral thrashing they will remember for a long time," says Mahmood.

An electoral washout for Benazir is predicted for she has forged a deal with a man who, by now, is reviled countrywide. Worse, he also appears politically isolated. As Mahmood says, "He is in a unique position where neither the left nor the right of the political spectrum, neither the conservatives nor the liberals, except a minuscule faction, are standing with him." Rahimullah Yusufzai, executive editor, The News, is emphatic: "The lawyers' movement has proved that people want rule of law, independence of the judiciary and empowerment of the masses. Cutting deals to stop this from happening is bound to haunt her and the PPP for years to come."

What's worse is the chasm between Benazir's future plans and those of PPP leaders like Aitzaz Ahsan, who was the chief defence counsel for Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry in his legal tangle with Musharraf. As Ahsan puts it, "The moment Musharraf announces he is going to seek election from the present assemblies, lawyers, backed by civil society, will come out on the streets once again, and push the country into the throes of yet another agitation."

So, can the Mush-Benazir deal survive the turmoil? Are voices such as Ahsan's portents of a split in the PPP? Not necessarily. As columnist Ayaz Amir sums it up, "There is a disquiet...but the PPP has fostered a culture of sycophancy and absolute docility to the point where questions may be asked of Musharraf in the Corps Commanders Conference, but not of Benazir within her party. So no fears of any mass revolt in that quarter." There's also the poor track record of those who left in the past: but for Aftab Khan Sherpao who formed his own party with some success in urban NWFP, others were consigned to the dustbin.

Benazir's apologists say she has cut a deal because she feels the PPP is the only pan-Pakistan party which could reap a rich harvest in a free and fair poll; that she knows from past experience that a win at the hustings could secure her the PM's post only if she has Washington and the army's consent. But Benazir's former aide, Kamran Shafi, scoffs at such assumptions: "This deal will never work, there is only one deal that can work and that is a deal between the politicians and the people of Pakistan. The commando can have no part in it, in or out of uniform. I bet my last Rs 100 that Musharraf will agree to wear a pink jogging suit if it keeps him in power." Well, if that happens, don't say we didn't warn you. We did say lust for power can do funny things to generals and politicians alike.

Pakistan
Benazir Bhutto

Saudi-Nawaz Sharif Exile Deal, etc

2007-08-17T20:59:00.000-07:00

Shortly after Shahbaz Sharif's forced deportation from Lahore airport in May 2004, I was informed by a senior local journalist that he had been shown - by a senior ISI officer in Islamabad - the purported written agreement which allowed the Sharif family to secure their exile to Saudi Arabia.

At the time of the deportation there was much public debate on whether such an agreement actually did exist or not. One can therefore assume that the intelligence agency was only too eager to provide proof of its existence to a number of influential journalists.
_________________________________________

Here is a potted account of what really happened:

After being overthrown Nawaz Sharif soon found himself being tried in an anti-terrorist court on charges that included hijacking, attempted murder and terrorism. His friends and mentors in the Saudi royal family became perturbed when they leant that the government was seeking the death penalty against the deposed Prime Minister.

In April 2002 when the court sentenced Nawaz Sharif to life imprisonment on two charges of hijacking and terrorism, the government filed an appeal against the life sentence by once more demanding a death penalty.

Worried, the Saudis wanted to be reassured by Musharraf that the deposed prime minister would not meet the same fate as his predecessor ZA Bhutto.

Despite the personal declaration given by Musharraf during one his trips to Riyadh, it appears that the Saudis remained far from convinced that the general would not seek ultimate vengeance from Nawaz Sharif for attempting to sack him.

The Saudis resolved the issue by pressurising Musharraf into accepting a deal whereby Nawaz Sharif would be released by Musharraf on the condition that he and his family would live in exile in Saudi Arabia for a 10 year period. And so on the 9th December 2000, Nawaz Sharif along with his family left for Jeddah on a Royal Saudi plane.

From all accounts it appears that the deal between Musharraf and the Saudis had initially been a verbal one. However, subsequently when Musharraf came under local media pressure to explain the deal he took the precautionary measure of requesting the Saudis to confirm the deal in writing. And so a document was prepared and delivered to the general.

And what exactly was the document?

The journalist who saw document said that it consisted of a few papers on the Saudi Arabian Interior Ministry’s letterhead listing out a number of conditions which are signed by Nawaz Sharif and countersigned by Prince Nayef bin Abdul Aziz, the Saudi Minister of the Interior.

For the record Prince Nayaf happens to be one of the powerful Sudairi Seven, seven close-knit sons of King ibn Saud. The Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud, and Prince Salman bin Abdul Aziz, the Governor of Riyadh, are among the others.

From a purely legal perspective, while the signed papers issued in Saudi Arabia are evidence that some sort a deal may have existed between the Saudis and Nawaz Sharif, they will have little legal validity in Pakistan or for that matter under the law of any other country (with the possible exception of Saudi Arabia).

In view of this, it is likely therefore that the Supreme Court will recognise Nawaz Sharif’s right as a citizen of Pakistan to return to his homeland.

It is no wonder that after his meeting with Benazir Bhutto in Dubai in late July, Musharraf flew to Saudi Arabia to ask King Abdullah to use his influence to stop Nawaz Sharif from returning to Pakistan; a request that the King is believed to have politely declined.
_________________________________________

The Etc

Having given hope of preventing Nawaz Sharif and Shahbaz Sharif from returning to Pakistan on the basis of the Saudi agreement, the regime petitioned the National Accountability Court at Rawalpindi on 3 August to reopen three cases against the two Sharif brothers and their family, which had been filed with the court in 2000 and 2001.

It should be recalled that after the Sharif family’s departure to Saudi Arabia these particular cases had been closed at regime’s request.

The three cases were related to:
1. Hudaibiya Paper Mill
2. Ittefaque Foundries
3. The Sharif family’s 50 acre real estate in Raiwind

According to the prosecution these cases involve charges of ‘willful default, financial irregularities and holding of property beyond known sources of income ' against Sharif and his family members.

Yesterday the National Accountability Court ruled that these cases can be opened, which means that Nawaz Sharif, as well as his brother, could be arrested the moment they return.

Your Blogger’s guess is this court ruling will be challenged in the High Court of Punjab at the earliest opportunity.

Pakistan

Nawaz Sharif

Benazir Takes a Knock

2007-08-16T22:38:00.000-07:00

Your Blogger will concede that Benazir Bhutto can be extremely shrewd, cunning and politically savvy, but he nevertheless maintains that she has never been known to be overly bright.

Take last week when she appeared gloating with new found confidence during an interview with Ayesha Tammy Haq on the Business Channel. Little did we know that she was about to attend a “non-meeting” with Musharraf in Dubai a day or so later. Anyone familiar with the current mood of the nation would have had second thoughts about such a venture; but not Benazir. By all accounts, despite the long faces of the PPP leadership in Pakistan, she appeared to be revelling at the ‘change’ in her fortunes.

It has taken her a fortnight or so to realise the price she has had to pay for her opportunism. Two days ago she finally admitted "we are risking our popularity even by having this dialogue." (Apparently the rushed trip of PPP’s local leadership - Makhdoom Amin Fahim, Farhatullah Babar and Raja Pervez Ashraf - to New York has managed to bring a dose of much-needed reality to her thinking).

The latest poll taken by BBC should make her think even harder. As the Daily Times reports:

According to a new BBC poll, Nawaz Sharif has emerged as the most popular leader of Pakistan. The late Zulfikar Ali Bhutto has made to the second place while Ms Benazir Bhutto has been placed third after her father. Surprisingly, the generals have dominated the three lower positions of the poll: General Ayub is fourth, General Zia fifth and General Musharraf sixth …The PPP has slid because of the “deal” and PMLN has come up because of Mr Nawaz Sharif’s London APC and his party’s generally confrontational attitude.

Benazir Bhutto

Pakistan

Jinnah’s People vs. Real Estate Ideologues

2007-08-15T03:05:00.000-07:00

At the 60th anniversary of Pakistan’s independence it is appropriate to recall that the creation of our country had not really been Mr Jinnah’s principal goal.

Close colleagues of the Muslim leader have stated on historical record: "Jinnah never wanted a Pakistan which involved the partition of India”.

The demand for a separate Muslim state of Pakistan was essentially a bargaining chip utilised to push the Congress Party into acknowledging the rights of the large Muslim minority present in India.

Let me remind those who are unaware that on 6th June 1946 Jinnah and the Muslim League voted to accept the plan calling for a confederated united India. Under this ‘Cabinet Mission Plan’ there would be a grouping of autonomous Muslim and Hindu provinces which allowed for a three tiered federation between Hindu and Muslim provinces, with the centre in Delhi only keeping the subjects of Defence, Foreign Affairs, Currency and Communication, all other subjects would vest in the provinces. These provinces would have been free to form groups (i.e. Muslim and Hindu) with their own executives and legislatures that would then deal with such subjects as the provinces within the group assigned them.

As we now know it was the rejection of this plan by the Congress party and the subsequent dishonest shenanigans of Mountbatten and Nehru, that forced a disappointed and dying Jinnah to accept 'the moth eaten and truncated’ state that we now know as Pakistan.

The profoundly vain and egotistical Mountbatten was so angered by Jinnah’s refusal to accept him as Pakistan’s first Governor General that he acidly warned him: "(This) may cost you the whole of your assets and the future of Pakistan” (Stanley Wolpert, Shameful Flight, OUP, 2006, p. 164).

Thanks to vengeful Mountbatten and Nehru, India delayed transferring Pakistan’s share of assets, which together with the Kashmir debacle embittered the relation between the two countries.

The precarious existence of the early Pakistan resulted in a warped emotional tunnel-vision which gave India-obsessed defence/foreign policies precedence over the economic wellbeing of its people. Six decades of this irrational passion has led to misplaced priorities which doomed our country to widespread illiteracy and economic penury. At the same it illogically elevated the status of the armed forces into some sort of ‘conquering heroes’ – which is ironic considering after six decades of existence our military has yet to win anything in the battlefield (other than those fought against its own people in East Pakistan, Balochistan and elsewhere).

Much of the blame for this distorted vision lies with self-styled intellectuals who appointed themselves guardians of our ‘National Ideology’. This dogma offered no economic or social benefits to the common citizen, but was instead steeped in a visceral distrust of India and called upon our ‘noble’ armed forces to defend every inch of ‘our sacred soil’ (which included Kashmir).

In a revealing moment I asked one of these ideologues: ‘What is more important? The future wellbeing of millions Muslim Kashmiris or obtaining the Vale of Kashmir’. The answer was immediate: ‘The Vale of Kashmir!”

Somewhere along the line these ideologues have managed to miss the boat completely. Whether one takes a religious, ethical or commonsensical approach the answer remains the same: It is always the people who matter (and not some piece of imagined real estate).

Unfortunately from the early days of Pakistan’s existence these absurd convictions have pervaded our Establishment. And so, the Army has always been there to protect ‘our sacred soil’ rather than to defend the liberties of its people. Compare that with the Allied Forces during the WWII who fought for five longs years to defend the freedom of their people from the tyranny of Nazism.

In defence of this pernicious ‘National Ideology’ it has been acceptable for our military leadership to declare thousands of Pakistani citizens (in East Pakistan, Balochistan, Sindh and NWFP) anti-state miscreants and kill them in course of their ‘sacred duty’ to protect Pakistan. As an editorial recently pointed out:

'Alas, much of this was done with a large civilian consensus in the dominant Punjab province'.

It is therefore understandable that there exists a degree of animosity towards Punjab from the smaller provinces.

Contrary to this spurious ideology it is clear from our history that Pakistan came into existence simply to safeguard the economic and social wellbeing of Indian Muslims who feared getting subsumed by an overwhelming Hindu Majority. While Jinnah relentlessly fought for the rights of his people, it must be remembered, that he never uttered a word about the sacredness of any soil.

Sixty years down the track, your Blogger believes, it is high time we honoured Mr Jinnah's mission by placing the wellbeing of 160 million Pakistanis above all else.
________________________________________

An Addendum

The above Blog was written simply to mark 60 years of Pakistan’s existence, hence the reference to Mr Jinnah. The why and wherefores of Pakistan’s creation, in your Blogger’s opinion, are now only of historical relevance – Pakistan exists and that is all that should matter.

The point that I wished to make – probably not too clearly - was that Mr Jinnah did not fight to create a geographical entity but instead struggled to protect the rights of British India’s Muslims. And it was as a result of his battle to safeguard the interests of these people that Pakistan came into being.

The real purpose behind this Blog was to highlight the fact that for years spurious notions of “National Ideology”, “National Interest” and “National Security” have resulted in the rights of millions of ordinary Pakistanis being trampled under the pernicious jackboot of authority.

I believe it is high time that we acknowledged that it is the people who make up a country (and not simply the land they occupy); and that the civil rights and the wishes of the Pakistani citizen should take precedence over all else if we hope to succeed as a modern nation state.
________________________________________

Pakistan
Ideology of Pakistan
60th Anniversary
Jinnah

Unstrategically Blasting His Way Out

2007-08-14T12:15:00.000-07:00

Like all military dictators who have preceded him, Musharraf loathes the idea of surrendering his powers. To make the situation worse he is surrounded by self-serving advisers who also have much to lose in a change scenario.

Struggling for political survival Musharraf has sought to enlist Bush’s support by re-energising military confrontation against extremists in the western borderlands, he has humiliatingly flown to Dubai to negotiate a power-sharing deal with one of his hated rivals, and come close to declaring a state of emergency within the country.

But so far nothing has seemed to have worked for him.

With the clock ticking away and general elections to be held be held between September 15 and October 15, he appears to be heading towards a no-win situation. Especially as an activist Supreme Court seems likely to impose a legal obstacle against his attempt to get re-elected from the existing assemblies, as well as permitting the return of Nawaz Sharif to Pakistan.

Faced with such a bleak state of affairs Musharraf may easily be persuaded to declare an emergency (or still worse declare martial law), both of which will likely lead to national upheaval and ensuing chaos. But then the desperation of narcissistic dictators have no bounds.

Following is an article from the Financial Times worth reading. It quotes a diplomat in Islamabad as saying:

“He’s really not a great strategist…He’s a commando who, when he’s in a fix, likes to blast his way out.”

It is this reliance on ‘blasting his way out’ that does not bode well for the next few weeks to come.

_____________________________________________

The Financial Times: Final reckoning days away for Musharraf
By Jo Johnson
Published: August 13 2007 16:29

Confronted by the gravest crisis of his eight-year rule, Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s president, faces an ever-shrinking menu of options. In recent weeks he has spent much of his time shut away in his military camp in Rawalpindi, surrounded by self-interested advisers, increasingly intolerant of criticism and displaying signs, diplomats say, of growing paranoia.

But as the general toys with ideas such as imposing a state of emergency that would suspend elections and extend his rule, the reality is that he has just days left to find a way out of his labyrinth before a constitutional crisis paralyses Pakistan.

If Gen Musharraf sticks to his guns and proceeds with his plan to seek a new mandate from the existing state and national legislatures – themselves the product of rigged 2002 elections – he is likely to find his ability to govern severely impaired.

Challenges to his legitimacy are likely to hit him on two fronts: in the courts, from a judiciary emboldened by the reinstatement of Iftikhar Chaudhry, chief justice; and on the streets, from a newly-courageous civil society.

Presidential elections, via an indirect electoral college, must be held between September 15 and October 15. The constitution forbids a general from holding political office while still serving and also for up to two years after retirement. In December 2003, Gen Musharraf finessed matters by persuading a coalition of Islamic parties to back an amendment exempting him from the restriction, initially for one year. When the December 2004 deadline to step out of uniform expired, the exemption was extended until the end of 2007 by a rubber stamp parliament endorsed by the Supreme Court. Today it is a different story.

“This is going to be a battle,” says Shafqat Mahmood, a political analyst. “Back then, the Supreme Court was not free ... If the court now decides to disqualify him from contesting, it could lead to full martial law.”

Gen Musharraf acknowledged at the weekend that he had last week come close to declaring a state of emergency, only relenting after a 2 am telephone call from Condoleezza Rice, US secretary of state.

Washington is keen for the isolated general to broaden his political base through an alliance with Benazir Bhutto, leader of the Pakistan People’s party, and to reduce his dependency on religious parties.

Relations between the government and those religious parties were disrupted by last month’s raid on Islamabad’s Lal Masjid, or red mosque, which has prompted outrage among Islamists and a surge in suicide attacks.

“With all the suicide attacks, the sense of crisis is very acute now,” says Hasan-Askari Rizvi, a Lahore-based security analyst. “[The Islamic parties] want to show that [Gen Musharraf] can no longer count on them as intermediaries with the jihadis or govern effectively without them.”

Co-opting Ms Bhutto into government increasingly looks like Gen Musharraf’s best chance of securing his political future. The two met in secret in Abu Dhabi late last month, but have yet to agree the terms of their cohabitation. Under one scenario, Gen Musharraf, in return for the PPP’s support in the presidential election, would seek election as a civilian, drop corruption charges against Ms Bhutto, change the law that prevents her from seeking a third term as prime minister and allow her back to campaign for the parliamentary elections.

If Gen Musharraf refuses to put on civvies, a deal will be more complicated. Ms Bhutto is under pressure from her party to insist he steps out of uniform but many believe she might soften.

All bets would be off under an emergency. It still cannot be ruled out: the pro-Musharraf ruling party, the Pakistan Muslim League (Q), a rag-bag of deserters from the PPP and Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League (N), has much to lose from a return of the exiled former prime ministers.

An emergency that would derail a deal with Ms Bhutto, head off a challenge to the PML(Q) from Nawaz Sharif and postpone parliamentary elections for a year therefore has its appeal. It also could appeal to Gen Musharraf’s military instincts.

“He’s really not a great strategist,” says a diplomat in Islamabad. “He’s a commando who, when he’s in a fix, likes to blast his way out.”

The coming weeks will present a new set of challenges, starting with the Supreme Court’s imminent hearing of a petition demanding that Mr Sharif, the target of Gen Musharraf’s 1999 coup, be immediately permitted the right to return. If that petition is accepted, the temptation to impose an emergency will undoubtedly return.

Pakistan
Musharraf
Declaration of Emergency

Reflecting on Pak History

2007-08-13T02:30:00.000-07:00

As part of a commemorative series of articles marking 60 years on from Partition, BBC provides a short objective summary of where we went wrong.

It is now up to us - the civil society of Pakistan - to start rectifying the damage that has been wrought upon us for these past six decades. It will not be an easy task, but at least we have finally been given a chance to do something about it.

We have to be realists and accept that it will not be an easy task.

(Your Blogger would like to optimistically add: Once we get rid of the Military interference in our body politic, the next logical step would be to ask all our doomsayers and other pessimists to kindly shut up!)
_________________________________________

Pakistan's circular history
By M Ilyas Khan
BBC News

The story of Pakistan is one of remorseless tug and pull between the civilian and military rulers on the one hand, and the liberal and religious forces on the other.

In the process, the country has failed to become either a democracy, a theocracy or a permanent military dictatorship.

The chief casualties have been the rule of law, the state institutions and the process of national integration, with grave consequences for the civil society.

The eastern wing - now Bangladesh - that housed a majority of the country's population, seceded after a civil war in 1971.

The situation in the rest of the country is just as grim.

The "Talebanisation" of the north-western region is one manifestation of the prevalent disorder; an unending separatist campaign by nationalists in the south-western Balochistan province is another.

Meanwhile, sectarian and ethnic tensions have kept the two largest provinces - namely Punjab, which is the bread-basket of the country, and Sindh, which is its trading and industrial mainstay - perennially instable.

How and why did all this come about?

Hybrid system

The country was born in 1947 with a clean slate and a potential to follow in one of two directions.

It could opt for democracy. It had inherited democratic institutions and experience from the colonial rule, and was itself the creation of a democratic process involving national elections, parliamentary resolutions and a referendum.

Or it could become an Islamic emirate. The Pakistan movement was based on the theory that the Muslims of India were a nation and had a right to separate statehood.

They were granted separate electorate by the British rulers, and used Islamic identity as their main election slogan in 1937 and 1946.

But instead of making a clear choice, the early leaders tried to mix the two, and inadvertently sparked a series of political, legal and religious debacles that define today's Pakistan.

In political terms, democracy has been the first casualty of this hybrid system.

Its foundations were shaken by two controversial decisions made by the country's founder and first Governor-General, Mohammad Ali Jinnah.

He dismissed the Congress-led government of the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) by decree, and instead of ordering fresh elections, appointed a Muslim League leader as the chief minister with the mandate to whip up parliamentary support for himself.

Secondly, he declared to a large Bengali speaking audience in Dhaka, the capital of East Pakistan, that Urdu would be the only state language.

Alienation

The first action created a precedent for Governor-General Ghulam Mohammad, a former bureaucrat, to dismiss the country's first civilian government in 1953.

Since then, the governor-generals, presidents and army chiefs have dismissed as many as ten civilian governments that together ruled the country for 27 years. The remaining 33 years have seen direct military rule.

Mr Jinnah's second action alienated the Bengali population of the eastern wing, and set a precedent for the West Pakistani rulers to neutralise the numerical superiority of East Pakistan through legal entrapments and outright disenfranchisement.

After the secession of East Pakistan in 1971, the military rulers have repeatedly vitiated the federal and parliamentary character of the 1973 Constitution, thereby alienating the three smaller provinces of the remaining country.

Legal safeguards against tyranny fell by the wayside in 1954 when the Supreme Court justified the governor-general's dismissal of the government and the parliament by invoking the controversial 'theory of necessity'.

The theory has endured, and nearly every dismissal of a civilian government and every military takeover have been upheld by the higher judiciary, undermining democratic traditions.

On their part, the military rulers have co-opted both surrogate politicians and religious extremists as instruments of political strategy and national security policy.

The political recruits have provided a civilian façade to military governments, while religious - and sometimes ethnic - extremists have tended to distract and destabilise governments run by secular political forces.

Aid to dictators

Last, but not least, the Americans have tended to use their crucial financial and military support selectively against democratic governments.

The pattern is unmistakably clear.

The first large-scale American food and military aid started to pour into Pakistan in late 1953, months after the dismissal of its first civilian government.

It continued for a decade as Pakistan under a military regime joined various US-sponsored defence pacts against the Soviet Union.

The US started having problems with Pakistan when an elected government came to power in 1972, but poured billions of dollars into the country when another military regime took over in 1977 and agreed to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Similarly, while the elected governments that followed during 1988-99 had to live with a decade of US sanctions, the military regime of Gen Musharraf, that ousted the last civilian government in 1999, remains a 'well supplied' ally in the US' 'war on terror'.

There are, however, indications that the Americans may finally be getting fed up with Gen Musharraf, just as they got fed up with General Ayub Khan when he started to warm up to the Soviet Union after the 1965 war with India, or of General Zia-ul Haq when the Soviets decided to withdraw troops from Afghanistan in 1987.

There is also a gathering political storm on the horizon, in keeping with the cyclical pattern of the country's political weather.

As elections approach, exiled leaders Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, both former prime ministers, threaten to return to the country with the express aim of effecting a regime change.

But Gen Musharraf, like his predecessors, is fighting to keep his military office and his special powers under the constitution to dismiss governments and parliaments.

Thus, the story of Pakistan continues to be one of despotic regimes using religious extremists and external support to keep the secular democratic forces at bay; and when these forces do assert themselves, to tie them down in legal constraints that are designed to ensure their failure.

It is the story of a society that has been going round in circles for the last 60 years.

Pakistan

UK & US: Musharraf "an Accident-Prone Incompetent"

2007-08-12T00:42:00.000-07:00

Today's Sunday Times (UK) has this to say:

...Britain and the United States warned Musharraf they would abandon him if he does not give way to an elected prime minister.

The warning was made by Condoleezza Rice, the American secretary of state, and senior western diplomats in a flurry of overnight phone calls last week that forced Musharraf to ditch plans to impose a state of emergency. Rice’s intervention was made at 2am on Thursday morning, just hours before the emergency was due to be announced, and reflected growing American and European frustration with Musharraf’s rule, despite his role as a crucial ally in the war on terror.

Britain and America believe the emergency plan was aimed at postponing parliamentary elections and allowing Musharraf to continue as both army chief and president without a legal challenge. They feared it would jeopardise their efforts to speed the return of Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, another exiled former prime minister.

The general quickly abandoned his plan, and his government later released a statement confirming his commitment to elections, but the damage had been done. Senior diplomats said Britain and America now regard Musharraf as an accident-prone incompetent who created the crisis engulfing him.

________________________________________

By the by, for the past few years your Blogger has repeatedly maintained that Musharraf was an arrogant, egotistical incompetent. Happily, I no longer find myself preaching in the wilderness.

Pakistan
Musharraf
Declaration of Emergency

Divorce + Desertions = Emergency

2007-08-11T23:34:00.000-07:00

There are many still around who keep wondering why Musharaf was in such a rush to impose a state of emergency in Pakistan

Here is your Blogger’s version as to why.

By now we all know that the Commando General is in a spot and is desperate to stay in power. With his hullabalooed deal with Benazir in sudden doubt - constitutional uncertainties aside - the only option left for him is to get the existing assemblies to ‘re-elect’ him.

The reality is that now even this fraudulent path to re-election is under threat. To get re-elected he still requires a majority of votes from the existing assemblies.

While Javaid Hashmi, the recently released PML(N) leader, may have exaggerated somewhat when he claimed:

that half of the ruling PML(Q) members had submitted with him their resignations and he would use them at an appropriate time.

The fact remains that many of the dubiously elected rats from the so-called ‘King Party’ are now eager to flee Musharraf’s sinking ship.

The panicky Gujju Chaudhries are acutely aware of these wholesale desertions and dread the idea of Nawaz Sharif’s returning with the Supreme Court’s consent. With the Sharif brothers presence in Lahore these desertions would turn into an unstoppable torrent, burying any hopes of Musharraf’s re-election through the existing assemblies with them.

So today’s newspaper headline come as little surprise:

Exiled leaders’ return can cause turmoil: Musharraf

ISLAMABAD: The return of leaders currently living abroad can cause turmoil in the country, leading to instability, President Pervez Musharraf declared on Saturday.

He said that a stable situation was a must for holding general elections. “It would not be proper if disturbances continue as there should be stability in the run-up of the elections,” he asserted.

In Commando General-speak:
‘stability’ means Musharraf in power
‘turmoil’ means Musharraf kicked out of power.

Pakistan
Musharraf
Declaration of Emergency

Views from Pakistan’s press

2007-08-10T10:32:00.001-07:00

Here are some excerpts from today’s Pakistani newspapers that were compiled by the BBC South Asia website.

_________________________________________

Papers in Pakistan express relief at official denials that the government is planning to impose a state of emergency.
Most are suspicious of the motives that could have prompted President Pervez Musharraf to consider such a move, with one paper saying it would have been "a recipe for disaster".

The Nation
Better sense prevailed... [A state of emergency] would not only have met with resistance but also proved to be a recipe for disaster.

The News
Even a lay observer can tell that the real motive behind imposing the emergency would be to give the president some breathing space and to fend off any legal challenge to his plans for re-electing himself... The decision to impose an emergency in the country cannot be justified on any ground - moral, legal or constitutional - and would only serve to destabilise the country.

Daily Times
The timing of the move is wrong... It suggests that Gen Musharraf is putting his own mundane personal interest above the national interest... The way out is not an emergency but free and fair general elections that return the mandate to the people to whom it belongs.

Dawn
The threats facing the nation are grave, and only a government armed with a mandate from the people - a mandate secured through a fair and free election - can stem the tide of extremism and meet the threats to Pakistan's sovereignty.

Nawa-i-Waqt
It is a good thing that the country remains safe from the curse of emergency rule. One positive aspect of this is that the country will also be spared a new confrontation between the government and the judiciary and its possible repercussions. This will also pave the way for the restoration of democracy.

Ausaf
If the president imposes a state of emergency in the country, the political confrontation will intensify... President Musharraf needs to avoid taking such a decision, or his image both inside the country and abroad will be damaged.

Jang
If there is any need to impose emergency rule for some particular purpose, it should be confined to those reasons so that the process of stabilising democratic institutions... is not impeded.

Islam
The imposition of a state of emergency would prove to be a final blunder on the part of the government... It is better for the government to take the nation into its confidence through parliament before going ahead with any such step. If it exacerbates the situation even further, the government itself will be the main loser.

_________________________________________

Pakistan
Musharraf
Declaration of Emergency

UK Papers Lambaste Musharraf

2007-08-09T22:15:00.001-07:00

Three of UK's leading newspapers have taken Musharraf to task over the emergency proclamation that was abandoned at the very last minute.

______________________________________________

The Daily Telegraph: In Pakistan power ebbs away from Musharraf

Every day he and his small coterie of generals thrash around trying to find a way out of the deep political impasse they find themselves in, but there seems to be none.

After eight years in power Gen Musharraf, who is also army chief, is battling for his political survival, refusing to yield power to civilians and yet unable to exert the authority to rule what is fast becoming an anarchic nation armed with nuclear weapons.

Yesterday Gen Musharraf and his inner coterie considered taking the hard line by imposing a state of emergency which would have suspended fundamental rights, placed restrictions on the Supreme Court and delayed elections.

The week before they pursued the appeasement line, trying to strike a deal with Gen Musharraf's once hated enemy Benazir Bhutto.

The week before that it was all about coaxing support from President George W Bush. But nothing is working.

There is still no done deal with Ms Bhutto and yesterday after the army's civilian allies threatened to desert Gen Musharraf if an emergency were declared, the generals called off the idea - for the time being.

Mr Bush's words of support have been drowned out in a litany of accusations by US presidential candidates from the Democrat party that Gen Musharraf is double dealing the US on al-Qa'eda.

The tragedy is that Gen Musharraf is hell bent on preserving power come what may and the army is so far backing him.

…For too long the US and Britain have pandered to military rule in Pakistan and any further attempts to do so will ensure that millions of liberal Pakistanis come to hate the West.
______________________________________________

The Guardian - Leader: State of many emergencies

Like a football manager declaring that he had the full confidence of the club chairman, President Pervez Musharraf's announcement that he was committed to holding free and fair elections in Pakistan was not so much meaningless as ominous. If, as his aides claimed, he has rejected the option of declaring a state of emergency, why had the same people flagged up the possibility so vociferously 24 hours earlier? Why did the general pull out of a peace conference in Kabul at the last minute? And what was the subject of the midnight conversation he had had with the US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice? Even by Pakistan's standards, it was a hot and heavy day for an unpopular general clinging on to power.

…[A] more obvious theory for the vacillation was that it was just another symptom of the disarray in which Pakistan's military leader finds himself. He is floundering around, unable to find a political remedy for his problems. Time is running out if he wants to find a constitutional means to fulfil his desire to continue both as head of the army and as president: the mandate of parliament expires in mid-November. It is one of five bodies that forms an electoral college which choses the next president. .. So the political crunch is written into the calendar: between mid September and mid October. Unfortunately, every lever the general has considered pulling - such as a pact with Benazir Bhutto, the second exiled opposition leader, and one with whom he has held secret talks - would exert an equal and opposite force on the desired result. For the situation is so volatile that the mere return of Mr Sharif or Ms Bhutto to the country could in itself change the dynamics of the general's dilemma.

If there are few options for the general, there are even fewer for the US, other than to pray that their best friend in the region will muddle through. Washington's embrace may prove to be the general's undoing and it might be wiser to consider a power-sharing solution which bolsters, rather than undermines , the nation's institutions. The old dogma of Pakistan's army, that the country fares better under its generals than its politicians, is no longer true.
______________________________________________

The Times - Leader: Musharraf on the Brink

Declaring a state of emergency would be a disaster for Pakistan
Pakistan’s Minister of Information said on Wednesday that President Musharraf’s abrupt decision not to attend a long-planned grand assembly of Pakistani and Afghan tribal leaders in Kabul was because of the “difficult circumstances” in Pakistan, which, he suggested, could lead to emergency rule. Yesterday, as rumours swept Islamabad, the head of General Musharraf’s Pakistan Muslim League swiftly played down the suggestion. If the embattled President was flying a kite, the reaction should be an obvious warning. However volatile Pakistan’s political and security situation appears now, a state of emergency would be a political and diplomatic disaster.

His present difficulties are largely self-created. The general’s coup in 1999 was initially welcomed by almost all Pakistanis, angered by corruption, stagnation and the bickering of venal politicians. To the outside world, he also seemed the best hope of stamping out corruption, confronting Islamist extremists and easing the tense stand-off with India. After 9/11 he also became a vital ally of the West, especially of America, in the fight against terrorism and the Taleban. But gradually he has alienated key constituencies, some worth confronting, others which should have been courted. His crackdown on Islamist militants has angered a swath of extremists, from pro-Taleban tribesmen in North West Frontier Province to antiIndian fighters in Kashmir. His failure to settle separatist grievances in Baluchistan and sectarian rivalries in Karachi has left large areas in quasi-rebellion against Islamabad. His anticorruption campaign and prevarication over a return to civilian rule have upset resentful political powerbrokers. And, more recently, his ill-judged dismissal of the Chief Justice and attempt to crack down on the press have caused uproar among the middle class. All have separate grievances, but General Musharraf’s often inept approach has united many in opposition to his rule.

It is, however, his insistence on standing again for office while refusing to step down as head of the army that has brought the present crisis to a head. He bases his legitimacy on a referendum result that was ratified by a Parliament which, thanks to his institution of corruption investigations against opponents, is largely under his control. That Parliament is due to be reelected next month. Before it is dissolved, however, President Musharraf wants it to reelect him for a further term, a decision he wants confirmed by the new Parliament. Despite denials, he has been discussing a deal with Benazir Bhutto, the exiled leader of the Pakistan People’s Party, that would deliver her party’s votes for his presidency.

The sticking point is his refusal to doff his uniform. He clearly has doubts about the loyalty of both the army and the ISI intelligence agency, both of which have been infiltrated by Islamists, and fears (based perhaps on his own example) that any new army head might harbour political ambitions. He argues to his American supporters that Pakistan faces a challenge by extremists, and that he must remain in power to fight them.

He is wrong on all counts. Islamist militants command little popular support: it was not the storming of the Red Mosque that brought crowds on to the street but the dismissal of the Chief Justice. Pakistan needs investment, education and civil society. General Musharraf should resign from the army, appeal to the middle class, seek political compromise and run on his otherwise commendable record. In the absence of any credible political opponent, he might still win.

______________________________________________

Pakistan
Musharraf
Declaration of Emergency

Wobbly Knees at 2 am?

2007-08-09T06:35:00.000-07:00

Your Blogger is pretty sure that Musharraf was going to declare an emergency at 3 am (or so) this morning. It was signed, sealed and ready to be delivered, but then something made him change his mind at the very last moment.

And what was that something?

Most probably it was that 17 minute conversation Musharraf had with Condi Rice at around 2 am.

Condi Rice is as tough as they come. After all, not that long ago, she reduced our Saville Row-suited gigolo Shaukat “I can conquer any woman in two minutes” Aziz to a babbling wreck. So, other than by shooting at the telephone with his ever ready Glock pistol, our commando general had little option but to yield to the coiffured battle-axe from DC.

So suddenly the storyline has changed.

Just last night it was being touted that emergency was the need of the hour because of:

“1. Threats from United States to attack so called terrorist targets and growing terrorist activities in Pakistan.

2. General law and order situation in NWFP and Balochistan.

3. Killing and kidnapping of Chinese in Pakistan”

And now less than 24 hours later we are being told (as Stratfor reports):

Pakistan: No State Of Emergency
August 09, 2007 11 55 GMT

Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf has decided not to impose a state of emergency despite being pressured to do so by certain political parties, Information Minister Mohammad Ali Durrani said Aug. 9.

Ho Ho and Hum!

Pakistan
Musharraf
Declaration of Emergency

Musharraf’s Desperate Last Move

2007-08-08T11:53:00.000-07:00

According to TV news channels Musharraf will declare a state of emergency in Pakistan in the early hours of 9 August.

The pretext for this move is supposedly the recent statements stemming from the US about unilaterally attacking Al Qaeda safe havens in the tribal belt neighbouring Afghanistan and the unrest caused by religious extremists within the country.

Most of us can see through this patent hogwash. If a decree of emergency is imposed in the country then it is all about protecting his beloved kursi. Facing an independent judiciary which is expected to make two critical rulings (one on the legality of a presidential re-election from the existing assemblies and the other relating to Nawaz Sharif's return to Pakistan) and a general public rebellion against his 8-year rule, the declaration of emergency was the only possible option left open to him. No one thought that he would be self-seeking enough to carry it through but obsession with power has few antidotes.

It is a tragic day for Pakistan.

Musharraf refuses to accept an end to his days in power and we all end up being the price for his obduracy.

Readers don’t’ get disheartened, spring is only just around the corner.Your Blogger is convinced Musharraf is doomed; he will very soon be shown the door.
_____________________________________

Addendum
It is Thursday morning and emergency has yet to be declared. All indications suggest that preparations have been made and the leaking of news of the planned declaration was deliberate and officially orchestrated.

So all we can do is sit and wait to see what happens next.

In the meanwhile it is worth noting that US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice telephoned Musharraf and had a "17-minute conversation that began shortly after 2 a.m. Thursday Pakistan time" (Associated Press).

My guess is that the US State Department will not be overly pleased with the route that Musharraf is currently contemplating, especially in view of the fact that recent US sabre-rattling is being used as one of the pretexts for the imposition of the emergency.

_____________________________________

Pakistan
Musharraf
Declaration of Emergency

Goodies only for the Khakis?

2007-08-08T10:55:00.000-07:00

A reader (I. M. Khalil) today made reference to Frédéric Grare’s (of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace) recent report on the situation in Pakistan. Among the many points raised by Grare the most notable, in your Blogger’s view, was that:

“Of the 10 billion dollars of assistance which Pakistan has received since 9/11, only 900 million has been spent on development, while the rest has been consumed by the military.”

This is simply mind boggling. It shows that our Dictator has spent 91% of the funds provided by the US to keep his uniformed constituency in clover.

Here is a summary of the report:

Frédéric Grare of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace tells the West to get serious about a civilian-led government for Pakistan. The current military government has facilitated the global spread of jihad to an extent that far outweighs its cooperation against terrorism.

The military regime in Pakistan is responsible for the escalation of terror in Kashmir, the growth of international jihad extremism and the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, says Grare. By supporting and training those very forces which NATO is currently fighting, Islamabad’s long-term aim is to force the West to accept its military government as a necessary evil in the fight against radical Islam.

So far, the US has refrained from exerting external pressure on Pervez Musharraf, who toppled the democratically elected government in 1999, even though he has routinely gone against the Pakistani constitution. Two prominent violations include his dual appointment as president and army chief and his suspension of Pakistan’s chief justice. Corruption remains widespread, and has worsened under Musharraf’s tenure. Of the 10 billion dollars of assistance which Pakistan has received since 9/11, only 900 million has been spent on development, while the rest has been consumed by the military.

Recommended Policy Changes
1. Because the existing military regime is the root of the problem, Pakistan should be pressured to return to the civilian-led government stipulated in its constitution. The US can promote further democratic developments in Pakistan by ceasing to campaign against political Islamist parties there. A separation of the military and political functionalities of the presidency could also mean that the US could end up dealing with a democratic government in future which enjoys public support.

2. The US and other countries should set clear cooperation standards for Pakistan and withhold financial aid if these are not met. Such standards would include the elimination of all domestic terrorist infrastructure and the prohibition of military cooperation with the Taliban, the latter to preclude further peace agreements like that reached with tribal Talib in northern Pakistan in 2006.

3. If the first two policies are not sufficient to alter Islamabad’s behaviour, sanctions which target the military elite and not the general population should be imposed. This has successfully worked in the past, especially when withholding weapons from the military.

How It Could Backfire
Any new US stance on Pakistan could set off two major booby traps:

1. The US is unlikely to be able to alter existing policy without spurring at least short-term terrorism in Afghanistan and/or northern Pakistan. A US threat to disengage from Pakistan’s military government or impose sanctions would leave Islamabad with less incentive to crack down on terrorist groups. The shift in enforcement could be interpreted among insurgents, particularly the Taliban, as a victory against the West.

2. The links between the US and Pakistani intelligence agencies are quite tight, as is the cooperation between both countries’ defence ministries. A change in policy could end long-established cooperative efforts such as the routine handover of Taliban fighters to Afghan officials, the deployment of 80,000 Pakistani troops to the country’s Western border to fight the Taliban, and aid to CIA operations hunting terrorist suspects on Pakistani territory who are wanted by the US.

The People’s Responsibility
All of Grare’s policy recommendations are in the service of long-term, ambitious goals that will ultimately depend on the existence of a vibrant civilian leadership to occupy the “political space” they will create. Any increase in action by civil society groups and politically active individuals must originate from the Pakistani society itself. The protests against the suspension of the Chief Justice, led by lawyers all over the country, are an encouraging sign. But Pakistan still has a long way to go, as these demonstrations then turned violent, leaving hundreds dead—not least because of fierce reaction by the police and military.

For the complete report (in PDF) click here: 'Rethinking Western Strategies toward Pakistan: An Action Agenda for the United States and Europe’

Pakistan
Musharraf

Musharraf: Desperately Grasping at Straws?

2007-07-28T07:33:00.000-07:00

Only a few years ago (in June 2004) Musharraf scornfully boasted that he would prefer to “kick” Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif rather than shake hands with them.

Yesterday, the dictator had to eat humble pie. Buffeted by a gale of public disenchantment he clandestinely (but not secretly enough) met with Benazir Bhutto in Abu Dhabi to salvage his future.

On the very day of the meeting The News (Friday, 27 July 2007) reported:

According to sources, Musharraf, during his six-day long discussions with his top military aides in Rawalpindi after the restoration of the chief justice, is said to have been advised that the best thing for him to do is to seek an “honourable exit”.

They said Musharraf did not react to these suggestions for the time being. He is expected to make a decision after his return from Saudi Arabia. He is likely to raise this issue with the Saudis to find a way out of the political “mess” without any loss of face, the sources said.

They said the absence of General Musharraf from public engagements since the historic judgment of the Supreme Court has raised questions in the minds of both politicians and media persons.

The silence of an otherwise articulate Musharraf has given currency to reports that all was not well at the presidency. His decision to visit the UAE and Saudi Arabia without any earlier announced schedule has given rise to the speculations in London that in his last ditch effort Musharraf was trying to seek help of his Saudi friends.

A source revealed that he had received reports from certain government quarters that General Musharraf was not expecting that the Supreme Court would restore the chief justice and with it his chances to get himself re-elected would be buried.

This judgment, he believed, has come as a major shock for Musharraf. It is said that during these six days of “isolation” at his Rawalpindi residence, Musharraf discussed with his top civilian and military aides and friends how to revive hopes of his re-election for next five years.

The sources said there was a consensus in the presidential camp that Musharraf was in such a situation that even the political support of Benazir Bhutto, or any other leader like Maulana Fazlur Rehman, could not bail him out.

He was told that now the ball was in the court of the chief justice of Pakistan. Sources said there was a strong perception among his friends and aides that even if the chief justice wanted to bail Musharraf out, he could not do so because of the high expectations people have developed after his restoration as the top judge.

Musharraf was now at the dead end of the tunnel…

What was obviously overlooked in the report was his intended furtive meeting with the PPP chairperson.

Clearly Musharraf, who is believed to be dependent on a coterie of handpicked advisors who were chosen for their loyalty rather than competence, has been living in a fanciful world of his own creation. The fact he came to firmly believe that the Supreme Court judgment would go in his favour is indicative of this state of delusion.

Right now he must be a bewildered man clutching at any straw to regain his lost authority. On the other hand Benazir Bhutto is known to be a wily political operator. Testing the current wind, she will dangle a line just to see what results from it. She is not rushed for time as she is aware that as each day passes Musharraf becomes all the weaker. Either he will eventually offer what she wants from him, or she will exploit the time and opt for any advantageous alternate opportunity that comes her way.

On the other hand if Benazir Bhutto enters into a deal with the military dictator at the expense of the public mood, she will in due course pay a heavy price for her opportunism. Never in the 60 year history of Pakistan has the public been so galvanised against the army's involvement in politics; and if she helps prop up a drowning Musharraf, Bhutto's perceived act of betrayal will not be forgiven by most Pakistanis.
______________________________________

An Addendum

Subsequent to posting the blog I came across Stratfor largely reflecting similar views to mine:

Stratfor has been saying for several months now that the Musharrafian state is in the process of unraveling. As per our prediction, Musharraf now must seek the help of mainstream political forces to deal with the growing crisis of governance and an Islamist insurgency. Moreover, the recent tensions with Washington over the U.S. threats to engage in unilateral military action against jihadists in the country's northwest -- which quickly followed the restoration of the Supreme Court's chief justice -- seem to have been the last straw.

There also were reports July 27 that Musharraf's corps commanders and agency heads have asked him to step down, another development we had anticipated. Stepping down does not necessarily mean that Musharraf would leave the political scene altogether. Rather he likely will be forced to relinquish the post of army chief and try to stay on as a civilian president while sharing powers with a coalition government led by Bhutto following parliamentary elections.

At this stage it is unclear whether Musharraf will be successful in his efforts to reach a compromise -- as these efforts could be too little and too late.

______________________________________

Pakistan
Benazir Bhutto
Musharraf

SC Decision & It's Aftermath

2007-07-27T06:37:00.000-07:00

Few people expected the Supreme Court verdict in the CJ case to be so overwhelmingly positive. Reports suggest that Musharraf, having been misled by his intelligence agencies, believed till the last moment that there would be a split judgment in his favour. While those in the CJ’s camp assumed that he would be reinstated with a long list of conditionalities attached to his restoration.

As the Friday Times editorial opined today:

Whatever they may say, the fact is that neither the government, nor the lawyers and supporters of the CJP, expected such a resounding verdict. Indeed, the government’s intelligence agencies had told it to expect 8-5 in favour while the friends of the CJP thought he would be restored only with some restraining conditions.

Faced with an independent judiciary the bells are now loudly tolling for Musharraf. It is no longer a question of whether he is going but when.

Perhaps his only remaining option is to impose martial law, get rid of this sham of a government, and openly declare himself as the military dictator that he has always been. But then even his supporters oppose this idea. As the Daily Times reported yesterday:

Army may not back martial law: Afgan
ISLAMABAD: The army will not necessarily support President General Pervez Musharraf if he tries to impose martial law in Pakistan, said Parliamentary Affairs Minister Sher Afgan Niazi on Wednesday. The minister made clear he did not support martial law. “If I sensed the president was going to impose martial law, I would quit as I can’t support any unconstitutional act of the president,” he told Daily Times in his office.

While your Blogger expects Musharraf’s days in power to be clearly numbered, the future for whoever replaces him remains decidedly uninviting. Unfortunately for Pakistan, eight years of Musharraf’s harsh, arrogant and intolerant approach towards the body politic has rendered the country virtually unmanageable.

As Aitzaz Ahsan recently commented:

“Anyone who wants to step into the shoes of General Musharraf, or who wants to get into a partnership with him, must remember that General Musharraf has made this country practically ungovernable. He presides over complete anarchy and absence of law.”

But having said this, there is no accounting for Benazir Bhutto. If she gives Musharraf a chance to breathe, and comes into government through the back door, she will have to pay the price for her dishonesty. Perhaps not today, but sometime in the near future she will be answerable to the people of Pakistan – including her supporters - for ditching democracy in return for getting off scot-free against the charges of money laundering in the Swiss Courts of Justice.

___________________________________________

So what is making Pakistan ungovernable?

Here is your Bloggers version:

1. The Great Disparity of Wealth

While the rich elite of Pakistan troll around the streets in their BMWs and Land Cruisers and living in multi-million dollar luxury residences, millions of their countrymen live in a state of desperate poverty, many without access to drinking water, two square meals a day and education for their children. The great disparity of wealth is no longer in the rural areas but in the cities. Simply put in eight years of Musharraf’s rule the urban rich have got obscenely rich beyond their dreams and the unfortunate poor have just become poorer.

The bogus theory of trickle down wealth is basically just that: Bogus.

How can the poor benefit if all the money has been made in share market, property or sugar scams? Also how can they benefit if this wealth is then spent in the import of high-priced cars, premium whiskey, luxury goods and overseas trips.

Impoverishment has encouraged many of the rural poor to send their children to religious seminaries where they are fed for free. In return the children are often indoctrinated with a harsh and intolerant version of Islam. And so, potential Jihadis are being created in their thousands every year.

In the urban areas crime has soared. Armed robberies of homes and car hijackings are common occurrences in the urban areas. Some of these criminals display open hatred for the well-to-do, rape of some of the unfortunate victims is sadly becoming all too common.

2. The Authoritarian nature of the State.

Suffice to say that from the very inception of Pakistan the average citizen has had little say in the affairs of his country. Pakistan was ruled initially by haughty bureaucrats inherited from the British Raj and then by a series of Army generals. In between we had the odd civilian and even these people proved to be bullying despots by nature. ZA Bhutto attempted to brutally stub out all his political opponents. Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto, whilst hampered by overbearing generals, exuded little tolerance for diverging points of view from either the press or the judiciary – and, of course, police would regularly be used by them to ‘knock sense’ into their political opponents.

On the other hand the rich elite have been able to bypass the authoritarian nature of the state by using their wealth, influence and the ever-present social network, which enables them achieve their business or career goals while remaining mostly above the law.

At the same time over a hundred and fifty million of the hapless non-rich and the non-influential have remained victims of the rapaciously dishonest officials, whether they be members of police or petty bureaucracy.

Some may suggest that these poor do get to exercise their rights at election time. This view clearly overlooks the reality that virtually all our recent elections have been rigged by the military agencies. Just recently Musharraf had the audacity of offering to "adjust the vote" in Benazir Bhutto’s favour as long as she accepted his terms.

This state of power disenfranchisement has created a political pressure cooker, which is now probably ready to burst. Your Blogger is certain that if Musharraf foolishly carries on with his plan to rig the 2007 elections the streets of Pakistan will implode thereafter.

3. The Centralist State

All power has rested in the twin cities of Islamabad/Rawalpindi. Despite promises made by successive rulers of devolving power from the centre to the provinces, in reality the reverse has happened. Currently all power in Pakistan is centred in the hands of a President/Army Chief/Chairman National Security Council, what the future holds remains uncertain.

It goes without saying that the smaller provinces of Sindh, Balochistan and NWFP have been demanding greater power for their elected provincial representatives for over four decades but to no avail. Their demands are not unjustified, take for example the following fact: Balochistan was receiving a royalty of Rs. 26 per million cubic feet of gas, while Punjab was receiving between Rs 80 and Rs. 190 for the same measure.

Right now Balochistan is in the throes of a Musharraf created rebellion. The military has admitted using F16 bombers, dozens of helicopter gunships and heavy artillery in an attempt to suppress Baloch insurgents. While Musharraf refers to these people as traitors, in reply many Baloch ironically deem Musharraf’s use of overwhelming force to be treasonous and anti-state.

While there is no insurgency in the interior of Sindh, the mood is tinged with anger. And there are few takers for Islamabad in NWFP, neither among the nationalist nor the religious parties.

Musharraf’s foolishness in so completely alienating the Baloch, means there is a good chance of Pakistan unravelling at some future stage.

4. Religious Extremism

Our India-centric GHQ has played a major role in creating religious extremism in Pakistan. After the success of the Afghan Jihad against the Soviets, our military geniuses adopted a similar policy to liberate Kashmir by using deniable proxies to wage war on their behalf.

The rise of the Ayatollahs in Iran led to a massive Saudi funding of Wahabi seminaries in Pakistan. GHQ happily recruited these Madrassah-educated extremist groupings in Kashmir and later in Afghanistan in pursuance of its policy seeking strategic-depth against India.

Some of these fanatics started killing hundreds of Shias and other minorities as ‘apostates’ and the Pakistani police found themselves helpless, for as soon as they detained a few, orders would come from high above to have them released.

Soon after 9/11 the GHQ’s policies lay in tatters.

It was now blowback time. The thousands of angered extremists have begun rounding up against Islamabad for its perceived betrayal. Caught between the devil and the deep blue sea, Musharraf has been trying to appease them, while at the same time acting as the US’s policemen against Al Qaeda and other foreign militants.

However, as far as Pakistan is concerned, the real danger stems from local extremists and until the recent carnage at Lal Masjid little was done to stem this tide of intolerant fanaticism.
___________________________________________

In Conclusion

Musharraf’s successor has a tough job ahead. The body fabric of the state has been imperilled by an immensely incompetent dictator. The task ahead is extremely complex and difficult. We need a leader to unify and bring justice for the civil society – and that includes all 165 million of us (and not just for the rapacious ruling elite) – and using the goodwill of the majority of Pakistanis to stem the tide of fanaticism as well as sending our back the Army to their original and only task – to defend our borders.

Pakistan

Supreme Court of Pakistan

Lal Masjid

2007-07-26T05:30:00.000-07:00

Much has happened since I last blogged.

Since then we have had to behold the dreadful Lal Masjid catastrophe in Islamabad, which was followed a week later by a momentous judgment from the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

Perhaps it is time your Blogger attempted to come to grips with the violent finale at the mosque at Islamabad.

__________________________________________________

The Lal Masjid - which happened to be located only a few blocks away from the ISI headquarters – was widely recognized for having provided, over the years, shelter to various groupings of Sunni extremists.

It is not all that long ago that Musharraf attempted to enlighten the world about the distinction between the regular terrorist and the Pakistani ‘freedom fighter’. According to Musharraf’s yardstick Al-Qaeda and its associates were terrorist organisations, while all the Sunni extremists fighting our proxy wars in Kashmir and elsewhere – groups such as Jaish-e-Muhammad and Lashkar-e-Toyiba – were ‘freedom fighters’ resisting the might of pitiless occupiers.

And yes, despite the military regime's avowed aim of cleansing Pakistan from all forms of terrorism, exceptions were always made. As BBC recently noted:

Many of Pakistan's top militants - including those suspected of plotting to assassinate the country's leaders - are known to have once been members of the myriad militant organisations engaged in Kashmir.

Yet they appear to have been totally exempted from the [anti-terrorist] campaign.

Even in cases where high profile Kashmir-related militants have been arrested, the government has shown little interest in pursuing their prosecution.

It is true that British born Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh is in jail. He is currently contesting his conviction in the murder of Wall Street reporter Daniel Pearl.

But most militants linked to Kashmir have been spared altogether.

Leaders of three of Pakistan's largest militant organisations engaged in Kashmir - Lashkar-e-Toyeba, Jaish-e-Mohammed and Harkatul Mujahideen - roam free to this day and are reportedly in touch with their cadres.

During the Lal Masjid siege even Musharraf was forced to concede that most of the militants holed up inside the mosque belonged to the supposedly banned bunch of ‘freedom fighters’, namely the Jaish-e-Muhammad (Army of Muhammed).

At the time of the siege many questions were openly raised by the media and others. As BBC then commented:

But what makes Lal Masjid of special interest to the media is the alleged involvement of Pakistani security agencies in its affairs.

It is generally believed that the mosque administration has powerful friends within Pakistan's security apparatus…

In view of a history of the mullahs close connections to the ‘authorities’ the questions being raised after the disastrous and bloody conclusion are:

- Why were these mullahs allowed to hold sway and intimidate ordinary citizens for so long?

- Despite heavy security precautions prevalent in the capital city, how did the inhabitants of the mosque obtain stocks of gas masks, machine guns, anti-tank mines, incendiary explosives, rocket-propelled grenades, recoilless rifles, dozens of AK-47 assault rifles, pistols and two-way radios.

- Why was there this noticeable coincidence of the mullahs of the mosque indulging in dramatic headline seeking activity every time there was an upsurge in the news coverage of Chief Justice’s case?

- What was the need for the attacking troops to carry out such a horrendous mass slaughter?

- Why the media was not allowed access to the destroyed mosque for two days after the army's strangely appropriate named operation 'Silence'? (This led many members of the general public to wonder if there were too many skeletons hidden in the Lal Masjid cupboard?).

It is now widely believed that Musharraf decided to act after receiving a severe reprimand from Beijing. As the Daily Times reported on 29 June 2007:

The federal interior minister, Aftab Ahmad Khan Sherpao, during his visit to Beijing, got an earful from the Chinese minister of public security, Zhou Yongkang Zhou, who asked Pakistan for the umpteenth time to protect Chinese nationals working in Pakistan. The reference was to the assault and kidnapping of Chinese citizens in Islamabad by the Lal Masjid vigilantes. The Chinese minister called the Lal Masjid mob “terrorists” who targeted the Chinese, and asked Pakistan to punish the “criminals”.

Given these circumstances your Blogger is of the opinion that there had been a symbiotic relationship between the regime’s agents and the mullahs of the mosque. But as can happen in such cases, this alliance caused the empowered party, in this case the mullahs, to become more and more bombastic as time went by. Finally their ill-considered highhanded activities led to a point where they were damaging rather than propping up the regime.

The Pakistani military establishment serves only its own interests. It has a history of ruthlessly severing off connections from anyone past their sell by date. Just ask the members of the agency-created MQM (Haqiqi) or the handpicked police officers who helped round up the MQM men during the period of violent upheaval in Karachi during the mid-1990s. When Musharraf needed to make a political alliance with MQM, these Haqiqi party members and Police SHOs were left out completely unprotected in the cold and many, if not most, were subsequently gunned down at will.

And so in early July, despite the fact that a deal to end the siege was almost complete, Musharraf, after months of prevaricating, ordered his men to wipe out the militants of Lal Majid.

Why then? Because it obviously suited him to do so. Caught between a rock and a hard place, as he is these days, Musharraf will do anything that prevents his kursi from tottering too visibly.

And yet once again he botched it up badly.

Lal Masjid

Pakistan

Musharraf's 'beloved' Agencies

2007-06-24T00:21:00.000-07:00

Life for those opposed to Musharraf's regime can be a terrible ordeal.

A few days ago Dawn published a report of what the MI has been doing to Baloch nationalists. Some of the tortures inflicted on these Pakistani citizens is eerily reminiscent of the vicious dictatorships of South America of the 1970s.

Pinochet was humiliatingly hounded by human rights groups right up to his death. With the new wind of change in Pakistan let us hope that Musharraf suffers a similar fate.

_______________________________________

Dawn: When one’s house is not a sanctuary

By Reema Abbasi

THE scene in Awaran village near Mashkay district in Balochistan is one of mourning. Almost every home wears a pall of grief. A young Ali Akber sits in the hostile heat of a dark hovel and tries to console a newly-wed bride and an old mother. His brother Munir Mengal went missing on April 4, 2006, upon arrival from Bahrain at Karachi Airport. Mengal is just one of many whose identity threatens his life.

“He was running a Balochi channel called Baloch Voice. When we went to report the case, we were told that an FIR cannot be registered against an agency so we had to file a petition in the Sindh High Court,” recounts a helpless Ali.

Ali Akber, along with his family, has taken a 100-day hunger strike to Khuzdar, Kalat, Karachi and Islamabad but remains without his brother. “The first phone call came on December 28, 2006, from the Military Intelligence (MI) to say that they will allow two women to meet Munir,” says Akber.

“My mother went with her elder brother to see him. Eight people dressed as civilians brought him and the meeting lasted for two and a half hours in the airport restaurant,” he continues.

Ali Akber says that the officials with Munir asked the family to withdraw their case. “My mother wanted to withdraw it the next day but the judge said that he would reserve it for 20 days and reopen it if he was not returned.”

“The MI called again and changed their demand. They said that we should give an application stating that the agencies did not abduct my brother but Akhter Mengal’s clan was responsible for it. This was a very difficult time but we decided against it,” says a tearful Akber.

The family has not heard from Munir again and the case continues. “My mother has been very ill and bed-ridden for four months. My sister-in-law, who married Munir just two months before he was taken away, and I have not sat for our exams. We heard some weeks ago that he had been taken to Rawalpindi from Karachi,” he says.

Munir and hundreds of others were gone in a heartbeat. Picked up from obscure streets or yanked out of their homes, these men are not safe anywhere. When the blindfold comes off, most find themselves in dark, damp cells with blood on the walls, where whips of rubber, leather belts and drills are wielded at them. The torment has been indefinite for most.

For Dr Allah Nazar Baloch, it lasted six months where he was stripped naked and hung from the ceiling for hours on end, deprived of sleep for many days and given anaesthesia injections. Baloch returned on a stretcher. He was in hospital for three days and could not stand for two months.

This was easier than Sattar Baloch’s agony. Sattar came back with holes drilled into his feet and many months later, he is still trying to stand. Dr Hanif Shareef was also kept for six months and says that it is unlikely that he will ever lead a normal life. “They gave electric currents to my genitals and I have not recovered in so many months,” cries Shareef.

Kazim Bugti, nazim of Dera Bugti, was picked up on November 22, 2006, when he came to meet his mother in Karachi and his whereabouts remain unknown. Former detainees say they have heard him crying for his medicines.

“Munir said that he had not seen any light for five months and was given food only once a day,” remembers Ali Akber.

However, Brigadier Javed Iqbal Cheema of the National Crisis Cell dismisses such stories as incorrect. “The government does not believe in maltreatment of those who have been confined, extrajudicial custody, or illegal confinement. Nobody has come to us with complaints of torture,” says Cheema.

Zafar Jan, a member of the central organisation committee of Jamhoori Watan Party (JWP) says that in the last three years, a large number of people went missing but not one has appeared in court. “Those who have returned say there are innumerable people there. They have a Kuli camp in Quetta and two camps in Karachi. One is in Cantonment and the other is in Malir Cantt,” says Jan.

Jan claims that the camp in Quetta is far crueler than the ones in Karachi and people are tortured to own up to being a part of the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA). Sher Mohammed Baloch is one of many kidnapped by the authorities. “He was in a rally and taken away in front of the entire public but officials blatantly deny it.”

Jan maintains that most of the victims belong to the JWP, Baloch Students Organisation or to the Bugti or Marri belt. “Many, like Gohram Saleh who was a driver, have nothing to do with politics but have not been spared.”

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) claims that out of the 99 complaints registered in 2006, 73 were Baloch and maintains that 70 per cent of these people are not ‘jihadis’. “We have 400 complaints from all over the country and out of these, 340 are Baloch,” says Ejaz Hassan of HRCP.

So far, approximately 10 Balochs have been released. The highest number of disappearances occurred in 2006 with 93 cases and 35 cases were reported in 2005. Interestingly, the Baluchvoice website records 262 abductees.

Cheema, on the other hand, calls HRCP records ‘scanty’. “There are no addresses and parentage of many people and only their names and provinces are mentioned, so how can we embark on a wild goose chase in so many cases,” he says. “Out of all those who were missing and not specifically Balochs, approximately 108 have been traced out.”

But an irate Jamil Bugti says: “It is a war zone. This is ethnic cleansing on a smaller scale. There is no way to obtain real figures because most people are afraid to report a case. Many a time, those who go to the police station do not return either.”

Bugti also recounts meeting Rauf Sasoli, an activist of the JWP. Sasoli was recently released by the spy services. “The man is destroyed. He is like a zombie because of the torture inflicted on him,” comments Bugti.

The spy arm’s bid to quell the impending insurgency in Balochistan seems to have swept up more innocents than suspected dissidents. But despite dismal returns, numbers continue to grow by the day.

For most, the safest place to fall foul of the law would be home. But for those whose greatest crime is to belong to an area rooted in bitter conflict, even this is not an option.

Pakistan
Balochistan

Darth Vader Running Pak-US Policy?

2007-06-23T15:08:00.000-07:00

Having come down with a bothersome bug your Blogger has been laid low for the past few days. One of the few things that he managed to read was a piece written by Ahmed Rashid which appeared over a week ago in the Washington Post.

Interestingly, Rashid informs us that US policy towards Pakistan is being currently being directed by none other than the "Darth Vader" of American politics: Dick Cheney.

With such a rabid idealogue in command, it comes as no surprise that the US is so out of synch with the current realities in Pakistan.

______________________________________

The General in his Labyrinth

America's Bad Deal With Musharraf, Going Down In Flames
Friday, June 22, 2007
By Ahmed Rashid LAHORE, Pakistan, Special to The Washington Post

Pakistan is on the brink of disaster, and the Bush administration is continuing to back the man who dragged it there. As President Pervez Musharraf fights off the most serious challenge to his eight-year dictatorship, the United States is supporting him to the hilt. The message to the Pakistani public is clear: To the Bush White House, the war on terrorism tops everything, and that includes democracy.

The crisis began on March 9, when Musharraf suspended Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, the chief justice of the supreme court, who bravely threatened Musharraf's plans to consolidate his power. That triggered street protests demanding Musharraf's resignation, which were met by a government-led crackdown on lawyers, the opposition and the media. Thousands of lawyers nationwide, looking like penguins in their courtroom black suits and white shirts, braved police batons and the heat to lead marches. They were joined by women's groups, journalists and the opposition. For the first time in two decades, Pakistan's civil society has taken to the streets.

The roots of the crisis go back to the blind bargain Washington made after 9/11 with the regime that had heretofore been the Taliban's main patron: ignoring Musharraf's despotism in return for his promises to crack down on al-Qaida and cut loose the Taliban. Today, despite US$10 billion in U.S. aid to Pakistan since 2001, that bargain lies in tatters; the Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan, and al-Qaida's senior leadership has set up another haven inside Pakistan's chaotic border regions.

The problem is exacerbated by a dramatic drop-off in U.S. expertise on Pakistan. Retired American officials say that, for the first time in U.S. history, nobody with serious Pakistan experience is working in the South Asia bureau of the State Department, on State's policy planning staff, on the National Security Council staff or even in Vice President Cheney's office. Anne W. Patterson, the new U.S. ambassador to Islamabad, is an expert on Latin American "drugs and thugs"; Richard A. Boucher, the assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asian affairs, is a former department spokesman who served three tours in Hong Kong and China but never was posted in South Asia. "They know nothing of Pakistan," a former senior U.S. diplomat said.

Current and past U.S. officials tell me that Pakistan policy is essentially being run from Cheney's office. The vice president, they say, is close to Musharraf and refuses to brook any U.S. criticism of him. This all fits; in recent months, I'm told, Pakistani opposition politicians visiting Washington have been ushered in to meet Cheney's aides, rather than taken to the State Department.

No one at Foggy Bottom seems willing to question Cheney's decisions. Boucher, for one, has largely limited his remarks on the crisis to expressions of support for Musharraf. Current and retired U.S. diplomats tell me that throughout the previous year, Boucher refused to let the State Department even consider alternative policies if Musharraf were threatened with being ousted, even though 2007 is an election year in Pakistan. Last winter, Boucher reportedly limited the scope of a U.S. government seminar on Pakistan for fear that it might send a signal that U.S. support for Musharraf was declining. Likewise, I'm told, he has refused to meet with leading opposition figures such as former prime ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, whom Musharraf has exiled. (Boucher says he has met with "people across the full political spectrum of Pakistan" during his nine visits there, from government parties to Islamic radicals to Chaudhry's lawyer.) Meanwhile, Boucher's boss, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, demands democracy and media freedom in Venezuela but apparently deems such niceties irrelevant to Pakistan.

With Cheney in charge and Rice in eclipse, rumblings of alarm at the Defense Department and the CIA can be heard. While neither agency is usually directly concerned with decision-making on Pakistan, both boast officers with far greater expertise than the White House and State Department crew. These officers, many of whom have served in Islamabad or Kabul, understand the double game that Musharraf has played -- helping the United States go after al-Qaida while letting his intelligence services help the Taliban claw their way back in Afghanistan. The Pentagon and the CIA have been privately expressing concern about the lack of an alternative to blind support for Musharraf. Ironically, both departments have historically supported military rulers in Pakistan. They seem to have learned their lesson. It's a pity that those calling the shots have not.

What is at stake? Quite simply, the danger of a civil war or the country unraveling even more dramatically than it did when it lost Bangladesh in 1971.

The establishment that has sustained four military regimes is deeply divided. The judiciary and the legal system are out in the streets, demanding an end to military rule. They are backed by the country's gleeful federal bureaucracy, which resented being shunted aside by Musharraf, and joined by civil society organizations and opposition parties. The protesters' ranks have also been swelled by poor people protesting increases in the price of food and other necessities and shortages of electricity during an already blistering summer.

These dissenters have been joined by an increasingly influential media. During military regimes, the media always grow in stature as they act as the conscience of the people and give voice to political opposition. For the first time, the public can watch demonstrations live on private satellite-TV channels -- something that has bewildered the army's Orwellian thought-control department.

On the opposing side stand Musharraf's remaining allies. The most important is the powerful, brooding army. On June 1, its top brass issued a strong statement of support for Musharraf that dismissed the protests as a "malicious campaign against institutions of the state, launched by vested interests and opportunists." But on live TV talk shows, pundits are lambasting the army for the first time, shocking many viewers. Such withering criticism has forced younger officers to question whether the entire military establishment should risk the public's wrath to keep one man in power.

Musharraf is also supported by the business community, which has experienced economic stability and rising investment from the Arab world during his regime. He also retains -- for now -- the backing of a motley group of politicians who came to power after the military rigged elections in 2002, although many of them are considering jumping ship or ditching Musharraf.

Running parallel to this domestic political crisis is the growing problem of radical Islam; the Taliban and al-Qaida are now entrenched in the tribal border belt adjacent to Afghanistan. These groups gained political legitimacy last year when Musharraf signed a series of dubious peace deals with the Pakistani Taliban. They are now coming down from the mountains to spread their radical ideology in towns and cities by burning down DVD and TV shops, insisting that young men grow beards, forcibly recruiting schoolboys for the jihad and terrifying girls so that they won't attend school. The military has refused to put a brake on their extremism.

Musharraf promised the international community that he would purge pro-Taliban elements from his security services and convinced the Bush administration that his philosophy of "enlightened moderation" was the only way to fend off Islamic extremism. But Pakistan today is the center of global Islamic terrorism, with Osama bin Laden and Taliban leader Mohammad Omar probably living here.

Instead of confronting this threat, the army has focused on keeping Musharraf in power -- negotiating with extremists, letting radical Islamic students set up a base in Islamabad and so forth. Meanwhile, to spook the West into continuing to support him, Musharraf continues to grossly exaggerate the strength of the Islamic parties that he warns might take over his nuclear-armed country. In fact, the United States would be far safer if it pushed for a truly representative Pakistani government that could marginalize the jihadists, rather than placing all its eggs in Musharraf's basket.

How will the current crisis end? It's unlikely to peter out; the movement has lasted three months now, despite Musharraf's intelligence services' prediction that it would end within days. And Chaudhry is a formidable foe -- not a mere politician (who, in Pakistan, are inevitably corrupt) but a judge perched above the political fray.

The logical strategy for Musharraf would be to apologize to the nation for hounding the chief justice, bring all parties to a reconciliation conference and agree to early elections under a neutral interim government. If he still insisted on running for president, he would have to agree to take off his uniform first so that no matter who won, Pakistan would return to civilian rule.

But how can a commando general carry out such a U-turn without losing face, especially when he is being publicly backed by the White House? A secretary of state with vision -- a James Baker or a Madeleine Albright -- could have recognized that Musharraf's time was up. Instead, we have Rice and Boucher and Cheney, who -- just as in Iraq -- can only reinforce a failed policy. Washington is doing itself no favors by serving as Musharraf's enabler. Indeed, the Bush administration's policy of sticking by Musharraf is fast becoming eerily reminiscent of the Carter administration's policy of sticking by the shah of Iran.

Pakistan

San Francisco Chronicle says ‘Dilute Musharraf’s Autocratic Control’

2007-06-14T10:02:00.000-07:00

First it was the East Coast press, and now the US West Coast press joins in.

Here is today’s leader from the San Francisco Chronicle:
_____________________________________

Editorial: A Pakistan test
Thursday, June 14, 2007

HOW INDISPENSABLE is Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf? For years he has sold Washington on the threat that without him Pakistan would descend into an Iran-style Islamic theocracy, exporting trouble and waving nuclear weaponry.

But it may be time to call his bluff. Never a friend of civil law, he has overstepped himself by firing the country's chief justice and briefly yanking press freedom for broadcast media. He's also planning for a fall vote by a lame-duck parliament on another five-year term as president while keeping his uniform as head of the military. In plain terms, his public image has taken a huge beating.

The Bush administration, of course, won't publicly disparage an ally who has collected some $10 billion in U.S. aid. Pakistan lies next door to Afghanistan, and Musharraf maintains he has done all he can to hunt down al Qaeda terrorists, who are dug in along the two-country border. Pakistan has never been a steady democracy, and Musharraf is a known quantity, hard-nosed strategists argue.

His appeal, however, is growing stale. And the proof is largely of his creation. By firing the nation's top judge, he inflamed protests that brought thousands of lawyers, business groups and political organizations into the streets. The press crackdown had the same effect: pro-democracy groups were galvanized, not the Islamic fundamentalists he has cited as trouble. At one rally last month, violence erupted between pro- and anti-Musharraf groups, leaving 48 dead.

His rule may bend, or break, soon. He's negotiating with former leader Benazir Bhutto to allow her return from exile and to possibly share power as prime minister. That could be an improvement, though it would leave Pakistan's all-powerful military in the picture, with Musharraf as its top general.

An opportunity is at hand to dilute his autocratic control. Washington should shoulder him hard in the direction of democracy and civil law. Such a change won't happen overnight, but Musharraf's weakened position is a chance that can't be missed.

Pakistan
US Foreign Policy
San Francisco Chronicle

Stratfor: Musharraf to reinstate the CJ !

2007-06-12T22:28:00.000-07:00

To date Stratfor's predictions have been fairly accurate. This latest bit is a quite bombshell as far as your Blogger is concerned.

Is Musharraf actually planning to reinstate the CJ?

If he is, then it is a huge and humiliating retreat for the blundering general. (But then to safeguard his kursi he is left with few other options.)

____________________________________________

Pakistan: The Problems With Musharraf's Survival Plan
June 12, 2007 22 51 GMT

Summary

In an effort designed to help dissipate the growing political storm in the country and secure his own re-election, Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf plans, among other things, to reinstate suspended Pakistani Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry. The plan is crippled by too many moving parts, however, meaning Musharraf at best could only hold on to power as a president sharing power with a prime minister at the head of a coalition government.

Analysis

Richard Boucher, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asian affairs, arrived June 12 in Islamabad on a two-day official visit. Topping the agenda of discussion between Boucher and Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf is Pakistan's increasing crisis of governance. Boucher will relay Washington's interest in having Musharraf remain at the helm, but also will communicate that Musharraf needs to reach an accommodation with his opponents.

The two main reasons informing Musharraf's decision to tough it out in the face of the South Asian nation's rapidly expanding crisis are U.S. backing and the support of the senior generals within Pakistan's military hierarchy. Musharraf also knows that he must demonstrate to both Washington and his own generals that he very much controls the situation to ensure their continued support. To do so he has devised a plan to defuse the political crisis involving reinstating suspended Pakistani Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, something that also will help create conditions conducive for his own re-election.

Though Chaudhry's reinstatement might provide the embattled general with a brief respite, his bid for re-election is going to be extremely hard to pull off in part due to the increasingly assertive nature of Pakistan's judiciary and the media. Ultimately, there is just too much that can go wrong in the process of securing a second term.

The first step in defusing tensions was the government's June 9 move to withdraw restrictions on the media; this had two effects. First, it satisfied concerns within the Bush administration, which was finding it difficult to support Musharraf while his government was openly limiting free speech. Second, it prevented the anti-Musharraf movement from receiving a sudden and major boost.

In the meantime, the government produced a budget significantly increasing government employee salaries and announced that an election schedule would be released soon after parliament approved the budget. Musharraf himself said June 8 that the nation would hear the good news about the end of the ongoing political crisis. "The ongoing drama will end itself very soon and there is nothing to worry about it," he told members of parliament from the ruling coalition and Cabinet members.

The next step will be allowing Pakistan's Supreme Court to reinstate the chief justice, which will be Musharraf's way of neutralizing the legal community's protests. Once back on the job, Chaudhry will not be able to participate in rallies given his position as a nonpartisan national figure -- thus taking the chief justice and his supporters out of the limelight. The government also will try to block Chaudhry from presiding over cases involving the president on grounds that as a party to a dispute with the president, the top jurist cannot appear unbiased against Musharraf. The chief justice and his allies indeed would like to see Chaudhry's restoration and Musharraf's ouster. The government, however, hopes the restoration will forestall the latter.

The chief justice's reinstatement could provide some brief respite to Musharraf. But the president general must go through the process of re-election, which according to the government must take place between Sept. 15 and Oct. 15. The presidential election is highly controversial because Musharraf is seeking re-election from the same electoral college, composed of the current national and provincial legislatures, that elected him in the first place. His opponents have demanded fresh parliamentary elections before the presidential vote. But the main opposition group, the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto might be willing to negotiate a deal whereby Musharraf can be re-elected on the condition he steps down as military chief.

Accepting a president in uniform is a redline the PPP cannot cross and sustain its position as the country's largest political party and its reputation of being anti-establishment. Musharraf's uniform constitutes the basis of his power, and assuming the role of a civilian president is a prospect fraught with perils. Even so, mounting pressure to defuse the crisis could force his hand and make him decide to retire from the military, though that would entail another set of complexities.

Ideally, Musharraf wants to remain army chief of staff until after the parliamentary elections to be held sometime in November, though even he knows that under the present conditions that is asking too much. At a bare minimum, however, he wants to remain military chief until the first week of October so he can oversee the next round of routine promotions and retirements of senior generals. That would allow him to stack the military deck with people he can theoretically work with even after becoming a civilian president.

Another hurdle to his re-election is that even if he were to have a deal with the PPP, members of parliament from the Islamist coalition, the Mutahiddah Majlis-i-Amal (MMA) -- which controls one and a half provinces and is one of the largest opposition blocs in parliament -- could see its members tender their resignations, thereby rendering the electoral college dysfunctional. And street protests would come back with a bang should Musharraf try to force his way to re-election. So any deal would have to include not just the PPP, but the MMA and the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, whom Musharraf ousted from power in 1999.

Balancing the civilian side of his government with the military side is rapidly becoming untenable for Musharraf. As a result, the resolution to the current crisis requires a very complex arrangement that under the present conditions is unlikely to hold. Thus Musharraf at best can hope to share power as a civilian with a much broader array of far more assertive civilians.

Pakistan

Stratfor

US Intelligence now writing Musharraf Off?

2007-06-11T22:01:00.000-07:00

_______________________________________

Over the past few weeks, U.S. intelligence have started to conclude that Musharraf is on his way out. "It is the sense people have, and it's been out there," says Rob Richer, a former deputy head of CIA operations who has met with Musharraf personally and long worked with the Pakistanis on intelligence issues. "This is the view of both senior (U.S. intelligence) officials and people who follow the issue closely." What's more, Richer tells [the writer], Musharraf himself knows his time is up, and is "looking for an exit strategy":
"He believes his successor has got to be someone who supports the military but it won't necessarily be someone in uniform. There's no obvious candidate … At this point, he's looking for the right person, a right-winger, someone who understands the Army."

From: ‘Some in U.S. Intelligence See Musharraf on His Way Out’: by Spencer Ackerman, a senior correspondent for The American Prospect
_______________________________________

It is difficult to know General Musharraf's fate, a former Pakistan analyst for the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research, Marvin Weinbaum, said. "He may be able to get through the next few months, get to October. That is the earliest date for elections," he said. "But he is so damaged, his credibility will be questioned."

…Today, American intelligence officials see one possible successor to General Musharraf in the current vice chief of staff of the army, General Ehsan Saleem Hayat, according to two American intelligence officials.

Another possibility is the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff of the Pakistani military, Ehsun ul-Haq, a former chief of Pakistan's intelligence service.

Yesterday, Mr. Ackerman reported that Mr. Haq met last month with Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte.

From: The New York Sun ‘Military May Pull the Plug On Musharraf’

Pakistan

WSJ: Off With the Uniform...

2007-06-11T21:04:00.000-07:00

A reader pointed out that the wingnuts in the White House - and most Republican party supporters for that matter - consider the New York Times to be a ‘left-wing’ rag. (I just love the way the Americans habitually mistreat the language) While the NYT is hardly a mouthpiece for socialism, it does however symbolize a more liberal form of capitalism.

Anyhow, as it was pointed out, the Wall Street Journal, the bastion of unvarnished capitalism, is taken much more seriously by the US right-wingers.

So here is what was written in the WSJ yesterday.
______________________________________

WSJ: The Musharraf Dilemma
By MAX BOOT, June 11, 2007; Page A13

Pakistan may be reaching a crisis point. Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who is chief of both the country and the armed forces, is facing the most serious threat to his rule since he seized power in 1999. His high-handed suspension in March of the chief justice of the supreme court, Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, has galvanized opposition from the urban middle-class that had hitherto acquiesced in his rule. On May 12, street protests got out of hand in Karachi, leaving 48 dead and contributing to a sense of worsening crisis. Mr. Musharraf has since tried to regain control by cracking down on independent media outlets and by jailing hundreds of opposition political activists, but the protests continue.

The Bush administration is reaching a decision point: Will it continue to provide unqualified support for Mr. Musharraf on the grounds that he is too valuable an ally to give up in the Global War on Terror? Or will it pull the rug out from under him and insist on a transition to civilian democratic rule? In this matter as in so many others, George W. Bush should ask himself the WWRD question: What Would Reagan Do?
As it happens, Ronald Reagan confronted a crisis remarkably similar to this one 21 years ago involving another pro-American dictator in another strategically important country. Ferdinand Marcos had ruled the Philippines, home to two of America's biggest overseas military bases, by martial law since 1972. He had loyally stood by the United States and fought against a communist insurgency, but his rule started to unravel when opposition leader Benigno Aquino returned to his homeland in 1983 and was assassinated on the tarmac.

Evidence pointed to conspiracy involving Gen. Fabian Ver, commander of the Philippine armed forces. But a three-judge panel acquitted Ver and 25 others, and Marcos promptly reinstated him. He then shamelessly stole the 1986 presidential election from Benigno's widow, Corazon Aquino.
Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets to protest. "People power" was supplemented by a rebellion within the Philippine armed forces. But Marcos still had the loyalty of much of the army, and was prepared to use it to hold onto power by force -- unless the U.S. intervened.

President Reagan confronted a difficult choice. He felt personally loyal to Marcos and was afraid of the consequences of toppling him, having little confidence in Ms. Aquino's leadership abilities. Reagan abhorred the way Jimmy Carter had abandoned the Shah of Iran in 1979, and didn't want to make the same mistake.

But his Secretary of State, George Shultz, had seen early on that Marcos's legitimacy was eroding. "I became increasingly convinced that Marcos was the problem, not the solution," Mr. Shultz wrote in his memoirs. The secretary of state had refused to call for the dictator's ouster, but he had insisted that the Philippines hold elections -- demands that Marcos had finally agreed to.

The crisis came to a head on Sunday, Feb. 23, 1986, as Marcos was massing troops in Manila to crack down on the post-election protests. The top-level National Security Planning Group met that afternoon in the White House Situation Room to decide whether to continue backing him. Only White House chief of staff Don Regan offered any support for Marcos. The rest of the foreign-policy team said his day was done. The president was reluctantly won over. He authorized his friend, Sen. Paul Laxalt, to call Marcos and convey the message. By Tuesday, the dictator and his gaudy wife Imelda were on their way to exile aboard a U.S. Air Force jet.

This was no aberration. Even while protests were erupting in the Philippines, a similar situation was occurring in Haiti. Here, too, another pro-American dictator -- Jean-Claude (Baby Doc) Duvalier -- was sinking. And here, too, the Reagan administration refused to throw him a lifeline, forcing him into exile.

The Reagan administration also played a role in getting the military regime in South Korea to give up power and hold free elections in 1987. The same year, with American encouragement, Taiwan's Chiang Ching-kuo ended martial law and began the transition to democracy. The following year, again with U.S. backing, Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet held a referendum, which he lost, bringing his long reign to an end.

All these actions were taken notwithstanding the very real risk, at a time when the Cold War was still going strong, of what would follow in the wake of pro-American strongmen. Back then, just as today, lots of "realists" made the better-the-devil-you-know argument. (Henry Kissinger wrote an op-ed expressing "grave concerns" about Marcos's overthrow.) But what Reagan and especially Mr. Shultz realized was that giving a blank check to dictators was a bad deal. Sooner or later, it would lead to an explosion that would make an anti-American regime -- of the kind that arose in Nicaragua and Iran in 1979 -- more, not less, likely. The best way to prevent such a disaster was by pushing for civil-society reforms culminating in free elections, something that previous administrations failed to do with Somoza or the Shah.

The choice is made more difficult in the case of Pakistan because, unlike the Philippines or South Korea, it possesses nuclear weapons. Our ultimate nightmare is for those weapons to fall into the hands of Osama bin Laden's allies. But that is extremely unlikely. The coalition of religious parties, the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal, won only 12% of the seats in the legislative assembly in 2002, even though Mr. Musharraf hindered more secular parties from competing. There is no reason to think it is any more popular today. The two main opposition parties, the Pakistan People's Party led by Benazir Bhutto and the Pakistan Muslim League led by Nawaz Sharif, have their own shortcomings, including corruption and a history of dealings with Islamic radicals. But they represent the broad middle of Pakistani society, not the extremist fringe.

Moreover, Mr. Musharraf has talked a better game than he has delivered. He has taken at least $10 billion in American subsidies since 9/11, and in return he has sent his troops to fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban. But he has also struck deals with tribal authorities in South Waziristan, North Waziristan and Bajaur that essentially turn over those vital border regions to Taliban control. No wonder terrorism in Afghanistan is exploding. Taliban fighters receive training and support in Pakistan, possibly still from their historic patrons in the Inter-Services Intelligence Agency which reports to none other than Mr. Musharraf. There have even been a number of incidents in recent months of Pakistani troops providing covering fire from their side of the border for Taliban militants assaulting Afghan army positions. Mr. Musharraf has been useful, but he is either unwilling or unable to do enough to combat the terrorists in his country.

There is no need for President Bush to call for his ouster at this point, any more than Reagan called for Marcos's ouster early on. What he should do -- what Reagan did in the Philippines -- is to insist that the constitutional process play itself out. That means that, if he wants U.S. aid to continue, Mr. Musharraf should give up either the presidency or his post as army chief and allow free elections in October that could be contested by all legitimate political parties.

Reagan's words at Moscow State University in 1988 still ring true today: "Democracy is the standard by which governments are measured." Mr. Musharraf is not living up to that standard.

Mr. Boot, winner of the 2007 Eric Breindel Award for Excellence in Opinion Journalism, is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of "War Made New" (Gotham Books, 2006).

Pakistan
US Foreign Policy
Wall Street Journal

A Thundering NYT Editorial

2007-06-11T07:43:00.001-07:00

Today a NYT editorial openly criticized the Bush Administration for continuing to support Musharraf.

____________________________________

Pakistan’s Dictator Published: June 11, 2007

"If Gen. Pervez Musharraf were the democratic leader he indignantly insists he is, he would not be so busy threatening independent news outlets, arresting hundreds of opposition politicians and berating parliamentary leaders and ministers from his own party for insufficient loyalty to his arbitrary and widely unpopular policies.

But nobody takes General Musharraf’s democratic claims seriously anymore, except for the Bush administration, which has put itself in the embarrassing position of propping up the Muslim world’s most powerful military dictator as an essential ally in its half-baked campaign to promote democracy throughout the Muslim world. Washington needs to disentangle America, quickly, from the general’s damaging embrace.

Ever since his high-handed dismissal of the country’s independent-minded chief justice in March, the general has been busily digging himself into an ever deeper political hole.

Last week, he issued a decree giving himself increased powers to shut down independent television channels, but under mounting pressure he withdrew it over the weekend. More than 300 local political leaders in Punjab were arrested in an effort to head off protests against the decree. Still, thousands of lawyers, journalists and political activists gathered to protest the firing, the censorship and the general’s continued rule. Pakistan seems to be rapidly approaching a critical turning point, with a choice between intensified repression and instability or an orderly transition back to democratic rule.

Were Washington now to begin distancing itself from the general, it would greatly encourage civic-minded Pakistanis to step up the pressure for free national elections. That’s a process the chief justice was trying to make possible when he was fired. And that is what Pakistan’s last two democratically elected leaders — Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif — are both campaigning for from abroad. The United States should be supporting these efforts, not continuing to make excuses for General Musharraf.

Pakistan has its share of violent Islamic extremists, military and civilian. But they are clearly in the minority. The best hope for diluting their political, and geopolitical, influence lies not in heating the pressure cooker of repression, but in promoting the earliest possible democratic elections."

Pakistan
New York Times

Foolishly Torn in Two

2007-06-11T07:16:00.000-07:00

By changing the lyrics of an old song we may get an accurate depiction of Benazir Bhutto these days – Torn between two ‘decisions’, looking like a fool…

The problem with her is that she is prepared to go to any length to get rid of the Swiss and Spanish money laundering cases against her, for good.

At one stage Benazir had gone as far as accepting Musharraf’s uniform and re-election by the existing assemblies. Now with Pakistan on the boil she has upped her terms, but she is still seriously considering negotiating with the General.

While undeniably a skilful political operator, she is not overly endowed with political analytical skills. That is why she is keen to toe the line of the Bush Administration (which fears that a chaotic overthrow of Musharraf will give the militants the upper hand.) For some reason the lady is convinced that she can only become a prime minister again courtesy of the US.

While she might have read some Shakespeare at school, it is time Benazir re-read Julius Caesar, especially where the great Bard says:

There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.

By not listening to the voice of the people of Pakistan she is well on her way to missing the tide.
___________________________________

Benazir in a fix over 'deal' with Musharraf
Malaysia Sun
Monday 11th June, 2007

Lahore, June 11 : Former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto seems to be in a fix whether to strike a deal with President Pervez Musharraf to come back to power or to ally with the opposition parties against the present government.

According to a PPP source Benazir is eager to legitimise Musharraf's rule for the next five years. In return, she wants withdrawal of cases pending against her and holding of free and fair elections, which would ultimately bring the PPP to power.

However, this has reportedly met with strong opposition within her party.

"The ongoing judicial crisis, and the fear of being isolated from rest of the opposition on this issue, are other factors restraining her from negotiating any deal with Musharraf", The Nation quoted the source, as saying.

"On one hand, she seems eager to accept Musharraf as President, while on the other, she is under immense pressure from within the party for maintaining contacts with General Musharraf, which may tarnish PPP's image of a true democratic party", the source said.

"After all, what's the difference between the MMA and the PPP, with the former legitimising Musharraf's first term as President in uniform and the latter gearing up to give legitimacy to his second term, preferably without uniform", is the question being asked by her party leaders.

In her recent interviews, Benazir has been vocal about a negotiated settlement with General Musharraf.

She believes such a rapprochement is vital for a smooth transition to democracy in the country, and to block the way for religious extremists from assuming power.

However, many in the PPP believe that the ongoing judicial crisis and strong opposition from within the party has compelled Benazir to stay away from taking any major decision in the near future.

___________________________________

Insecure as she is about her grip over the PPP, Benazir must now be sharpening her claws for poor old Aitzaz Ahsan. Suddenly he is being considered by many Pakistanis to be Prime Minister material, even the USA Today seems to think so.

Benazir Bhutto
Pakistan

Bush & Mush

2007-06-09T07:36:00.002-07:00

This is your Blogger’s reaction to the newspaper headline 'Bush stays supportive of embattled Musharraf'

Cartoon courtesy of Irshad Salim on DesPardes.com

US Foreign Policy
Bush
Pakistan

Stratfor: An Energetic Intern Could Knock Out Musharraf

2007-06-08T20:55:00.000-07:00

Strategic Forecasting Inc., more commonly known as Stratfor, a private intelligence agency (dubbed by Barron’s magazine as "The Shadow CIA") in its latest Intelligence Guidance Report maintains rather radically that:

Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf is weakening to the point that an energetic intern could knock him out of office. What moves does Musharraf have left, and who is ultimately going to pull the plug?

________________________________________

In a separate lengthier piece Stratfor suggests that Musharraf is desperately keen to oversee the next round of ‘promotions and retirements’ reshuffle due within the Army in the first week of October. Choosing these new appointments “would be an absolute necessity if Musharraf later caves to domestic pressure and steps down as military chief.”

Stratfor also makes a prediction on who the next lot of 'movers and shakers' within the Army will be.

Pakistan: The Future Military Leadership
June 08, 2007 20 45 GMT

Summary

For the first time since Pakistan's current political crisis began March 9, Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf acknowledged June 7 that he is in trouble. His admission that his hold on power is slipping raises significant doubts about his ability to secure a second term in the presidential election slated for the second half of September. It is too early to predict which actor will succeed him politically, but Musharraf's ability (or lack thereof) to win re-election will be a key element in shaping the Pakistani military's future.

Analysis

In a speech to lawmakers from Pakistan's ruling coalition, embattled Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf said he is worried and warned that a change in the current political order would be disastrous for the country, Pakistani media reported June 7. Musharraf accused his parliamentary allies of abandoning him in the ongoing political crisis and said he constantly receives reports about what they are saying privately. The president went on to criticize his allies for not supporting him publicly and questioned their usefulness if they are not willing to step up and defend him in the media and other public forums against criticism from the opposition.

These comments -- Musharraf's first admission of concern since the political crisis began March 9 -- show that the Musharraf regime is buckling under the weight of the crisis, which has created serious fissures within the civilian side of the hybrid Musharrafian political system. Infighting among his allies -- upon whom he depends to secure a second presidential term -- and the rapidly intensifying unrest in the country raise serious doubts about Musharraf's ability to win the next presidential election, scheduled for the second half of September. If the president cannot win re-election, he could try to impose an emergency rule of sorts, but that would only exacerbate matters.

When Musharraf cannot seek re-election, his generals likely will force him to throw in the towel, and a caretaker government, whose main task will be holding fresh parliamentary polls, will be created. It is too early to predict which political force will form the next government, since a number of elements are in play. Whatever happens to Musharraf politically, the composition of Pakistan's military -- with or without Musharraf -- is relatively easier to discern.

If Musharraf Wins Re-election

Musharraf not only wants to get re-elected as president, but he also wants to do so while holding onto the position of military chief. This is because he wants to oversee the forthcoming round of promotions and retirements in order to build the right team to ensure his hold on power -- a step that would be an absolute necessity if Musharraf later caves to domestic pressure and steps down as military chief.

The military deck is scheduled to undergo a routine reshuffle in the first week of October. The most prominent change to come is the retirement of Musharraf's two senior-most subordinates: Vice Chief of the Army Staff (VCOAS) Gen. Ahsan Saleem Hayat and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (CJCSC) Gen. Ehsan ul-Haq. Currently, these two are the only four-star generals besides Musharraf himself. If he wins re-election in September, Musharraf's priority will be to fill the vacant positions. This process will bring to the fore younger generals, among whom there are a number of possible candidates based on merit and seniority, as well as on personal ties to Musharraf:
• Lt. Gen. Tariq Majeed: commander of the 10th Corps, who is considered to be the most capable among all the corps commanders, and who is the front-runner for the No. 2 position of VCOAS
• Lt. Gen. Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani: director-general of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and another senior general who could be appointed to the No. 3 post, the CJCSC
• Lt. Gen. Salahuddin Satti: current chief of the General Staff who, though a bit junior to other generals, could be moved to a key position
• Lt. Gen. Muhammad Yousaf: current vice chief of the General Staff, who also could be appointed to a critical position

While effecting promotions and appointments, he would want to make sure that his own position is not threatened, especially given the growing movement to oust him from power. Moreover, should he need to step down as military chief and become a civilian president, he would want the next military chief to be beholden to him. This involves not just loyalty but also the creation of dependency. Therefore, he could go beyond the top tier of generals and elevate others, such as 4th Corps Commander Lt. Gen. Shafaatullah Shah, Quarter Master General Lt. Gen. Afzal Muzaffar or 30th Corps Commander Lt. Gen. Waseem Ahmed Ashraf. Director-General of Military Intelligence Maj-Gen. Nadeem Ejaz could also become a three-star general and be made director-general of the ISI.

There is a downside to filling the top slots with second-tier commanders. These generals are inexperienced in political matters, especially in situations like the current crisis. Therefore, they are more likely to press Musharraf to step down if the existing situation escalates, especially with political forces mobilizing for the parliamentary polls slated for November.

Considering the pace and magnitude of the anti-Musharraf movement's growth, it is becoming increasingly unlikely that Musharraf can win re-election. Once Musharraf realizes that an election victory is beyond his reach, he could attempt to impose emergency rule as a means of prolonging his hold on power. This will only accelerate the unrest and lead to the point at which his generals will likely have to force him to quit.

If Musharraf is Forced to Step Down

Though he is the army chief, Musharraf has not had time to oversee the day-to-day running of the military because of his duties as a president -- especially as a president who has had to deal with an extraordinary number of domestic and foreign policy issues. As a result, Hayat has been running the military on Musharraf's behalf and could easily step into the role of military chief.

But the task of removing the increasingly unpopular Musharraf -- especially since Hayat is due to retire -- would make the process very complicated, to say the least. Furthermore, Hayat is known to be mild-mannered, which makes him unlikely to initiate Musharraf's removal. Instead, a consensus among corps commanders and certain key agency heads would be required.

This is where the other four-star general, Ehsan-ul-Haq, who has served as head of the military's two intelligence directorates, could play an important role. However, Ehsan-ul-Haq's position is ceremonial, so he does not have the authority to get the ball rolling or even secure a position in a post-Musharraf military leadership. This makes the role of the corps commanders -- who already are key because they are in command of the troops -- all the more important.

From the seniority standpoint, Majeed and Kiyani would be the key deciding players, while Satti and commander of the Mangla-based 1st Corps Lt. Gen. Sajjad Akram would be the prominent players from a logistical standpoint. At the end of the day, a consensus would be needed among the three-star generals, who likely would back Hayat to succeed Musharraf as army chief and get a three-year extension, thereby avoiding his scheduled retirement.

Hayat's first order of business as military chief would be to work with the political forces and the civilian establishment to install an acting president and caretaker government headed by an interim prime minister, which would hold parliamentary elections within 90 days. Though Hayat would not inherit Musharraf's political powers, he would be the one to oversee the reshuffle of the military deck, at which point every position aside from his own would be up for grabs. That said, those who would have played leading roles in the removal of Musharraf will be the ones most likely to assume key posts in the post-Musharraf military hierarchy.

After Musharraf's departure from the helm, regardless of how and when that happens, the military is unlikely to continue to directly run the country. Moreover, because of the assertiveness of the judiciary and the media, and an increasingly vibrant civil society, the military will have to give the civilian setup more freedom than it did in 1988, when military rule came to an end after military-chief-cum-president Mohammed Zia-ul-Haq died in a mysterious plane crash. But, for the foreseeable future, the military will continue to maintain a strong hold over the state -- partly because it is the most disciplined and professional institution in the country.

Pakistan

A Long-Standing Rule Finally Broken

2007-06-08T00:47:00.000-07:00

For many years there has been an unwritten rule requiring the Pakistani media not to print nor mention the name of the Director General of Military Intelligence.

Even in Chief Justice Ifitkhar Chaudhry’s recently submitted affidavit the senior intelligence officer is simply referred to as DG MI.

The first time your Blogger saw the intelligence official’s name in print was thanks to Carlotta Gall of The New York Times. Ten days ago, in a news piece about the affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court by the CJ, she wrote: Maj. Gen. Nadeem Ijaz, the director general of Military Intelligence and a close relative of General Musharraf.

With his back suddenly to the wall Musharraf seems to have ditched this ‘hallowed’ convention altogether by getting the DG MI to submit an affidavit in a public court of law. And so the general public finally got a peek at his name from this official document, which begins:

I, Major General Mian Nadeem Ijaz Ahmad son of Late Mian Ijaz Ahmad, presently working as Director General, Military Intelligence (“DG MI”), do hereby solemnly state on oath as under:-

I was appointed as DG MI on 28 February 2005, and have continued to work in that position ever since…

Now that the cat is officially out of the bag, your Blogger can confirm what Carlotta Gall gave away: ‘Major General Mian Nadeem Ijaz Ahmad son of Late Mian Ijaz Ahmad’, also happens to be Mrs Sehba Musharraf’s nephew; his mother being Mrs Musharraf’s elder sister.

More importantly, the hawkish DG MI is believed by many to be one of the Commando General’s closest of advisers in most, if not all, matters these days.
__________________________________

One intriguing aspect of the counter-affidavits submitted by Musharraf’s lawyers is the omission of one from Lt. Gen. Ashfaq Pervaiz Kiyani, the director general of Inter-Services Intelligence (DG ISI).

It is worth commenting that the existing three affidavits have all been given by men known to be close to Musharraf; DG MI is a family member; DG IB, Brigadier (Retd) Ijaz Shah, is an old friend; and Lt. General (Retd) Hamid Javed has been serving Musharraf loyally as his Chief of Staff ever since 1 November 2002.

Is it possible that, as an outsider to this close Musharraf loop, the DG ISI was reluctant to embroider the facts?
__________________________________

According to a news report while over a dozen affidavits of government servants are attached to the affidavit of Lt-Gen (retd) Hamid Javaid, doubts do exist about their veracity:

At least, one of them is now uncertain not only about the signatures on “his” affidavit but also its contents. At one point, he categorically said that the affidavit was never signed by him. At another stage, he said that the signatures appearing on the affidavit were not his but these did resemble his initials.

Talking to The News on the assurance that his name would not be disclosed, the concerned signatory was apprehensive and shy of going to the court for being a government servant. Since the filing of an absolutely “fake” affidavit does not make sense, the officer was asked to come on the record but he did not oblige. The officer hails from the Punjab.

__________________________________

Pakistan

Musharraf vs. the Cell Phone

2007-06-07T22:31:00.000-07:00

Amir Mir has written an amusing piece on how the political battle against Musharraf has now spread to the nation’s mobile phones.
________________________________________

Mobile trouble: Musharraf at receiving end of Pak mobile squad

LAHORE: Sun Tzu, in his Art of War, says: “When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard.” Had the Chinese master of military strategy written his tour de force in the era of blogs and pod-casts, he may have modified his maxim thus: “When you shut down the media, do not forget the SMS.” But General Sun Tzu died in 496 BC, long before General Pervez Musharraf decided to gag the media in Pakistan.

Musharraf has of late ratified stringent measures to curtail media freedom. He did not realise, however, that dissent would find an outlet in Pakistan’s growing cellphone subscriber base. A massive campaign against Musharraf has been launched recently by the general public on cellphones.

The ‘Go Musharraf Go’ ring tone is resounding in Pakistan these days, mostly on the phones of those using the services of Mobilink. A senior Mobilink official in Islamabad, who did not want to reveal his identity, said that the number of anti-Musharraf text messages being sent and received every day runs into millions.

The ‘Go Musharraf’ tone — recorded from chants of real-life protests — has been embraced by lawyers and opposition activists. But the public is just as thrilled with the insurgent trill.

As for the dictator-dissing messages, a typical SMS asks: “Who will be saved if a boat carrying Musharraf and his Corps Commanders sinks?”

The answer turns out to be ‘Pakistan’.

Another popular message uses irony to deride the President of Pakistan General Musharraf: “Imagine the pleasure of living in a land where the chief justice cannot get justice for himself and the army chief, security for his life.”

Satire runs through a message pretending to be a campaign letter from Musharraf himself. Part of it reads: “I have the honour of kicking out from the country two former elected prime ministers...”

The letter further reads, “I am the one who had handed over hundreds of Pakistanis to the American Federal Bureau of Investigation...”

The letter then goes on, to say, “I almost sold a steel mill for the price of plastic toys... Please vote for my Pakistan Muslim League (Q) stooges... or don’t vote at all, so that I can enlighten you further!”

Pakistan

A Dose of Reality Finally Creeps In

2007-06-07T20:20:00.000-07:00

The other day an acquaintance of mine found himself bound on a PIA Islamabad flight alongside three PML (Q) Federal Ministers. Two of them happened to be his schoolmates and a friendly conversation ensued. Neither of the two ministers was reticent about discussing Musharraf’s future. His days were over as far they were concerned. The third minister, who was following the affable banter, simply nodded in agreement.

Things have reached a pretty pass when Musharraf stalwarts openly announce the end is nigh for their boss.

It’s no wonder, therefore, to discover that the General is now publicly blasting members of his puppet party for their lack of support. Addressing a parliamentary party meeting of the PML(Q) on Wednesday, he took them to task with some of the following grumblings:

The Pakistan Muslim League leadership and the lawmakers…” [are] always leaving him in the lurch” and said the country would be in deep trouble if his set-up got changed.

"I bluntly say that you always leave me alone in the time of trial and tribulation. Whether it was a change in the Afghan policy, Dr AQ Khan and Bugti issues, the judicial crisis or the May 12 incident, you never came to my support,"

Musharraf deplored that out of, what he termed, 1,000 provincial/federal ministers, parliamentary secretaries and chairmen standing committees, he could not see even 10 of them speaking in his defence. "I see the party nowhere. You people are not mobilized," he declared.

"You are not delivering. You have lost the war of nerves. You all are silent upon what the media is doing. If I have to do everything, then what is your purpose?"

Interestingly for the first time Musharraf admitted that all was not well by confessing: "I feel disturbed for the first time".

Those present at the meeting remarked that he looked ‘visibly shaken’.

___________________________________________________________

Reuters have carried this story under the heading 'Pakistan's Musharraf urges party support in crisis' and it has already been covered by US and UK newspapers.

Pakistan

End of the Line for Musharraf?

2007-06-06T01:17:00.000-07:00

A reputable journalist revealed this week that in his recent meetings with senior Islamabad-based diplomats (including those from the UK, US, and France)– he came across an unusual commonality of view; they all seemed to be convinced that “Musharraf had lost it completely”.

In view of this newly emerging reality it is not surprising that Ahmed Rashid, the well known Lahore-based writer and journalist, also forecasts the end of Musharraf in a brief piece he wrote for Newsweek/Washington Post which was published yesterday.

___________________________________

Musharraf = Military Rule, Cannot Survive

"Musharraf cannot survive the year. His actions over the past few months have pitted the armed forces against the Pakistani public and a section of the establishment that includes the judiciary and civil society. If Musharraf continues along this present path in defiance of public and judicial demands, he may plunge the country into civil war.

In 1971 the army was responsible for separating the country and it may now do immeasurable damage to what is left of Pakistan. Moreover, Musharraf's policies since 9/11 of subduing one group of Islamic extremists while cozying up to another has proved devastating for a country already beset with too many political and social cleavages.

Cooperation with the U.S. is not the problem and the next elected government is likely to do much the same, as long as it has the army's support. The problem is that Pakistan’s people want an end to military rule and the symbol of that has unfortunately become Musharraf."

Pakistan