By Irfan Husain

Daily DAWN

Demonstrators who support and oppose the proposed Muslim cultural center and mosque Park51 stand with signs in front of the site in New York August 25, 2010. - Photo by Reuters.

The ongoing furore over the so-called Ground Zero Mosque shows no sign of abating after weeks of noisy controversy. In a sense, it has become a litmus test of America’s cherished freedom of worship, as well as its tolerance of other people and other faiths.

But to put things in perspective, I would like to invite readers to imagine that a group of Christians asked for approval to build a church close to the site of an iconic building in Pakistan some of their fellow-believers had destroyed, killing thousands. How would we have responded?

Actually, this scenario is so implausible as to be practically meaningless. The sad reality is that non-Muslims in Pakistan live on sufferance, and it would be unthinkable for them to even dream of expanding their places of worship, let alone constructing new ones. A few years ago, I recall writing about the trials and tribulations of Christians trying to build a church in Islamabad despite having received official permission. They were bullied by a local mullah, and found no support from the city administration. Since then, things have got worse for the minorities.

The ongoing dispute in New York is another reminder of how civilised societies treat those citizens who do not subscribe to the majority faith. Much to his credit, New York’s Mayor Bloomberg (a Jew, by the way) approved the project, despite opposition from right-wing groups. It is President Barack Obama who has been a disappointment to liberals with his equivocation over the issue: after appearing to endorse it at an iftar event for Muslim ambassadors, he backtracked swiftly in the face of shrill and expected criticism from the right.

In a controversial article that appeared recently in the Ottawa Citizen (Mischief in Manhattan; 7 August), Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah, two Muslims who live in Canada, argued that proceeding with the project is tantamount to mischief-making, an act prohibited in Islam. The authors have been attacked for their stance on the Internet, with readers accusing them of taking a reactionary line.

The truth is that the issue has become highly divisive, with over 60 per cent of Americans opposing the project. Before readers think this reflects poorly on secular attitudes in the country, please recall that there are some 30 mosques in New York. What is really giving offence is the location of the proposed Muslim community centre as it is a couple of blocks from where the Twin Towers stood before 9/11.

For weeks now, this controversy has been in the news with talking heads on TV from across the political spectrum reviling or defending the project, initially dubbed the Cordoba Initiative. Critics have attacked the name of the centre for serving as a reminder of Muslim conquests in Europe. In response, the developer has said the name has been changed to Park51.

In such an emotionally charged debate, it’s hard to be rational. Logically, the location should be immaterial: after all, there is already a mosque in the area, not far from Ground Zero. So why should another make any difference? The truth is that the 9/11 attacks continue to resonate deeply in America, so what’s the point in insisting on a project that is like a red flag to a bull?

The project is expected to cost around $100 million, and many think the bulk of the money will come from Saudi Arabia, even though the source of the funds has not been made public yet. If this is indeed so, Raza and Fatah consider this would be a slap in the face of Americans as “nine of the jihadis in the Twin Towers calamity were Saudis”. More to the point for me is that the Saudis have been funding mosques and madressahs around the world, in addition to paying for chairs for Islamic studies at major universities. Many of these have been used to project the country’s official Wahabi version of Islam that has fuelled the rising tide of extremism and jihadi fervour. Against this backdrop, the question to ask is whether we need yet one more such mosque.

Raza and Fatah ask why the $100 million can’t be put to use to help people in Darfur and Pakistan instead? This is especially relevant in the context of the floods that are devastating much of Pakistan today. My own question is about reciprocity: if the Saudis can aggressively spread their ideology abroad, why can’t other beliefs build their places of worship in Saudi Arabia?

Currently, it is illegal to build a church, synagogue or temple in the country. Even importing copies of the Bible or the Torah is forbidden. Granted, Saudi Arabia is not an example of tolerance and freedom of worship. In fact, it is one of the most benighted societies on the planet where the royal family rules with an iron hand in partnership with the clergy. Nevertheless, every time the government or individual members of the ruling House of Saud wish to fund a religious centre abroad, they should be asked to open up their country to other faiths.

Liberal Americans will respond – to their everlasting credit – that their constitutional guarantee of freedom of worship should not be hostage to mediaeval attitudes in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere. Ironically, given the choice between living in a religiously ordered state or in a secular country like America, Muslims have voted with their feet in the hundreds of thousands. Most of them are happier in their adopted home, and are free to worship as they please.

This is America’s major strength, and it would be a pity if the events of 9/11 were to erode it. Despite the strong religious strand in American society, it welcomes all faiths. All the more reason, then, for everybody in this melting pot to be respectful of others.

If I am having a meal with a devout Hindu friend at a restaurant, I would not dream of ordering a steak because I am aware that for him or her, cows are sacred. While we all have certain rights, we often do not choose to exercise them so as not to cause offence. This is what living in a heterogeneous society like America entails, so if Muslims opt to live there out of their own free will, it seems to me that they would be wise not to test the limits of tolerance.

How can we have information and intelligence-sharing with a country that has systematically done and continues to do a hatchet job on our premier intelligence agency and Pakistan military? It is time for Pakistan to sever its links and cooperation with the US.

By SHIREEN M. MAZARI

Thursday, 29 July 2010.

WWW.PAKNATIONALISTS.COM

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—From our nuclear program to the ISI, there is a continuous ongoing war being waged on us by the US. It may not be a military war but it has economic, political, diplomatic and psychological components. What is simply absurd is why the “PakMil” – a term Admiral Mike Mullen has coined to show his intimacy with General Kayani and is used only by him when he meets the COAS apparently – is not seeing the ground realities?

Instead of the ISPR issuing press releases now suddenly condemning the drone attacks in an attempt to fool the Pakistani nation, when they know only too well that these are being carried out with the support of the Pakistan civil and military leadership, the military should take a long hard look at what the US is doing to Pakistan on all fronts. If the Pakistani government, including the military, sees the drones as doing more harm than good, why do they remain complicit in this policy? Should they not send a clear message to the US by downing one of these drones?

US IS A HOSTILE PLAYER
The evidence is piling up showing US hostile intent and effectively the US itself is becoming less of a friend – if ever it was – and more of an enemy. Even if we feel that is too drastic a conclusion, it is certainly a hostile player from Pakistan’s perspective. So before we lose everything to the Indo-US nexus, let us alter our dynamics with the US and treat it as a hostile state. The US is in a quandary and we are its only way out. Let us use this tiny window of opportunity to assert our national interests and deal with the US on our terms while it remains in its Afghan quagmire. Let General Kayani see who the real foe is – in military terms at least – and the rulers rid themselves of particularistic interests to see the real foe in politico-diplomatic terms before it is too late.

THE WIKILEAKS

It is ISI bashing time again and this comes easy for the American and Indian media especially, but also for the media at home since the ISI has figured as a larger than life organization since the US-led war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. And undoubtedly the ISI has at times been highly controversial in the activities it has undertaken especially domestically. Both during the period of civilian democracy and military rule, the ISI has been used by those in power and even today the ruling party is not devoid of this temptation, unfortunately.
Of course, like all intelligence agencies with an external agenda, such as CIA and RAW, the ISI has its own external agenda. But it needs to also be understood that the ISI is not an independent entity and the decision-making hierarchy of the organization comes on routine postings from the military, primarily the army. So its external activities reflect the policies of the government, but especially the military.

Be that as it may, post-9/11, the ISI has had to pay for its past sins in seeing itself demonized by US and India – even though the former is supposed to be an ally of this country.

Every time the chips are down for the US in Afghanistan, somehow or the other the ISI is lambasted by “leaks” to the Western, especially the compliant US media. It would appear that CIA’s failures, as well as the US and NATO military failures, are all a result solely of the ISI. Now if only the ISI was really so effective, efficient and powerful, India’s occupation of Kashmir would have ended and Afghanistan’s future would have been molded according to its desires.

Unfortunately, that is not the case and the ISI is as riddled with inefficiencies as any large bureaucratic organization is, but undoubtedly, it has better ground intelligence in this region than the US and its CIA since the latter has a blunderbuss approach to human intelligence gathering and has no sensitivity to nuances of any kind.
The latest round of ISI bashing rather obviously sponsored by the CIA to hide its own failures in Afghanistan, once again, has come with the WikiLeaks’ story. Apart from The Guardian newspaper which showed some healthy skepticism about the leaked information, for the biased US media like The New York Times this was a journalistic feast – enough to feed the deep-seated anti-Muslim and especially anti-Pakistan bias that now dominates the American media.

One has to concede that WikiLeaks itself is credible anti-war site. But what the media has done in terms of factual distortions of even these unverifiable leaks is dangerous and cannot simply be ignored by Pakistan because we are once again the targets.

1.       First of all, the leaked documents are based entirely on field reports filed by a variety of operatives in Afghanistan, allegedly primarily belonging to the Northern Alliance.

2.      Second, out of the 92,000 leaked documents, only 180 contain ISI references and of these only 30 mention the ISI in negative terms regarding Taliban-supporting activities. Third, of these 180 documents with references to the ISI, most of these reports have a disclaimer by the author at the end where the source was referred to simply as an “informant” and it was stated that this source was either not reliable or working only for monetary gains for either the Afghan intelligence, Indians or Afghan warlords! Or else the source was referred to simply by initials! Interestingly where the ISI is mentioned, it also states in the disclaimer that the information cannot be verified and therefore cannot be “used to make policies” (all this is on the website). So where does that leave the actual content of these leaked reports?

3.      Officials in Pakistan are convinced that the CIA, when it found out about the leaks, sought to divert the expansive details of its own failures in Afghanistan by shifting the focus on to the ISI – a favorite bete noir of the Western media.

According to WikiLeaks the source for the leaked documents sought to prevent the publication of some of them for fear of sensitive information! There is also a feeling in some quarters that the CIA has deliberately chosen to once again target the ISI because of the rising anti-war tide within the US. Most observers in the know now recognize that the US and NATO have lost the war militarily in Afghanistan and bad intelligence is certainly one of the causes. So what better way to escape blame than to put everything on the ISI. The timing of the “leaks” is not without purpose.

This is a slightly edited version of the original op-ed published by The Nation. Reach Dr. Mazari at callstr@hotmail.com

Ø US tries to hide American war crimes & shift focus to Pakistan

Ø 90,000 documents on US military & CIA failures, only 180 on ISI

Ø How safe are US nuclear, chemical and biological secrets

Ø Most of the American propaganda on Pakistan is “Rumors, bullshit and second-hand information”

By AHMED QURAISHI

Wednesday, 28 July 2010.

WWW.PAKNATIONALISTS.COM

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—Since late 2006, United States government, military, intelligence and media have been orchestrating regular attacks against Pakistan, creating a false alarm about its nuclear capability and portraying its premier spy agency, the ISI, as a threat to world peace.

The weak and apologetic reactions by Pakistan’s political and military officials encouraged this American double game.

But here comes the smoking gun, more than 90,000 leaked US intelligence documents, which prove how the Washington establishment has been running a vilification campaign against Pakistan both under Bush and Obama administrations, without any evidence except malicious intent.

Here is a chance for Pakistan to use these documents to argue its own case more confidently.

As soon as the classified documents were leaked over the weekend, US government sprung into action to minimize damage by shifting the focus toward Pakistan.

US government and military officials succeeded in making Pakistan and ISI the main story and hide the massive and spectacular US failures in Afghanistan, including evidence on war crimes and civilian carnage. It’s an exercise that bears the hallmarks of a CIA-style public diplomacy [a la Iraq invasion].

Instead of brooding over the American failures and war crimes that have been neatly hidden from the world for eight years, the mainstream US media chose once again to indulge in anti-Pakistanism which is rampant and endemic within the US media and among think-tank types. A British journalist, Declan Walsh, couldn’t help but notice this anti-Pakistan streak in how the Obama administration handled the leaks.

“In issuing such a strongly worded statement with implicit criticism of the ISI,” Mr. Walsh wrote in The Guardian, “the White House may be trying to keep ahead of a tide of US opinion that is hostile towards Pakistan.”

A TASTE OF AMERICAN DECEIT

Here’s a quick look at how ISI and Pakistan are a small part of the story blown out of proportion:

-         Out of more than 90,000 classified US documents, only about 180 mention ISI, and only about 30 or so charge the legendary Pakistani spy service of wrongdoing in Afghanistan

-         The whole case built by US against Pakistan and ISI is based not on evidence but on information sourced to ‘informants’, ‘sources’, initials [like A.E.], and sources linked to either the new US-created Afghan intelligence or the Indians. Both Karzai’s spies and the Indians have been telling anyone who’d listen that they are the preeminent source for any credible information on Pakistan

-         Many of these classified US documents carry a disclaimer added by the authors or their handlers in the US military and intelligence. The disclaimer emphasizes that information in these reports can’t be trusted, is unverified, is sourced to people working for monetary gain or are linked to biased parties such as the Indians and Karzai’s intelligence

-         Most importantly, many of these documents carry a warning that US policymakers should not rely on information in the reports to formulate policy

-         According to the Guardian, most of the American propaganda on Pakistan is “Rumours, bullshit and second-hand information”

THE REAL STORY

The real story, the one hidden in the bulk of the 90,000 leaked documents, is this:

-         How the US government, military and CIA have hidden a US military disaster in Afghanistan from the American public and the world

-         How the mainstream US media is complicit in misleading the American public and the world

-         How the United States is involved in war crimes in Afghanistan, especially in mass murder of innocent Afghan civilians

-         How the US and its allies within the Pakistani government and military are most probably hiding similar tales of mass murder of Pakistani citizens in Pakistan’s tribal belt who fell victim to CIA-run drones

PAKISTANI OFFICIAL COMPLICITY

An important question that arises out of these documents is this:

1.       If this is the level of US propaganda against Pakistan over the past five years, why have Pakistan’s political and military leaders acquiesced in US’s anti-Pakistan pressure tactics and failed to appropriately respond to American disinformation?

2.      If this is the quality of US intelligence in Afghanistan, why has Pakistan’s government and military accept faulty US intelligence to allow US covert military operations inside Pakistan that have almost pushed the nation to civil war?

Pakistan’s leaders have almost wasted one opportunity – the Pakistan-US strategic dialogue in March 2010 – to redefine the terms of cooperation between Islamabad and Washington in Afghanistan. The storm over the leaked secrets provides a second opportunity to Pakistani officials to review their generally weak and apologetic policy that has messed up Pakistan in little less than eight years.

— British newspaper says that info in leaked files, fail to provide a convincing smoking gun for ISI complicity
—Proves most of the reports are vague, filled with incongruent detail, or crudely fabricated

By Makhdoom Babar in Islamabad & Cherry Ferguson in London

www.DailyMailNews.com
British newspaper The Guardian’s report with regard to the leak of Intelligence files in the US, describing Pakistan’s ISI being hand in glove with Taliban or warlords in Afghanistan proves that the info in the leaked files were not credible and is based in unreliable sources with no evidence available to make the info authentic.

The Guardian report, rejecting the info in the leaked files says “They also link the ISI to some of the war’s most notorious commanders. In April 2007 for instance, the ISI is alleged to have sent 1,000 motorbikes to the warlord Jalaluddin Haqqani for suicide attacks in Khost and Logar provinces. But for all their eye-popping details, the intelligence files, which are mostly collated by junior officers relying on informants and Afghan officials, fail to provide a convincing smoking gun for ISI complicity. Most of the reports are vague, filled with incongruent detail, or crudely fabricated. The same characters – famous Taliban commanders, well-known ISI officials – and scenarios repeatedly pop up. And few of the events predicted in the reports subsequently occurred.”

The Guradian report further says “A retired senior American officer said ground-level reports were considered to be a mixture of “rumours, bullshit and second-hand information” and were weeded out as they passed up the chain of command. “As someone who had to sift through thousands of these reports, I can say that the chances of finding any real information are pretty slim,” said the officer, who has years of experience in the region.

If anything, the jumble of allegations highlights the perils of collecting accurate intelligence in a complex arena where all sides have an interest in distorting the truth.

“The fog of war is particularly dense in Afghanistan,” said Michael Semple, a former deputy head of the EU mission there. “A barrage of false information is being passed off as intelligence and anyone who wants to operate there needs to be able to sift through it. The opportunities to be misled are innumerable.”

The Guardian report further says, “Many of the 180 reports appear to betray as much about the motivation of the sources than those of the alleged foreign puppet-masters. Some US officers were aware of this. One report from 2006 notes that an informant “divulges information for monetary remuneration and likely fabricated or exaggerated the above report for just that reason”.
Some of the most striking claims come from the National Directorate of Security, Afghanistan’s foremost spy agency and a bitter rival to the ISI.

In July and August 2008 the NDS passed information to the US that three Pakistan-trained militants plotting to kill Karzai had been groomed by a named ISI officer and had trained at the Zarb Momen camp outside Karachi. The attackers were Palestinian and Arab, the report said, and intended to strike during a visit by Karzai to a Kabul mosque or the luxury Serena hotel.

But the report’s strong assertions fade under retrospective scrutiny. The predicted assault on Karzai never took place (the last reported attempt was in April 2008, four months earlier), and there is no known militant camp called Zarb Momen in Karachi, a city with hundreds of hardline madrasas. The al-Rashid Trust, a charity with militant links, publishes a magazine by the same name, said Amir Rana, an Islamabad-based militancy expert.

Agencies add: Senator John Kerry, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has said the documents released by WikiLeaks raised serious issues about the U.S.’s handling of the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“However illegally these documents came to light, they raise serious questions about the reality of America’s policy toward Pakistan and Afghanistan. Those policies are at a critical stage and these documents may very well underscore the stakes and make the calibrations needed to get the policy right more urgent.” The Washington Post newspaper notes how WikiLeaks’ decision to let The New York Times and two European news outlets have access to the classified reports “reflects the growing strength and sophistication of the small nonprofit Web site.”

CROSSTALK With Peter Lavelle: Is Pakistan Next On US Target List?

Russia Today TV

On this edition of CrossTalk with Peter Lavelle, his guests discuss whether Pakistan could be the target of the next American-led invasion in the region.

Guests include Dan Qayyum, analyst at the Pakistani alternative policy institute and news-service PKKH (PakistanKaKhudaHafiz.com) – South Asia analyst for ‘Fortress’ Defence Journal – joined by Anatol Lieven, (British author, journalist, and policy analyst) – presently a Senior Researcher (Bernard L. Schwartz fellow and American Strategy Program fellow) at the New America Foundation, where he focuses on US global strategy and the War on Terrorism, Associated Scholar of the Transnational Crisis Project, Chair of International Relations and Terrorism Studies at King’s College London – and Shuja Nawaz, political and strategic analyst based in Washington DC, author of “Crossed Swords: Pakistan, its Army, and the Wars Within,” is director of the South Asia Center of the Atlantic Council.

Watch Video: http://www.pakistankakhudahafiz.com/2010/07/26/us-should-pack-its-bags-dan-qayyum-pkkh-on-russiatoday-tv/

After the Times Square case, US pundits took to the airwaves to malign Pakistan for an act committed by a US terrorist. This was a gift from God to DynCorp and Blackwater, reaffirming that America must continue a failed war.

By TheNation

Sunday, 16 May 2010.

WWW.PAKNATIONALISTS.COM

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—It has finally taken a US Republican Senator to see some sense and admit that there was no proof of any Taliban connection with Faisal Shahzad, and that the Obama Administration has been making its statements in this connection purely on conjecture.

According to the top Republican of the Senate Intelligence Committee, US intelligence had no real proof of any Taliban link at all.

This is what the Pakistanis have been saying all along, including the Pakistan military. The TTP itself has stated it had no link with Shahzad, nor had it trained him. Given how the TTP routinely lay claim to terror acts across the world with no hesitation, and often when they are not involved even, if they had denied any linkage to Shahzad that denial should have been given some credibility.
However, the US Administration, for its own purposes, was so desperate to malign Pakistan and Pakistanis as monsters that it behaved in a most irresponsible manner towards an ally that has had its citizens shed their blood for the US cause. In the process, they have undermined the safety and security of thousands of Pakistani students and others living in the US; they have publicly and wrongfully sought to portray Pakistanis in a dangerous light and have almost forgotten that Shahzad is an American citizen.

Ironically, in an effort to demonise Pakistan and Pakistanis, they have also conveniently forgotten that none of the 9/11 terrorists were Pakistani or had lived in Pakistan. But such sensitive details are lost on a US Administration that effectively is following the Bush policies on Pakistan.

Unfortunately, some US apologists in Pakistan have also been quick to jump on this US bandwagon and tried to show how middle class Pakistanis are all anti-American and capable of carrying out terror attacks against the US! No one is interested in the truth and all Pakistanis now are deemed to be guilty till proven innocent as far as the US is concerned. That is why the New York transport authorities (MTA) saw it fit to put out an advertisement directly targeting Pakistanis, which has since been removed from some places but not totally.
The worst part is that Mrs. Clinton as well as the US Attorney General who made the strongest Shahzad-TTP linkage in his statements have not seen fit to either concede this mistake or apologise to the Pakistani people for their histrionics and accusations. As for the haste in declaring the Shahzad-TTP link, clearly it had a purpose. It was intended to push Pakistanis into acceding to more unreasonable demands from the US – such as an immediate commencement of the military operation by the Pakistan Army in NWA and the increase in US troops on the ground in Pakistan. All this has also been accompanied by increased drone attacks on FATA. Meanwhile, Pakistanis stand maligned and abused; but who gives a damn?

You got it wrong Obama: Threat IS from India

It has been a tumultuous week in which the United States Administration officials have played good cop and bad cop–with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton blowing hot and Barack Obama blowing cold over Pakistan. US President Barack Obama on Wednesday fell into the Democratic Party lecture mode which tries to tell Pakistanis who the enemies are. He forgot Bharat (aka India’s obsession with Pakistan) and suggested Pakistan had some bad habits. As if talking to a child he lectured that his Administration wanted Pakistan “to get over its obsession with India” and focus more on terrorist groups operating in Pakistan.

During a joint press conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai the American President said: “I think there has been in the past a view on the part of Pakistan that their primary rival, India, was their only concern. I think what you’ve seen over the last several months is a growing recognition that they have a cancer in their midst; that the extremist organizations that have been allowed to congregate and use as a base the frontier areas to then go into Afghanistan, that that now threatens Pakistan’s sovereignty.”

There appears to be mounting pressure from Washington on the Islamabad

government to act  against the terrorist in North Waziristan. General Kayani has clearly said that the operation in North Waziristan will be conducted at the time of the Army’s choosing. President Obama seemed to echo the sense in his administration that that process was going to be gradual.

Delhi supports terror outfits in Lanka (LTTE), Bangladesh (Chakma), Iran (Jundullah) and Pakistan (TTP, BLA). Bharat has threatened Pakistan with all out war–and arrayed all her forces on the borders for months. She sent 80,000 terrorists into East Pakistan disguised as the Mukti Bahni, and dressed as Pakistani soldiers.

Mr. Obama has been to Pakistan and has talked to hundreds of Pakistanis. He is also internet savvy. What compels him to make a statement that is repugnant to all Pakistanis. Pakistan sees the TTP as an Indian appendage and an irritation–the real threat is from Bharat (aka India).

When Mr. Obama fails to recognize this simple fact–he represents “The Ugly American” to Pakistanis–and creates more Anti-Americanism.

President Obama declared that “It’s going to take some time for Pakistan, even where there is a will, to find a way in order to effectively deal with these extremists in areas that are fairly loosely governed from Islamabad.”

The American President’s statement comes in a week during which US administration officials have attempted to use the Times Square incident to exact more pressure on Pakistan.

Washington went into a tizzy fit with Hillary Clinton leading the Quixotic “Charge of the Light Brigade” against the Turkish Army which were windmills in actuality. Pandering to the domestic audience the right wingers in Congress she warned Pakistan of “severe consequences” if such an attempt originating from its territory were to be successful.

There was a huge backlash to the Hillary Clinton threat in Pakistan. The Pakistani Senate renounced the threat and the Pakistan media spent days analyzing every nuance of the bluster. Ms. Hillary Clinton lost a a lot of credibility in Pakistan, and it will be tough for her to build trust with the Pakistanis. If a lone wolf can tarnish US relations, what kind of strategic dialogue is it?

The threat apparently caught the State Department by surprise and they sent in their fire brigade to do as much damage starving millions, who cares!

control as possible.  Both the State Department spokesman PJ Crowley and Ambassador Richard Holbrooke tried to play down the impact of her statement by saying that she had not said what she had said.

Hillary Clinton had really gone off the handle when she declared in a CBS interview that “Pakistan has a real problem internally with terrorism and we’ve seen them fight back against it. But they also have a problem that affects the rest of us because all too often that terrorism is being exported.”

Mr. Obama–when will the Democratic Party stop defending Bharat–when will its Bharati obsession be over?

Source:  opinion-maker.org

The US-Pakistan Strategic Dialogue was supposed to correct the mistakes done by Pakistani leadership in dealing with Washington after 9/11.  So how did we end up ‘outsourcing’ Pakistan’s problems to American bureaucrats, auditors and senators?

By Ahmed Quraishi

Thursday, 8 April 2010.

WWW.PAKNATIONALISTS.COM

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—Seeing the official Pakistani wish list fort the Strategic Dialogue you’d think Pakistan’s managers are outsourcing Pakistan to America. If Washington is supposed to solve all of our energy, educational, strategic, military and economic problems, what are we here for?  To get commission on aid grants?

The United States came to the Strategic Dialogue with a gun to its head.  We are grateful to Washington for giving us a fair hearing. But can we force a change of mindset in Washington just because the US is facing a temporary setback in Afghanistan and needs Pakistan – again – to cut its losses?

The Bush administration caused a lot of damage to Pakistan’s geostrategic environment in the past eight years.  Far from receiving any benefit, we saw our ally empowering our enemies. Even now, our ally reluctantly launched a strategic dialogue. The fear is that Pakistan is being taken again for a ride just as George W. Bush did when he dubbed us a Major Non-Nato Ally promising a new day that never came.  This is why Pakistan’s military commanders need to be congratulated for driving a hard bargain on Pakistan’s role in any new arrangements in Afghanistan. This snatched some victory from the jaws of what looked like sure defeat.

But our bargain is still not hard enough. For a nation that has suffered more than US $ 35 billion in losses and more than five thousand dead, one fifth of them due to US bombings in our tribal belt and others due to other regional intrigues, our position is still not fully recognized. There is an impression in the air that Washington is somehow doing a favor to Islamabad by holding a strategic dialogue.

We need to strengthen the hands of Pakistan’s friends in Washington and work with them to roll back the damage done to Pakistan’s interests.  But for this our political and military leaders need to level with their American counterparts on a number of major issues.

Will the US;

·         End its policy of encouraging the expansion in Indian military footprint in the region?

·         End its policy of demonizing Pakistan in the media?

·         End efforts to create pliant governments in Islamabad cultivate political proxies?

·         End efforts to contain Pakistan’s military and intelligence infrastructure?

·         End efforts to make Pakistan’s interests subservient to those of India’s in the region?

·         End its policy of ignoring Kashmir?

·         End its policy of not accepting Pakistan’s nuclear power status?

There is no hint on any one of these issues in the joint statement issued at the end of the talks.  This is why the jubilant statements by our prime minister and the foreign minister after the first few rounds of the dialogue were premature. They reinforced the impression that the Pakistani government will be happy with crumbs.  There was no mention of a free trade agreement or even a hint on a civil nuclear energy agreement. And yet our government took the exceptional step of moving the courts to reopen cases against Dr. A. Q. Khan, which appears like a lousy attempt at appeasement and is not a good precedent for the future.

Up to one thousand Pakistanis or more have died as collateral damage during CIA’s drone operations in our tribal belt, not to mention of the thousands of affected families of our civilians and soldiers.  Pakistani officials should have arranged to introduce some of these families to the US public to sensitize it. The US media has been too anti-Pakistan to let the good ordinary Americans see and understand the Pakistani perspective.

How can we convince anyone of our arguments when clear divisions exist in Islamabad on major issues? A public event sponsored by some of the coalition members in the Pakistani government a few days ago in Peshawar actually called for increasing CIA drone activity inside Pakistan.  Pakistani officials are also yet to take a stand on the fact that key leaders of terrorism inside Balochistan continue to enjoy the Afghan safe haven. The United States is yet to take measures to curb this.

Seen in the right perspective, the US-Pakistan strategic dialogue should correct the imbalances of the initial deals that framed the joint cooperation after 9/11.   The next rounds of the dialogue should deal with these major flaws in the US-Pakistani alliance instead of creating the impression that we are outsourcing our problems to American bureaucrats.

This column was first published by The News International.

Shireen M Mazari

President Obama has called a Nuclear Security Summit in Washington in April (12-13) this year and more than 40 heads of state are expected to attend. This is a follow-on from Obama’s Pra-gue speech of April 5 in which he outlined his arms control and nuclear nonproliferation objectives with nuclear terrorism topping the list. Now there is a growing lobby within Washington that sees Obama’s nuclear arms reduction and disarmament pledges as threatening to US long-term interests; and so far Obama has not managed to move substanti-vely on his commitments in this field – as has been the story with him since he began functioning as the US president. In fact, so far his foreign policy in actual actions has not strayed too far from that of his predecessor.

Be that as it may, since the Pakistani president will also be present at this Summit, the country needs to evolve a policy on nuclear security that ensures Pakistan’s interests for the future. One does not expect President Zardari to actu-ally take a strong nationalist position against the Western tide at the Summit, but we can at least highlight what does need to be done and live in hope. A beginning needs to be made by preparing our interpretations of the four main points of the Obama nonproliferation objectives. The environment envisaged is not a UN-type international framework for nuclear security but a US-led framework, with the US firmly in the driving seat. So, the first thing Pakistan needs to build support for the view that any such framework must be within a UN framework and support for this view can be built amongst the developing states, who are critical to the success of this Summit.

Then comes the Obama agenda, beginning with the desire to “lead a global effort” to secure all vulnerable nuclear weapons materials at vulnerable sites within a time frame of four years – Obama’s term in office! Now clearly, Pakistan will be targeted on this count but we need to point to the truly vulnerable sites which actually are primarily in the US. After all, it is from the US that a USAF plane simply took off with live nuclear weapons and no one knew who had authorised it or where it was headed. So there are serious question marks about US command and control and till these are cleared, US nuclear sites need to be under extra international supervision. Also, Pakistan needs to demand at this Summit that all past incidences of “loose nukes” be evaluated and the most vulnerable or accident-prone sites should then be secured. Of course no such incidents have ever cropped up in Pakistan so we should ensure that our nuclear sites do not even come up for discussion – although that will be part of the US agenda.

Then Obama is seeking, acco-rding to his Prague speech, new partnerships and new standards to protect sensitive nuclear materials. Well, if Obama is really committed to this objective, the first thing he needs to do is to move out of the nuclear deal with India – the 123 Agreement – since that wid-ens the scope for diversion of nuclear materials for weapons purposes, given the lose safeguards agreements and the freeing of Indian fissile material for the production of more nukes. So far the US has set regressive standards for nuclear material safety through this deal with India and through its continuing proliferation to Israel – so let the US move towards setting new standards that truly ensure nonproliferation. Many states will be prepared to enter into nondiscriminatory partnerships with the US on this count.
Obama also wants to convert coalitions of the willing effectively into international institutions – such as the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) and the Glo-bal Effort to Combat Nuclear Terrorism. PSI should certainly be open to all states but for Pakistan it is essential to ensure that this does not contravene the Law of the Sea agreements. As for the Global Effort to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, there are already international treaties that exist like the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material Treaty. Why not simply stren-gthen these? Also, the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference is coming up in May and it is time the NPT was brought in line with the prevailing ground realities where two overt nuclear weapon states are not accommodated as such within the Treaty.

As for the desire to build efforts to break up nuclear black markets and use financial tools to disrupt this trade, this too requires a cooperative international framework where no one state or its people are targeted as Pakistan has been. After all, the so-called “Khan network” comprised primarily Europeans and Southeast Asia-ns but only Pakistan and Dr Khan were targeted. Unless politics is left out of this issue, there can be no real movement to create a substantive framework for actually stopping the trade in clandestine nuclear material transfers.

Beyond this, Pakistan needs to suggest some proactive proposals which can ensure greater nuclear security. The first proposal should centre on the international availability of technologies that can enhance the security of nuclear weapons and sites, without conditi-onalities. Also, it is no use trying to deal solely with the threat of nuclear terrorism – which is not in reality the major weapon of terrorism – without going into understanding root causes of terrorism and the fallout of military-centric approaches.

Linked to this issue is the reality of the US and Indian doctrinal trends towards first use of nuclear weapons as reflected in the US Nuclear Posture Review as well its decision to produce mini battlefield nukes and India’s nuclear doctrine. Unless countries like these really commit to altering their aggressive nuclear doctrines, they will increase the assumption globally that nuclear weapons are viable militarily – something deterrence had done away with before it was cast aside by Bush Jr and has not been restored in US strategic thinking since.

Pakistan also needs to demand a review of the US position on the FMCT, especially on international verifications and most importantly on reduction in existing stockpiles. If there is to be nuclear security globally, the massive existing stockpiles need to be reduced first before a Fissile Material Treaty can come into being – as opposed to a discriminatory Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty. There are many other ideas Pakistan can evolve and push for at the Summit to give the world an idea of how we, a nuclear power, are thinking on nuclear security issues.

Pakistan needs to be clear on all these points and on its own red lines so no ad hoc compromises are affected in Washington. Already the Americans are putting the pressure through their so-called non-official channels. We are soon going to be visited by two US think tank people extremely hostile to Pakistan and its nuclear programme: Michael Kreppon and George Perkovich. Our Establishment is awaiting them eagerly simply because they have led the criticism on the Indo-US nuclear deal. What has been forgotten is their constant targeting of Pakistan’s nuclear programme – such is our passion and desire to embrace all things Americans. Let us hope we rid ourselves of this dangerous naiveté before the Washington Summit!

Lahore’s military zone is not only exposed to covert Indian operatives but also to undercover US agents with their suspicious heavy-duty equipment placed in several houses inside a gated community right in the heart of the city’s military area since 2007.

By AHMED QURAISHI

Sunday, 14 March 2010.

WWW.PAKNATIONALISTS.COM

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—The eastern city of Lahore is exposed not only to the Indians who have been sending terrorists to plant bombs in public places for the past quarter of a century, but also to the Americans who expanded their covert presence inside Pakistan in the last three years of President Musharraf’s rule.  After the return to democratic rule, President Zardari’s government has taken US penetration of Pakistan to new heights.

Last year, Pakistanis were stunned to watch several incidents where US citizens were caught by the Military Police at checkpoints leading up to the city’s military zone known as Cantt.  Most of the time, these US individuals refused to say what business took them to the military area. The US Consulate in Lahore is located far away from this zone, which compounded the mystery. These US nationals also refused to allow the police to check their vehicles, which is a standard procedure that all Pakistanis undergo considering the terrorist attacks. On a couple of occasions, US vehicles whose drivers refused to cooperate with MP caused long queues at checkpoints. Military Police officers impounded these vehicles. This led to US officials complaining to their media that Pakistan was ‘harassing’ US diplomats.

But the truth is that the Americans have covertly maintained an outpost of several houses in a gated community right in the heart of the city’s military zone. This zone is so sensitive that a half-constructed Sheraton Hotel lies abandoned on one of Cantt’s main streets because the Pakistani military objected that the new hotel’s upper floors provided an easy view of the residence of the commander of the Pakistan Army Corp that guards Pakistan’s northeastern border with India.

This makes the covert US presence in this area intriguing to say the least. The exact location of those houses, in the elite Sarwar Colony, is shown in the pictures that accompany this report. This colony is a place where retired Pakistani military generals reside. A handful of them have apparently leased out their homes to the Americans for exorbitant rates that far exceed the normal level of leased property rates in the Colony, according to a fascinating expose published by TheNation and is reproduced below in full.

So how did the Pakistani military allow such a breach to occur in this sensitive area?

One explanation is that the Americans moved with their gadgetry and equipment to this place sometime in late 2006 and early 2007. This means that the arrangement had the blessings of former President Musharraf.  This is significant because it means the US presence in this sensitive location is part of the sovereign understandings that Pakistan entered with the United States during that time. And no matter how damaging this is for Pakistani security interests, Islamabad and the Pakistani military are forced to put up with this foreign presence for as long as those understandings are effective.

Another explanation is that Mr. Musharraf’s regime allowed the Americans to setup shop here without the full knowledge of all the relevant branches of the Pakistani military and intelligence agencies.  If this is the case, then it is alarming indeed.

This story becomes relevant in the aftermath of a series of attacks in Lahore over the past two years, including one that targeted a visiting Sri Lankan cricket team. The strange part is that all of these attacks either target Pakistan’s allies [Sri Lankans, Chinese] or attack ordinary Pakistanis to kill the largest numbers of them.  Americans or American and British interests have never been attacked in this manner throughout this so-called war on terror that Pakistan has been executing on America’s behalf. If anything, much of this terror is linked to a proxy militia in South Waziristan that claims to be a Pakistani Taliban but receives all its arms and funding from US-controlled Afghanistan where the Indians also maintain a vast intelligence network aimed at Pakistan.

For a list of recorded incidents in Pakistan where private US mercenaries or defense contractors were caught at places where they should not be, see this story, What Robert Gates Didn’t Say – And US Media Hides – About Blackwater In Pakistan.

The question is: What are the Americans doing in Cantt’s Sarwar Colony?

The easiest answer is taking up residence. But there is something more to this than homemaking. The location indicates that the Americans want to keep an eye on movements and chatter in Cantt, which could indicate where Pakistan’s relations with India are headed. Washington is keen to convince Pakistan that India is trustworthy enough for Pakistan to move its army units away from India’s border and get busy in fighting America’s war in Afghanistan.

The Americans could also be interested in keeping an eye on some of the nearby military installations, including one of the largest Pakistan Air Force bases, and also a couple of nuclear installations. There are indications that the US is also interested in seeing the war on terror extended to the heartland of Punjab province in the mistaken belief that this would hurt the base of Pakistani military [Indian intelligence analysts have convinced their American counterparts that Pakistan’s military is all about Punjab province and hitting this province can help subdue Pakistan’s military and ensure its full alignment with US objectives.]

Here is the report published by TheNation on Feb. 21 on the covert US presence in Sarwar Colony in Cantt, Lahore, since 2007 and how scores of Pakistani families have become unwilling neighbors of foreigners they don’t want to see around:

“The mystery of why US personnel were being constantly caught entering into the sensitive area of Lahore Cantonment and thereby getting caught by the Military Police, has finally been resolved. However, in the process some serious questions have arisen.
In 2007, under the Musharraf regime, Americans moved into Sarwar Colony, located behind CSD Cantt just off Aziz Bhatti Shaheed Road. This gated colony contains around 200-250 houses and they are owned by retired or serving generals of Pakistan Army. The Americans have been comfortable ensconced here in a few rented houses since 2007 in what is a highly sensitive location. So question number one: Why were the Americans given permission to locate themselves in this area and who gave the permission?
Their activities really caught on only recently when they acquired Houses 87 and 88 (see pictures), ostensibly for the US embassy staff relocated from Peshawar to Lahore! The rents paid for these houses are also far higher than the average for the Colony which is around Rs 150,000 maximum. The Americans are paying around Rs 320,000 for each house per month.
Towards the end of the last year and the start of this year, the Americans intercepted at the Cantt bridge several times were all those coming to this location. However, these Americans refused to tell Military Police officials what their destination was inside Lahore Cantt. So question number two is: Why, if the Americans had rented these houses genuinely for residential accommodation? Linked to this is question three: How come the Military Police were not in on this vital piece of information? Why were they being kept in the dark?
When these houses were rented, in the first three months high security measures were taken for them -grilling, the glass was all changed probably to bullet proof, and infrared security devices were installed with a lighting system. Then, four months ago, big container trailers entered the colony (which is restricted) about seven or eight in number, and they were off loaded into the houses in the predawn hours. After the offloading, the security of the premises was given to Elite Force Punjab and Wackenhut private security guards. The covert usage of these buildings became apparent because anyone seen coming too close to the properties was mistreated and threatened.
Children playing in the park right in front of these two houses often threw balls inside the porches of these two houses. Usually Americans come out swearing. Once, children reported that a growling and angry American came out and flattened the ball before returning it to them.
Some of the Pakistani guards outside the two houses told residents in the neighbourhood that the Americans were transporting and installing hi-tech equipment in the houses. At least one resident in the neighbourhood reports that some of the guards took photographs of some of this equipment and showed them to the residents. One of the residents who saw the pictures reports that a US citizen was watching the guard from inside the house and came out, snatched the mobile phone and threatened the resident not to contact the guards again or come near the house.
But the real issue and core question is: Why the Americans are being allowed to use houses in this sensitive area of Lahore cantonment when there now exists a decision of the Government that foreigners cannot even enter the cantonment areas without prior permission?
To find out how the local residents are taking to their American neighbours, TheNation sent its reporter to the Colony and discovered a terrorised Pakistani community right in the heart of their own country. His account speaks for itself since of some unidentified private American security guards equipped with M4s. The offloaded stuff was professionally packed in layers of plastic and wood.”

‘It is Pakistan that needs to complain, and complain loudly’

An Interview with Ahmed Quraishi, by Jason Miks

The Diplomat

The Diplomat speaks with Pakistani commentator Ahmed Quraishi about the country’s current military offensive in Waziristan, relations with the US and what America should do to improve its image in Pakistan.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in Pakistan this month meeting key political leaders. What did you make of her comment that she finds it difficult to believe that nobody in the Pakistani government knows the whereabouts of top al-Qaeda members?

Ahmed Quraishi: It was very surprising to even the most hardened skeptics here in Pakistan to hear a US secretary of state saying this, because despite all we heard during the eight years of President [George W.] Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, no American official accused Pakistan or ‘rogue elements’ in the country of supporting or protecting al-Qaeda. If ever there were any grievances with Pakistan on this count, they were mostly focused on that Pakistan had done a very good job of cooperating with the Americans on al-Qaeda, but that progress was still lacking on the Afghan Taliban and its leadership. So in the entire eight years since September 11, no US official actually criticized Pakistan by saying Pakistan was somehow trying to protect al-Qaeda.

Second, the facts contradict what the secretary of state said. Everybody knows the vast number of al-Qaeda operatives that have been arrested have been arrested in Pakistan. And the big fish names, although there is close cooperation between the CIA and ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence], were arrested thanks to crucial information coming from Pakistani intelligence sources. This is, of course, natural seeing as it is our country, and it’s only to be expected that the ISI and other Pakistani government agencies should be at the forefront of finding these people. And they did.

And three, another crucial point is that if we’re going to throw blame at each other, then frankly speaking it is Pakistan that needs to complain–and complain loudly–at the failure of US intelligence and the US military back in late November and early December 2001 to corner and arrest Osama bin Laden. If you remember the battle in Tora Bora on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, that battle was instrumental at providing an escape route to the al-Qaeda chief and his liuetenanats. And the biggest blame for that actually goes to US intelligence, which relied on unreliable Afghan warlords on the ground who apparently took money, probably from al-Qaeda operatives, and let Osama bin Laden escape.

So if anyone should be complaining it should be the Pakistanis, who now have to deal with this country’s mess, basically because many of these people who should have been eliminated in Afghanistan were able to disperse and mostly head for Pakistan. And this is mostly because of the thin American presence in Afghanistan, the poorly secured military presence in that country and of course the poorly secured border.

One of the reasons Secretary Clinton was visiting was to try and improve the US image in Pakistan. How much of an image problem does the US have there?

Quraishi: In this whole debate about America’s image in Pakistan, and people talk of course about how America supported a military dictator [General Pervez Musharraf] and so forth, the reality is that the real grievances pertain to issues that are not really discussed very openly, especially in the American media, and which are not really known about by American public opinion. I’m talking about things like, for example, the fact that the US military and the Afghan army, which is being trained by the US army, suddenly removed all their posts from the Afghan side of the border when Pakistan began its military operation in South Waziristan.

This isn’t the figment of anyone’s imagination–it has been verified by people on the ground and was raised by the Pakistani chief with General Stanley McCrystal a couple of weeks back. This story was headline news on major Pakistani news channels and in newspapers, so it’s surprising that so little time has been given over to such grievances, which provide fodder to skeptics in Pakistan who question US motives in Afghanistan.

And of course we have a standing complaint that weapons and money that are sustaining terrorists are coming from Afghanistan. And it’s not just the factor of Afghan warlords and drug money and so forth. It’s beyond that. And we feel little time is given to this grievance in the US media. US officials know about it, and often discuss the issue with Pakistani officials, but they never talk about this openly. So I find it very funny when Secretary Clinton comes over here and says ‘you have some questions about our role, and we have some grievances about yours, but we need to reach some common ground.’ Sure. But this entire thing that is going on in the Af-Pak region is a result of US policy. And eight years on, this project is falling apart and isn’t showing any signs of being nearer a conclusion than it was, say, five years ago. So serious questions are arising about why in Pakistan we continue to be part of a project that shows every signs of failing, if it has not already failed.

What would you like to see the US doing differently to improve its image?

Quraishi: Two things. One is that in terms of foreign policy, on its policy on Afghanistan, it needs to take its Pakistani ally along as it moves on. What has happened over the past eight years is that Pakistan was not taken along in US planning on Afghanistan. A government was set up in Kabul that was decidedly full of anti-Pakistan elements, elements that are antagonistic to Pakistan. Now when I say this I don’t mean that the Afghan government should be pro-Paksitan. But they should not be antagonistic. So the United States and the different stakeholders in policy in Afghanistan, including the intelligence community and the military, will have to trust Pakistan and take it along as an ally, and not treat it as someone to be looked upon with suspicion, or to be used for logistical help it needs but to then not trust it on the long-term questions of what kind of government should be in Kabul and whether the Pashtuns need to be isolated from such a government or not.

Number two, the United States needs to understand that it is counter productive to try and interfere in the domestic politics of Pakistan. Very few observers in the United States discuss a very interesting thing that they have been doing in Pakistan, which is to try and micromanage that country. The very government we have in Pakistan right now, the elected government in Islamabad, wouldn’t have been in place without a deal that was discussed and tailored and finalized at the US State Department with the active participation of diplomats from the United States and United Kingdom. And, of course, with the full backing of Vice President Cheney at that time. That deal resulted in tailoring the political set up that you currently see in Pakistan, and it dealt with such minute issues as who would be the coalition partner, which parties could work with the United States, and which ones could not.

So this kind of micromanagement has really backfired–when the United States was tailoring this kind of deal with Musharraf, the anti-Americanism in Pakistan was not at a level it is at right now. So this tells you something at least about how the micromanagement has backfired and has produced possibly an exaggerated feeling of a threat among the ordinary Pakistani on the street.

As you mentioned, the Pakistani military recently embarked on a major offensive in Waziristan. What do you think the prospects for success are?

Quraishi: There’s no question that a ragtag army of mountain fighters who do not enjoy the full support of the people of the area they are based in–the people of that area are pouring into other parts of Pakistan where temporary camps have been set up for as long as this military operation goes on–that such a militia cannot sustain itself in the face of a large and well-organized army.

Of course, when the Pakistan army began the Swat operation in the spring of this year, there was a lot of skepticism–especially when almost 2 million people from that area poured into refugee camps, people were asking how that problem would be dealt with. But now, over 1.5 million people have been restored to their towns and villages in the Swat region, and that region is overwhelmingly secure now.

There’s no reason why this can’t be replicated in South Waziristan. It’s a small patch of land. The only uncertainty we really have is over the Afghan side of the border–there aren’t enough Afghan soldiers on that side, and there are no US military or ISAF on the other side. This is a constant problem and we know money and weapons are coming through from that side. The Mehsud terror militia is not sustaining itself from inside Pakistan. I understand that Pakistani officers have had assurances from General McCrystal that he will do what he can with the resources he has in Afghanistan to secure that area and ensure that such movement doesn’t occur backward and forward. But we’ll have to wait and see. At the moment though, the prospects look good.

By Shireen M Mazari
Obama is certainly stretching his global goodwill to its limits. After critiquing the US invasion of Iraq when out of power, he has upped the military ante with the surge in Afghanistan; refocused on the military centric approach in Pakistan with a massive increase in drone attacks against Pakistani civilians (just so much “collateral damage” for the US of course) on the one hand, and with the successful goading of the Pakistan military through the Zardari nexus into FATA where the quagmire is already unfolding in the terrible deaths of our soldiers and innocent civilians while the terrorism issue shows no signs of abating. Pakistan has come out the worst in Obama’s policies especially in terms of the growing intrusiveness the US is acquiring in our daily lives with US inspectors now promising to hover in all our bureaucracies to see that the “aid” they are giving is spent as they see fit – not to mention the $.9 billion that will immediately go back to the US for the rebuilding of its embassy in a more imperial design.

However, it is not just Pakistan that is suffering from what is effectively a right-wing Obama agenda. Now Obama has teamed up with Russia to fool the world in terms of nuclear disarmament. The US and Russian leaders declared in a grand fashion that they have agreed to reduce their existing nuclear stockpiles but failed to tell the world that most of these reductions would be of redundant weapons which will create space for the new ones. After all, neither side avowed to stop adding to their arsenals!

An even more dangerous development has been the gradual taking over of critical international institutions by the US and its preferred personnel. We first saw the UN effectively become a tool in US hands with the Secretary-Generalship going to South Korea’s Ban Ki Moon – a look at the UN record post the Moon takeover will be self-explanatory. Now we have seen the IAEA once again coming under the US and its allies’ control with the election of Japan’s Ambassador Yukiya Amano by the IAEA BoG followed by his formal appointment by the BoG. Now the General Conference will confirm this appointment later in September. This election of Amano is unfortunate since the strong positions taken by the present DG, El Baradei stand threatened as the Japanese have always gone along with US positions – something Baradei did not do and therefore fell afoul of this super power. Competing with Amano was South Africa’s Abdul Samad Minty – a respected and strong diplomat, which is why the US had nightmares. Till the last ballot, the stalemate persisted but in the end one vote changed it all and the Indian media has been agog with how their last minute reversal to an abstention allowed Amano to win. No one will ever know but having seen Minty in action two years ago, he would have been the more desirable strong man to follow Baradei and maintain IAEA’s independent positioning on issues like Iran.

So now the US has won back control of the UN and IAEA. Apparently, the US is already using the Japanese to wield pressure where it cannot do so itself too overtly. In this connection, recently a Japanese team visited Pakistan demanding access to Dr Khan but were not successful. Now with Amano at the helm at the IAEA, what sort of Japanese pressure will we see vis a vis Pakistan? Perhaps it is time we drew more attention to Japan’s massive civil nuclear programme and its controversial reprocessing agenda.

Nor is this all in terms of US seeking to implement its nuclear agenda globally. It has got things moving again at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva on the Fissile Material Cut off Treaty (FMCT). Perhaps after what happened at the IAEA on the Indian safeguards agreement, we should not be surprised to find that our highly competent head diplomat in Geneva also buckled under (or was made to) and accepted the US-pushed programme of work for the CD. This does not specifically include the issue of existing nuclear stockpiles in relation to the FMCT so has Pakistan shifted its position to its permanent disadvantage under US pressure once again? Also, while the programme of work has identified four issues – FMCT, Nuclear Disarmament, PAROS (Prevention of Arms Race in Outer Space) and Negative Security Guarantees – by delinking these issues the attempt is clearly to move on the FMCT without conditionalities relating to the other three issues. This is again a major shift because many states including China wanted linkages between the FMCT and PAROS for instance. Now it would appear that the US will again move on the FMCT as it did on the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in the UN in the sixties. When states like Pakistan had raised issues of negative and positive security guarantees to be linked to the NPT, the US insisted that first the NPT should be approved and then the security guarantee issues could be dealt with. The result was that the Conference on the security guarantees followed the passage of the NPT and the US was not prepared to even provide negative security assurances in any form whatsoever to non-nuclear weapons states. For Pakistan all these issues, and none more so than the issue of reduction of existing stockpiles of fissile material, are very crucial in the context of the FMCT and even if we have to go it alone we should, because otherwise we will be at a permanent disadvantage. But the way things are unfolding it appears we may have made some fatal compromises already in this regard.

It is in this overall context of the US pushing its nuclear agenda globally that we must raise our voices of concern over what seems to have become a covert official US policy – to allow Israel to deal with Iran’s nuclear facilities. Most recently Biden (New York Times) stated that the US would not “stand in Israel’s way” if it sought to take action against Iran’s nuclear facilities. It was amusing to hear Biden talk of Israel being a “sovereign” state taking its own decisions! Now when did the US ever respect any state’s sovereignty – as we in Pakistan have continuously experienced and still do so! Be that as it may, the Biden statement was threatening because it came alongside a 5th July 2009 Sunday Times story that Israel’s Mossad chief had informed his prime minister of Saudi Arabia’s assurance to him that it would turn a blind eye to Israeli jets flying over Saudi air space to conduct attacks against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Early this year it had also been reported that the Mossad Chief, Dagan, had met Saudi officials.

So a new and threatening pattern is emerging even as Obama seeks to woo the world with what is now becoming his glibness rather than a serious intent to alter the course of US policies on security issues. Is it a mere coincidence that we are now seeing unprecedented violence breaking out in the Xinjiang capital of Urumqi? We know that the East Turkmenistan Movement still has its offices in New York. So what is the US intent? To send a hostile message to China? What exactly is the Obama administration up to? Is it all a matter of old wine in new bottles rather than any major shift away from a neoimperialist mindset that has been the hallmark of US global policies for some time now?

Too bad. So many had expected so much from Obama – the thinking, intelligent and more world-sensitive US president. But what we are seeing around our part of the world is more of the same – with the new veneer eroding fast. More force; more aggression; more dictation. Just as our leaders crumble once again before the US demands, the US leadership offers little that will compel us to alter our perception of a neoimperial power set on a military-centric course for this part of the world. As before, this course will bring them to ruin but must we go down the same suicidal path?

The writer is a defence analyst. Email: callstr@hotmail.com