Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts

Pakistan Army’s statement not political

Posted by FS On Wednesday, 13 November 2013 0 comments

Federal Information Minister Pervaiz Rasheed,  stated that the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) statement directed at the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) chief  Munawar Hassan was not an interference in politics, Express News reported on Tuesday.
“ISPR’s statement is the voice of every Pakistani,” said the information minister, endorsing ISPR’s condemnation of the JI chief Munawar Hassan calling the the slain Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) chief Hakimullah a ‘martyr.’
The Jamaat-e-Islami had held a meeting on Monday to specifically discuss the Pakistan Army’s press statement.
“The Pakistan army does not have the right to make political or democratic statements,” JI General Secretary Liaquat Baloch had stated.
Baloch also said that a letter regarding the involvement of ISPR in politics would be sent to the Prime Minister.
“Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has not received any letter from Liaquat Baloch,” revealed Rasheed, who is a known figure in the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N).
Background
In addition to calling Mehsud a martyr, JI chief had reportedly said on television that if an American who died on the battlefield was not a martyr, then his backers were also not martyrs because they were chasing the same goal. This was implicitly directed towards the Pakistan Army.
The ISPR had then demanded an apology from the JI chief and stated that Hassan should take his words back.
Within 24 hours of Pakistan Army’s angry rejoinder to a controversial statement by the JI ameer Syed Munawar Hassan, the party’s Shura (consultative body) had pored over the issue during a meeting on November 11.
Though no formal clarification was issued as was demanded in the ISPR statement, JI leaders had said their party considered everyone who dies fighting for the country a martyr (Shaheed).
The Shura meeting – which was chaired by JI chief Syed Munawar Hassan – had agreed that the armed forces have no right to interfere in politics or democratic issues. Briefing the media after the meeting, JI Secretary Baloch had said the Shura decided to draw the government’s attention to the matter because the military’s interference in politics was unacceptable.
JI chief Hassan had stated that his statement regarding the Pakistan Army was correctaccording to Sharia Law during a party session held in Lahore on November 11.
JI Secretary Baloch and senior JI leader Fareed Piracha were also present at the session, which was held to specifically discuss the Pakistan army’s response to Hassan calling the slain TTP chief Mehsud a ‘martyr.’
READ MORE

Kashmir- the violence never abated

Posted by FS On Tuesday, 20 November 2012 0 comments

In the modern era, various forms of state terrorism continue by the Israeli armed forces on the Palestinians. While with the backing of Burmese military regime and the covert assistance...
In the modern era, various forms of state terrorism continue by the Israeli armed forces on the Palestinians. While with the backing of Burmese military regime and the covert assistance of Hindus, recent bloodshed of the minority Rohingya Muslim community at the hands of the Rakhine extremist Buddhists in Burma (Myanmar) presents another such example. Similarly, during the Bosnian War (19921995), Serb forces slaughtered more than 10,000 Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina and buried them in the unamed mass graves. That genocide was repeated in Kosovo where several men and women were murdered.
While, these atrocities are still fresh in the minds of every Muslim, but with the official backing of the government, massacre and harassment of Muslims by the Indian military including paramilitary troops in the Indian-held Kashmir has become a permanent feature.
In this regard, instead of granting the people their genuine right of self-determination and holding plebiscite in the controlled territories of Kashmir in accordance with the UN resolutions, various sorts of state terrorism have become part of a deliberate campaign by the Indian army against Muslim Kashmiris, especially since 1989. It has manifested in brutal tactics such as crackdowns, curfews, illegal detentions, massacre, targeted killings, sieges, burning the houses, torture, disappearances, rape, breaking the legs, molestation of Muslim women and killing of persons through fake encounter.
In this respect, in its report released on October 13, 2012 about detentions under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA) 1978, Amnesty International disclosed under the title, PSA Still a Lawless Law that despite pressure on Indian government, the PSA has not been reviewed and amended. Therefore, new records are being made by Indian law-enforcing agencies and security forces in human rights violations in the Indian occupied Kashmir.
In its previous report, Amnesty International has pointed out: The Indian governments disregard for human rights in Jammu and Kashmir means that in practice people reportedly died in custody and that the whereabouts of the disappeared persons continue to be unknowngovernment forces continue to commit serious violations of humanitarian lawthe Muslim majority population in the Kashmir Valley suffers from the repressive tactics of the security forces. Under the Jammu and Kashmir Disturbed Areas Act, and the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act and Public Safety Act, security forces personnel have extraordinary powers to shoot suspected lawbreakers, and to destroy structures suspected of harboring militants or arms.
Notably, after visiting more than 50 villages, similarly Citizens Council of Justice (CCJ) published a report in Srinager in September, 2012 on human rights violations in the Indian controlled Kashmir. On the basis of its survey, research and analysis, the CCJ report under the caption, Atrocity and Suffering revealed that a total of 502 people were either murdered or enforcedly disappeared, 2048 individuals were physically tortured, 6888 were subjected to forced labour and 40 people were killed in custody by Indian Security Forces. 234 Mosques and 700 civilian properties worth 103.8 crores were destroyed in the garb of anti-Mujahideen operations, while after being released from jails freedom fighters, faced different detention periods.
But it was a limited survey, as All Parties Hurriyet Conference Azad Jammu and Kashmir disclosed that from 1989 to 15 October 2012, there have been deaths of 93,274 innocent Kashmiris, 6,969 custodial killings, 117,345 arrests and destruction of 105,861 houses. Indian brutal security forces have orphaned over 107, 351 children, widowed 22,728 women and gang raped 9,920 women in the Indian held Kashmir.
Over the two decades of violence in Jammu and Kashmir, Human Rights Watch has documented several failures to ensure protection of human rights. It has called for the repeal of those laws which provide the armed forces with extraordinary powers to search, detain, and use lethal force, leading to numerous human rights violations. They also provide immunity for security forcestheir prosecutions, even where the facts are well established, are rare.
In the recent past, Kashmir Quarterly also reported, Indian Forces killed a number of citizens, torched mosques, shops and houses in various parts of the valley. As a result, there were protest demonstrations in many cities. Troops desecrated the central Srinagar mosque and tortured worshippers whom they found inside.
It is of particular attention that in 2008, a rights group reported unmarked graves in 55 villages across the northern regions of Baramulla, Bandipore and Handwara. Then researchers and other groups reported finding thousands of single and mass graves without markers. In this context, in the last few years, rights groups discovered nearly 3,000 unnamed graves in the various districts of Kashmir.
It is mentionable that in August, 2011, Indian Jammu and Kashmir State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) officially acknowledged in its report that innocent civilians killed in the two-decade conflict have been buried in unmarked graves. The report indicated 2,156 unidentified bodies which were found in mass graves in various regions of the Indian-held Kashmir. Notably, foreign sources and human rights organisations have disclosed that unnamed graves include those innocent persons, killed by the Indian military and paramilitary troops in the fake encounters including those who were tortured to death by the Indian secret agency RAW.
Recently, Chinas leading News Agency Xinhua has unearthed more gruesome details on world-stunning unmarked graves in Poonch of the Indian occupied Kashmir. It pointed out the statement of Sofi Aziz Joo, caretaker of a graveyard as saying, Police and Army used to bring those bodies and direct me to bury them. The bodies were usually bullet-ridden, mutilated, faces disfigured and sometimes without limbs and heads.
While, Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons (APDP) and rights groups have stated that more than 10,000 people have disappeared, accusing government forces of staging fake gun battles to cover up killings. They also revealed that suspected persons had been arrested and were murdered through arbitrary executions, and then buried in unmarked graves.
Besides, on June 28, 2010, BBC reported, three men went missing in Indian-administered Kashmir in Aprilbut their bodies were discovered near the Line of Controla senior officer of the Indian army had kidnapped them by offering them jobs as porters. The troops later informed the police that they had killed three militants. Kashmirs law minister, Ali Mohammad Sagar says there have been several proven cases of fake encounters in the past 20 years.
BBC explained, There are hardliners in the Indian Army and intelligence agencies, who think that by raising the bogey of infiltration and gun battles near the border they can create terror among people and also put pressure on Pakistan.
It seems that non-condemnation of Indian massive human rights violations and non-interference for the seettlement of this issue by the so-called civilized international community, especially the US have further encouraged New Delhi to keep on going with its atrocities on the armless Kashmiri masses. Ignorence of the dipute by them involves the risk of nuclear war between Pakistan and India.
Indian authorities are not willing to talk with Kashmiri people on political grounds. New Delhi has reached a conclusion that only bullet is the right way of dealing with them. Surprisingly, Indian successive governments are trying to ignore the dynamics of the freedom movement of Kashmiris to maintain their alien rule.
However, despite the employment of various forms of massacre and harassment in the Indian occupied Kashmir, the war of liberation by the Kashmiri people will continue until they get their legitimate right of self-determination. If New Delhi could not suppress the movement in the past, it could also not do so in present and future.
Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations.
By Sajjad Shaukat
READ MORE

A new anti-terrorism strategy for Obama’s second term

Posted by FS On Saturday, 17 November 2012 0 comments

Instead of drone strikes, Obama’s policy in his second term should focus on shoring up failing states and denying Al Qaida new havens. It’s clear the Obama administration needs to...
Instead of drone strikes, Obama’s policy in his second term should focus on shoring up failing states and denying Al Qaida new havens.
It’s clear the Obama administration needs to answer for failing to secure the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, where four Americans died in a September terrorist attack. Yet the accountability debate is getting in the way of the more important discussion the Benghazi attack should provoke. That’s a debate over whether the US has the right counterterrorism strategy to start with. The administration claims its elimination of Al Qaida leaders using drones and special operations forces has crippled the organisation. Has it, really?
The Benghazi attack occurred a day after Al Qaida chief Ayman Al Zawahiri urged Libyans to avenge the death of his top lieutenant, Libyan Yahya Al Libi, in a drone strike in June in Pakistan. If Zawahiri’s call prompted the attack on the Benghazi mission, Al Qaida, far from being a spent force, retains sufficient capability to threaten US security. Even if the Benghazi attack had nothing to do with Al Qaida, there’s no doubt the organisation, and like-minded groups, is enjoying a comeback in other places, notably Mali and Yemen. How did this happen?
After the 9/11 attacks, the US saw the war on terrorism as a battle of ideas: Violent extremism had to be defeated by moderate Islam and the spread of liberal western values. The Iraq war was largely an effort to install a democracy in the heart of the Arab world. Because war proved the wrong way to build democracy, however, American policymakers became convinced that the whole idea of addressing terrorism through reform was unfounded.
Accordingly, the Obama administration took a far narrower approach. Its counterterrorism policy has been focused on relentlessly hounding Al Qaida leaders, relying on drones in the skies and special forces on the ground to eradicate them. The campaign has had successes, driving Al Qaida out of Afghanistan, loosening the group’s hold over the insurgency in Iraq, and disrupting operations by removing effective leaders such as Anwar Al Awlaki and Osama Bin Laden.
It has been a seductive policy. Drones are a low-cost, low- risk way to wage war. They give the impression a country can defeat terrorism without engaging in costly military campaigns, economic development or nation-building. The administration insisted the policy was working, and the country bought it. This might have dulled the instinct to better protect facilities such as the US mission in Benghazi.
Taking seriously the threat of violent extremism in newly democratic Libya would have challenged the administration’s claim that it was defeating the jihadists. Yet history tells us that assassination alone isn’t an effective strategy.
During the Vietnam War, the CIA killed thousands of Vietcong leaders in Operation Phoenix. The campaign set the Vietcong back, but the organisation survived it. The effort to decapitate Al Qaida looks to be similarly futile. Drones have killed Al Qaida leaders with devastating precision but with the unintended consequence of pushing the organisation out of its lair in northwest Pakistan and into every other broken part of the Muslim world.
The options for asylum, meanwhile, have spread beyond Africa’s Sahel region because of the effects of the Arab Spring. Syria’s civil war has pulled in global jihadists. Extremists are exploiting a breakdown of order in parts of Egypt, Libya and Yemen caused by the dissolution of authoritarian regimes.
As Americans learned after 9/11, terrorists thrive in failed or failing states. They need space to recruit, train, organise and launch operations. Given the growing number of terrorist redoubts, the limited US counterterrorism strategy is at the end of its effectiveness. Going forward, the US can no longer rely principally on drone strikes. The policy in Obama’s second term should focus more on shoring up failing states and denying Al Qaida new havens. Only then would counterterrorism efforts actually diminish the organisation.
Hiding behind Russia’s opposition to a United Nations resolution on Syria, the US has done almost nothing to stop the country’s disintegration. The Obama administration needs to assert leadership in organising the opposition, forging a ceasefire and facilitating the exit of President Bashar Al Assad. This would not only stop the violence in Syria, but also reduce the chances of the country becoming the next field of jihad. The US must also help Libya build effective state institutions and assist Egypt and Yemen in addressing the decline of social order and state authority. That requires greater diplomatic engagement, economic aid and support for civil society. This is an ambitious agenda, but the US can no longer afford a minimalist approach. In the campaign, President Obama identified terrorist networks as the most serious threat to US national security. His response should be as serious as that threat.
By Vali Nasr
SPEARHEAD RESEARCH
Vali Nasr is dean of the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University and a senior fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution.
READ MORE

No reforms to accompany change in Chinese leadership

Posted by FS On 0 comments

With the unveiling of China’s new leadership, observers and journalists the world over are all contemplating the same question: Will the new group at the top of the Communist Party be able...
With the unveiling of China’s new leadership, observers and journalists the world over are all contemplating the same question: Will the new group at the top of the Communist Party be able to engineer the reforms needed to tackle the plethora of challenges afflicting virtually every realm of policy and governance — domestic and international — in China?
The answer, unfortunately, is no. Those inside and outside of China anticipating a return to an ambitious reformist agenda that will further open and decentralize the economy; liberalize the polity; reduce social inequities and tackle pervasive corruption; and rectify strains in China’s relations with its neighbors in Asia, the European Union and the United States will be disappointed. China is in dire need of visionary and strong leadership — the complex challenges facing the nation have grown more acute during Hu Jintao’s presidency — but don’t expect it from the new team in Beijing.
First, the new leadership is not cohesive, and bureaucracies love leadership vacuums. The new Politburo and Standing Committee show many signs of continuing divisions over policy orientations and factional allegiances. While more potential reformers are discernible in the new group, they are likely to continue to be checked by an entrenched bloc of party conservatives and retired elders. Beijing’s political gridlock is similar to Washington’s, and Xi Jinping’s mandate for change is about as narrow as President Obama’s. In short, a “team of rivals” is not likely to produce forward movement in the Chinese Politburo.
The lack of consensus at the top has been the case for at least five years. All that the Chinese party-state has shown itself capable of is a combination of muddling through, hollow policy slogans (unfunded mandates) and money thrown at problem-plagued sectors (hoping that investment will produce return). But China’s key challenges — social inequity, environmental damage, rigidities of the educational system, lack of innovation, depressed consumer consumption, the demographics of aging and unbalanced sex ratios, labor mobility, lack of transparency and accountability, ineffective rule of law, poor provision of public goods, and weak “soft power” abroad — are all qualitative issues that do not lend themselves to state investment such as building high-speed rail or harbors.
Another obstacle is institutional. While leaders matter in the Chinese system, institutional interests count for far more. China may not be a democracy, but it has strong bureaucratic and interest-group politics. For the past five years real reform has been blunted by the “Iron Quadrangle”: mammoth state-owned enterprises, the internal security apparatus, the military and the conservative wing of the Communist Party. The coalition of these four power interest groups “captured” Hu, who was too weak and disinclined to stand up to them, and they stalled reforms.
This is the political landscape that Xi and the new Chinese leadership inherit. For his part, Xi, like Hu, remains a cipher: We do not know whether he is a closet reformer, a real reformer or another apparatchik-technocrat. His background suggests the last. At least he smiles and has a warmer public persona than the wooden Hu. Nonetheless, Xi & Co. will be trapped by these and other powerful vested interests that strangled the would-be reforms of Hu’s more progressive advisers and the acolytes of his predecessor, Jiang Zemin.
To break the Iron Quadrangle and launch the much-needed new reforms will require enormous vision and willpower on Xi’s part, an investment of huge institutional resources to buy them off, and time. It will be at least two years before Xi can consolidate his power and be in a position to tackle the powerful vested interests that run China today. And it is not clear that he is even so inclined.
Thus, when anticipating China’s future after the 18th Party Congress and the potential for reform under Xi Jinping, expect more of the same: authoritarian stagnation and gridlock at home, with increased abrasiveness abroad.
READ MORE

Parliament now a sovereign institution of state

Posted by FS On Friday, 16 November 2012 0 comments

MANDI BAHAUDDIN: President Asif Ali Zardari has said that he has delegated his powers to parliament and every power is now bowing before the democratic institutions. Addressing an ‘Eid Milan’...
MANDI BAHAUDDIN: President Asif Ali Zardari has said that he has delegated his powers to parliament and every power is now bowing before the democratic institutions.
Addressing an ‘Eid Milan’ gathering here on Wednesday afternoon, the president said all the institutions are now accepting the supremacy of parliament but it still needs some more time to strengthen its roots.
He said that democracy was the only way to take the country forward towards progress and prosperity. He urged all political parties to work for strengthening of democracy, so it would make the country strong.
The president said the next general election would be held on time in a transparent way, and an independent Election Commission of Pakistan would not let anyone to play any dirty game.
The president said all the necessary measures had been adopted, including preparation of genuine voters’ lists, to hold elections in a free and fair manner. He said it was his pledge to the political parties to make this happen this in letter and spirit.
Zardari said democracy in the country still had some shortcomings and stressed that there was a need to rectify the problems with a collective political vision. He invited the political forces across the country to sit with the government at a discussion platform and give their input on policies for the betterment of people. The would complete its tenure.
He said that politics of PPP was based on reconciliation. He said that he would now sit and stay in Lahore.Referring to violence in Karachi, he said that there was no State failure in the port city. “The elements, which are being crushed in war on terror, are creating law and order problems but we’ll continue their chase”, he said.
The president said law and order situation in Karachi was being deliberately created to divert attention from war against terror. President Asif said the same elements attacked Malala Yousafzai.
The president delivered the first half of his speech in Punjabi. He said “Garhi Khuda Bukhsh will be our last destination”.
Federal ministers Nazar M Gondal, Qamar Zaman Kaira Firdous Ashiq Awan, Ahmad Mukhtar, Manzoor Wattoo, Jehangir Badr, MPA Tanvir Kaira, MNA Tariq Tarrar, Nadeem Afzal Chan were also present on the occasion.
Agency adds: Referring to Pakistan Muslim League leader Mian Nawaz Sharif, the president said though the PML-N had now parted ways with the PPP, it did not mean that the two had become enemies, and that the politics should not be turned into animosity. He said “politics demands to remain steadfast in strengthening democracy”.
President Asif Zardari said that he had delegated his powers to the Parliament which was unprecedented in the country’s history. He said history would prove that the decision was correct. He said that if the country sinks everything else would also go down with it.
He said history has turned in support of the PPP and mentioned that the verdict of Supreme Court in Asghar Khan case also proved that Benazir Bhutto had rightly pointed that the “results of general election were snatched from her”.
He said after Mohtarma’s death, he had pledged to take the party forward.
President Asif Zardari said he had the desire that every child in the country enjoy his rights with equality.“I want that the child of the poor enjoys the same rights as the child of an industrialist,” he said.
The president said his earlier plan to meet the people of Mandi Bahauddin soon after Eid could not be materialised due to unavoidable reasons. He wished the gathering a Happy Eid Mubarak and said they had the every reason to be happy for the development programme he announced for their area.
President Zardari launched development projects worth Rs3.609 billion for the districts, Mandi Bahauddin and Sargodha.The president launched gas projects for Mandi Bahauddin and Sargodha and adjoining areas for Rs1.433 billion and Rs1.469 billion respectively.
He announced a road project worth Rs209 million between Chan Chowk to Roza bridge and another worth Rs174 million in Mandi Bahauddin.The president also announced Rs324 million for the project of Victoria Bridge over the River Jhelum.
READ MORE

Pak Army being targeted as a part of conspiracy, say Musharraf

Posted by FS On 0 comments

Former President General (retd) Pervez Musharraf said on Wednesday that the Pakistan Army was “needlessly being targeted” in order to debilitate Pakistan, reported BBC Urdu. In an interview to the...
Former President General (retd) Pervez Musharraf said on Wednesday that the Pakistan Army was “needlessly being targeted” in order to debilitate Pakistan, reported BBC Urdu.
In an interview to the BBC in Dubai, Musharraf said that currently, it appeared as if “army officials were being targeted” and that conspiracies were being hatched to do so.
He said that the army plays a central role in Pakistan and in order to weaken the country, some elements were trying to weaken the army.
‘Had directed ISI to disband political cells’
Musharraf said that as the chief of army staff back then, he had directed the Inter-Services Intelligence to disband political cells and to stay away from matters of politics.
He said, “I had directed the then chief of ISI General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani that the institution he was heading – the ISI – should not intervene in politics. However, I did not issue him written directives in this regard.”
The former president said that he did not say this as a formal order, but both him and Kayani had thought that the ISI should not intervene in political matters.
“This is the reason why there was no rigging done in 2008 elections and neither any such complaint had surfaced,” said Musharraf.
‘Reopening old cases is in no one’s favour’
Speaking on the Asghar Khan case, Musharraf said that it was only a distraction and was causing a conflict between state institutions. “Any tension between institutions is dangerous for Pakistan.”
He said, “We are getting ourselves into trouble by holding on to issues from the past and that the reopening of a 15-year-old case was in no one’s favour.” Musharraf said that “if you want to go back, then why not question the separation of East Pakistan, assassinations of Ayub Khan and Liaquat Ali Khan?”
Musharraf said that “We should keep our focus on the present and the future.”
READ MORE

Pakistan decides to release imprisoned Taliban leaders

Posted by FS On Wednesday, 14 November 2012 0 comments

In an unprecedented gesture of support for Afghanistan’s struggling reconciliation process, Pakistan agreed on Tuesday to release several Taliban leaders detained in the country’s jails. The development, which hasn’t been...
In an unprecedented gesture of support for Afghanistan’s struggling reconciliation process, Pakistan agreed on Tuesday to release several Taliban leaders detained in the country’s jails.
The development, which hasn’t been made public by either side, came on the second day of Afghan High Peace Council Chief Mr Salahuddin Rabbani’s three-day visit to Islamabad to re-start the peace process which has been in the limbo for over a year now.
It was unclear if the detainees, who are said to be numbering close to 10, have been set free on Tuesday or would be released at the conclusion of Mr Rabbani’s visit.
The group, according to a source, does not include Mullah Baradar — Taliban’s second in command — who was captured by Pakistani security forces in Karachi in 2010.
Talks between the peace delegation led by Mr Rabbani and Pakistani officials would continue on Wednesday when the two sides are expected to come up with a joint statement on the progress made by them.
A Pakistani official, who had been briefed on the talks, told Dawn that “significant progress has already been made”.
The release of Taliban detainees in Pakistan has been a longstanding Afghan demand for catalysing the slow moving process.
A keen follower of the negotiations, who didn’t want to be named, said the release of prisoners was a positive step, which would provide the right environment for reconciliation.
Islamabad has long said that it supported peace and stability in Afghanistan, but has been holding back its cards in view of lack of clarity about the peace process with Taliban both in Kabul and Washington.
However, with the drawdown deadline approaching fast and all sorts of unfavourable scenarios for Pakistan being projected (with the assumption that instability in Afghanistan would continue), the government appears to have changed its tack and decided to more proactively support the process for the sake of its success. It is more than clear to Pakistani strategists that successful reconciliation in Afghanistan is their best bet.
Dr Maleeha Lodhi, Pakistan’s former envoy to US and UK, had last week told the Senate Standing Committee on Defence that absence of a political settlement in Afghanistan “could lead to disastrous consequences for the region, especially for Pakistan, which is already reeling from over three decades of turmoil and conflict in its western neighbour”.
President Asif Ali Zardari in his meeting with the Afghan peace delegation reiterated the government’s position that Pakistan would continue to extend every possible support to Afghanistan in its journey to peace and socio-economic development.
Mr Zardari noted that a peaceful, stable and economically developed Afghanistan was vital for Pakistan’s own stability and prosperity.
The delegation also called on Army Chief Gen Ashfaq Pervez Kayani at the military headquarters in Rawalpindi. Mr Rabbani was invariably reminded by all his interlocutors in Islamabad that trust deficit remained to be addressed and that cross-border shelling by Afghanistan was adding to problems in ties.
READ MORE

National People’s Congress concludes in China

Posted by FS On 0 comments

China’s Communist Party is bringing their National People’s Congress to a close, a day before unveiling its leaders for the coming decade. President Hu Jintao and premier Wan Jiabao are...
China’s Communist Party is bringing their National People’s Congress to a close, a day before unveiling its leaders for the coming decade.
President Hu Jintao and premier Wan Jiabao are expected to step down in favour of the anointed successors, Vice President Xi Jinping and Li Keqiang in what would be only the second orderly transfer of power in 63 years.
The party’s 2,200-plus delegates filed into Beijing’s Great Hall of the People in the morning to select members of the Central Committee, a panel of a few hundred people that approves leadership positions and sets broad policy goals.
“I now announce that the 18th Chinese Communist Party Congress has come to a victorious conclusion,” Hu told delegates.
But the next lineup in China’s apex of power, the Politburo Standing Committee, will be announced only on Thursday.
Though congress and Central Committee delegates have some influence over leadership decisions, most of the lineup is decided among a core group of the most powerful party members and elders.
Al Jazeera’s Mike Hanna, reporting from Beijing, said: “The delegates have elected a committee which will elect a Politburo and the Standing Committee which is the apex of the power for the next decade.”
The voting concluded in the late morning, and the state Xinhua News Agency said in a report that Xi and premier-in-waiting Li had been voted onto the Central Committee.
All the other eight leading officials who have been tipped as possible members of the Standing Committee also made it on to the Central Committee, according to Xinhua.
That includes North Korean-trained economist Zhang Dejiang, financial guru Wang Qishan, minister of the party’s organisation department Li Yuanchao, Tianjin’s party boss Zhang Gaoli, and the conservative Liu Yunshan, who has kept domestic media on a tight leash.
Hu and senior leaders mostly in their late 60s are handing over power to Xi, 59, and colleagues of his generation over the next several months.
Li, currently vice premier, already was tapped five years ago to be the country’s next premier, China’s top economic official.
The congress is a largely ceremonial gathering of representatives – mostly carefully selected from the national and provincial political and military elite who have met to endorse a work report delivered by Hu at the opening a week ago.
Top positions
The real deal-making for the top positions on the Standing Committee is done behind the scenes by the true power-holders.
Aside from appointing Central Committee members, delegates assembled inside the Great Hall of the People were tasked with selecting the membership of the party’s internal corruption watchdog, the Central Discipline Inspection Committee, and with voting on amendments to the party’s charter.
After the congress ends, the Central Committee meets on Thursday to select the next Politburo and from that, the Politburo Standing Committee, largely on the advice of influential leaders.
The leaders also will select new members of the party’s Central Military Commission, which oversees the 2.3 million member People’s Liberation Army.
It is unclear if Hu will relinquish his position at the head of the commission or hold on to it for a period after retirement, as past leaders have, to retain influence.
Hu will remain president until March.
China’s leadership transitions are always occasions for fractious backroom bargaining, but this one has been further complicated by scandals that have fed public cynicism that their leaders are more concerned with power and wealth than government.
In recent months, Bo Xilai, a senior politician seen as a rising star, was purged after his aide exposed that his wife murdered a British businessman.
An ally of Hu’s was sidelined after his son died in the crash of a Ferrari he shouldn’t have been able to afford.
Hu, in his speech at the opening of the Congress said the party had to better tackle corruption issues or risk fatal damage.
“If we fail to handle this issue well, it could prove fatal to the party, and even cause the collapse of the party and the fall of the state,” said Hu.
READ MORE

France recognizes Syrian Opposition as people’s representatives

Posted by FS On 0 comments

France has become the first Western power to recognise the newly united Syrian opposition as the only representative of the Syrian people. “France recognises the Syrian National Coalition as the...
France has become the first Western power to recognise the newly united Syrian opposition as the only representative of the Syrian people.
“France recognises the Syrian National Coalition as the only representative of the Syrian people and therefore as the future provisional government of a democratic Syria,” President Francois Hollande told a press conference in Paris on Tuesday.
The question of arming the rebels would be looked at as soon as the rebel coalition formed a transitional government, Hollande said.
“On the question of weapons deliveries, France did not support it as long as it wasn’t clear where these weapons went,” Hollande said.
“With the coalition, as soon as it is a legitimate government of Syria, this question will be looked at by France, but also by all countries that recognise this government.”
The announcement comes after opposition groups agreed on Sunday in Doha to unite against the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.
The French move comes 24 hours after the coalition was recognised by the six member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council – Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Oman.
Pledging support
Arab League and European Union foreign ministers pledged after their meeting in Cairo on Tuesday to support the Syrian opposition and welcomed steps to unite the various groups under a new, united banner, in order to facilitate a solution to the 20-month conflict.
“The ministers welcomed the formation of the Syrian National Coalition for Opposition and Revolutionary Forces. They called on all opposition groups to adhere to the national coalition and on the national coalition to engage with all sections of Syrian society,” said a statement issued at the close of the meeting held in Cairo on Tuesday.
Syria’s divided opposition had come under pressure from Western powers to join forces and offer a single interlocutor during negotiations, in order to provide a single contact for international critics of the regime’s efforts to stamp down the opposition since 2011.
The coalition brings together the Syrian National Council and other groups inside Syria.
The Arab League has recognised the coalition as “the legitimate representative of the Syrian people’s aspirations.”
Secretary General Nabil al-Arabi described it as “a glimmer of hope.”
Frustration at UN deadlock
British Foreign Secretary William Hague called on the group “to demonstrate they are acting on behalf of all Syria’s communities. The more progress the coalition makes towards those goals, the greater practical support it will have from the United Kingdom.”
Hague expressed frustration at the deadlock on Syria in the UN Security Council, saying that “our efforts … to encourage the UNSC to take on its responsibilities have been vetoed by Russia and China. In the absence of such progress, we will increase our support to Syrian opposition groups.”
Moscow and Beijing, both allies of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, have vetoed three Western-and Arab-backed resolutions at the Security Council condemning the Syrian regime for violence.
German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said his country “is ready to join hands with the Arab League to help (the new alliance) to become a credible and inclusive alternative to al-Assad’s regime.”
Westerwelle and French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius both met the head of the coalition, Mouaz al-Khatib.
READ MORE

Afghan warlords recover as foreigners depart

Posted by FS On 0 comments

Spurred by lack of confidence in national security forces to keep the Taliban at bay after withdrawal of foreign troops in 2014 One of the most powerful mujahedeen commanders in...
Spurred by lack of confidence in national security forces to keep the Taliban at bay after withdrawal of foreign troops in 2014
One of the most powerful mujahedeen commanders in Afghanistan, Ismail Khan, is calling on his followers to reorganise and defend the country against the Taliban as Western militaries withdraw, in a public demonstration of faltering confidence in the national government and the Western-built Afghan National Army.
Mr. Khan is one of the strongest of a group of warlords who defined the country’s recent history in battling the Soviets, the Taliban and one another, and who then were brought into President Hamid Karzai’s Cabinet as a symbol of unity. Now, in announcing that he is remobilising his forces, Mr. Khan has rankled Afghan officials and stoked fears that other regional and factional leaders will follow suit and re-arm, weakening support for the government and increasing the likelihood of civil war.
This month, Mr. Khan rallied thousands of his supporters in the desert outside Herat, the cultured western provincial capital and the centre of his power base, urging them to coordinate and reactivate their networks. And he has begun enlisting new recruits and organising district command structures.
“We are responsible for maintaining security in our country and not letting Afghanistan be destroyed again,” Mr. Khan, the Minister of Energy and Water, said at a news conference over the weekend at his offices in Kabul. But after facing criticism, he took care not to frame his action as defying the government: “There are parts of the country where the government forces cannot operate, and in such areas the locals should step forward, take arms and defend the country.”
Mr. Karzai and his aides, however, were not greeting it as an altruistic gesture. Governor of Herat province called Mr. Khan’s reorganisation an illegal challenge to the national security forces. And Mr. Karzai’s spokesman, Aimal Faizi, tersely criticised Mr. Khan.
“’The remarks by Ismail Mr. Khan do not reflect the policies of the Afghan government,” Mr. Faizi said. “The government of Afghanistan and the Afghan people do not want any irresponsible armed grouping outside the legitimate security forces structures.”
In Kabul, Mr. Khan’s provocative actions have played out in the news media and brought a fierce reaction from some members of Parliament, who said the warlords were preparing to take advantage of the U.S. troop withdrawal set for 2014.
“People like Ismail Mr. Khan smell blood,” Belqis Roshan, a senator from Farah province, said in an interview. “They think that as soon as foreign forces leave Afghanistan, once again they will get the chance to start a civil war, and achieve their ominous goals of getting rich and terminating their local rivals.”
Indeed, Mr. Khan’s is not the only voice calling for a renewed alliance of the mujahedeen against the Taliban, and some of the others are just as familiar.
Marshal Muhammad Qasim Fahim, an ethnic Tajik commander who is Mr. Karzai’s first Vice-President, said in a speech in September, “If the Afghan security forces are not able to wage this war, then call upon the mujahedeen.”
Another prominent mujahedeen fighter, Ahmad Zia Massoud, said in an interview at his home in Kabul that people were worried about what was going to happen after 2014, and he was telling his own followers to make preliminary preparations.
“They don’t want to be disgraced again,” Mr. Massoud said. “Everyone tries to have some sort of Plan B. Some people are on the verge of re-arming.”
He pointed out that it was significant that the going market price of Kalashnikov assault rifles had risen to about $1,000, driven up by demand from a price of $300 a decade ago.
“Every household wants to have an AK-47 at home,” he said.
One senior Western official in Kabul saw Mr. Khan’s actions as the start of a wave of political positioning before the 2014 transition and said it bore close watching. The allies want to avoid any replay of the civil war in the ‘90s that led hundreds of thousands of Afghans to flee. A renewed civil war would undo much of what the West has tried to accomplish.
Mr. Khan is one of the towering figures of the resistance against the Soviets and the Taliban, and his power base in Herat province, along the border with Iran, has remained relatively thriving throughout the war, despite a recent rise in kidnappings and militant attacks.
After years of consolidating power in the ‘80s and early ‘90s, he was forced to flee Herat after the Taliban took the city. After the northern coalition and U.S.-led invasion drove out the Taliban in 2001, he was restored as Governor of Herat. But he was removed by Mr. Karzai in 2004, prompting violent demonstrations among his supporters.
He continues to exert strong influence in the western regions today, and he clashes regularly with the current Governor, Daud Shah Saba, Western officials say.
Following the public criticism that he was creating an armed opposition to the government, Mr. Khan insisted at his news conference in Kabul on Saturday that he was not re-arming his followers or opposing the security forces, but rather wanted the mujahedeen to work with the army and the police as a sort of reserve force, warning them, for example, if they saw signs of Taliban infiltration.
“This does not mean we are rebelling against the government,” he said. “We are struggling for 30 years to build this government, and we are not allowing this government to be toppled.”
Still, such an auxiliary role is exactly what was envisioned for the Afghan Local Police, organised and trained at great cost by U.S. Special Operations forces in recent years.
A former mujahedeen fighter, Saeed Ahmad Hussaini, a member of the provincial council in Herat, said that if the United States had not yet recognised its failure in Afghanistan, the Afghan people certainly had.
“We have rescued this nation twice from the hands of invaders and oppressors, and we will rescue it once more if needed,” he said. “People cannot tolerate the whippings and beatings of the Taliban.” — New York Times News Service

READ MORE

False Flag

Posted by Admin On Saturday, 14 January 2012 0 comments

A series of CIA memos describes how Israeli Mossad agents posed as American spies to recruit members of the terrorist organization Jundallah to fight their covert war against Iran.


Buried deep in the archives of America's intelligence services are a series of memos, written during the last years of President George W. Bush's administration, that describe how Israeli Mossad officers recruited operatives belonging to the terrorist group Jundallah by passing themselves off as American agents. According to two U.S. intelligence officials, the Israelis, flush with American dollars and toting U.S. passports, posed as CIA officers in recruiting Jundallah operatives -- what is commonly referred to as a "false flag" operation.

The memos, as described by the sources, one of whom has read them and another who is intimately familiar with the case, investigated and debunked reports from 2007 and 2008 accusing the CIA, at the direction of the White House, of covertly supporting Jundallah -- a Pakistan-based Sunni extremist organization. Jundallah, according tothe U.S. government and published reports, is responsible for assassinating Iranian government officials and killing Iranian women and children.
But while the memos show that the United States had barred even the most incidental contact with Jundallah, according to both intelligence officers, the same was not true for Israel's Mossad. The memos also detail CIA field reports saying that Israel's recruiting activities occurred under the nose of U.S. intelligence officers, most notably in London, the capital of one of Israel's ostensible allies, where Mossad officers posing as CIA operatives met with Jundallah officials.
The officials did not know whether the Israeli program to recruit and use Jundallah is ongoing. Nevertheless, they were stunned by the brazenness of the Mossad's efforts.
"It's amazing what the Israelis thought they could get away with," the intelligence officer said. "Their recruitment activities were nearly in the open. They apparently didn't give a damn what we thought."
Interviews with six currently serving or recently retired intelligence officers over the last 18 months have helped to fill in the blanks of the Israeli false-flag operation. In addition to the two currently serving U.S. intelligence officers, the existence of the Israeli false-flag operation was confirmed to me by four retired intelligence officers who have served in the CIA or have monitored Israeli intelligence operations from senior positions inside the U.S. government.
The CIA and the White House were both asked for comment on this story. By the time this story went to press, they had not responded. The Israeli intelligence services -- the Mossad -- were also contacted, in writing and by telephone, but failed to respond. As a policy, Israel does not confirm or deny its involvement in intelligence operations.
There is no denying that there is a covert, bloody, and ongoing campaign aimed at stopping Iran's nuclear program, though no evidence has emerged connecting recent acts of sabotage and killings inside Iran to Jundallah. Many reports have cited Israel as the architect of this covert campaign, which claimed its latest victim on Jan. 11 when a motorcyclist in Tehran slipped a magnetic explosive device under the car of Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, a young Iranian nuclear scientist. The explosion killed Roshan, making him the fourth scientist assassinated in the past two years. The United States adamantly denies it is behind these killings.
According to one retired CIA officer, information about the false-flag operation was reported up the U.S. intelligence chain of command. It reached CIA Director of Operations Stephen Kappes, his deputy Michael Sulick, and the head of the Counterintelligence Center. All three of these officials are now retired. The Counterintelligence Center, according to its website, is tasked with investigating "threats posed by foreign intelligence services."
The report then made its way to the White House, according to the currently serving U.S. intelligence officer. The officer said that Bush "went absolutely ballistic" when briefed on its contents.
"The report sparked White House concerns that Israel's program was putting Americans at risk," the intelligence officer told me. "There's no question that the U.S. has cooperated with Israel in intelligence-gathering operations against the Iranians, but this was different. No matter what anyone thinks, we're not in the business of assassinating Iranian officials or killing Iranian civilians."
Israel's relationship with Jundallah continued to roil the Bush administration until the day it left office, this same intelligence officer noted. Israel's activities jeopardized the administration's fragile relationship with Pakistan, which was coming under intense pressure from Iran to crack down on Jundallah. It also undermined U.S. claims that it would never fight terror with terror, and invited attacks in kind on U.S. personnel.
"It's easy to understand why Bush was so angry," a former intelligence officer said. "After all, it's hard to engage with a foreign government if they're convinced you're killing their people. Once you start doing that, they feel they can do the same."
A senior administration official vowed to "take the gloves off" with Israel, according to a U.S. intelligence officer. But the United States did nothing -- a result that the officer attributed to "political and bureaucratic inertia."
"In the end," the officer noted, "it was just easier to do nothing than to, you know, rock the boat." Even so, at least for a short time, this same officer noted, the Mossad operation sparked a divisive debate among Bush's national security team, pitting those who wondered "just whose side these guys [in Israel] are on" against those who argued that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
The debate over Jundallah was resolved only after Bush left office when, within his first weeks as president, Barack Obama drastically scaled back joint U.S.-Israel intelligence programs targeting Iran, according to multiple serving and retired officers.
The decision was controversial inside the CIA, where officials were forced to shut down "some key intelligence-gathering operations," a recently retired CIA officer confirmed. This action was followed in November 2010 by the State Department's addition of Jundallah to its list of foreign terrorist organizations -- a decision that one former CIA officer called "an absolute no-brainer."
Since Obama's initial order, U.S. intelligence services have received clearance to cooperate with Israel on a number of classified intelligence-gathering operations focused on Iran's nuclear program, according to a currently serving officer. These operations are highly technical in nature and do not involve covert actions targeting Iran's infrastructure or political or military leadership.
"We don't do bang and boom," a recently retired intelligence officer said. "And we don't do political assassinations."
Israel regularly proposes conducting covert operations targeting Iranians, but is just as regularly shut down, according to retired and current intelligence officers. "They come into the room and spread out their plans, and we just shake our heads," one highly placed intelligence source said, "and we say to them -- 'Don't even go there. The answer is no.'"
Unlike the Mujahedin-e Khalq, the controversial exiled Iranian terrorist group that seeks the overthrow of the Tehran regime and is supported by former leading U.S. policymakers, Jundallah is relatively unknown -- but just as violent. In May 2009, a Jundallah suicide bomber blew himself up inside a mosque in Zahedan, the capital of Iran's southeastern Sistan-Baluchistan province bordering Pakistan, during a Shiite religious festival. The bombing killed 25 Iranians and wounded scores of others.
The attack enraged Tehran, which traced the perpetrators to a cell operating in Pakistan. The Iranian government notified the Pakistanis of the Jundallah threat and urged them to break up the movement's bases along the Iranian-Pakistani border. The Pakistanis reacted sluggishly in the border areas, feeding Tehran's suspicions that Jundallah was protected by Pakistan's intelligence services.
The 2009 attack was just one in a long line of terrorist attacks attributed to the organization. In August 2007, Jundallah kidnapped 21 Iranian truck drivers. In December 2008, it captured and executed 16 Iranian border guards -- the gruesome killings were filmed, in a stark echo of the decapitation of American businessman Nick Berg in Iraq at the hands of al Qaeda's Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. In July 2010, Jundallah conducted a twin suicide bombing in Zahedan outside a mosque, killing dozens of people, including members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
The State Department aggressively denies that the U.S. government had or has any ties to Jundallah. "We have repeatedly stated, and reiterate again that the United States has not provided support to Jundallah," a spokesman wrote in an email to the Wall Street Journal, following Jundallah's designation as a terrorist organization. "The United States does not sponsor any form of terrorism. We will continue to work with the international community to curtail support for terrorist organizations and prevent violence against innocent civilians. We have also encouraged other governments to take comparable actions against Jundallah."
A spate of stories in 2007 and 2008, including a report by ABC News and a New Yorker article, suggested that the United States was offering covert support to Jundallah. The issue has now returned to the spotlight with the string of assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists and has outraged serving and retired intelligence officers who fear that Israeli operations are endangering American lives.
"This certainly isn't the first time this has happened, though it's the worst case I've heard of," former Centcom chief and retired Gen. Joe Hoar said of the Israeli operation upon being informed of it. "But while false-flag operations are hardly new, they're extremely dangerous. You're basically using your friendship with an ally for your own purposes. Israel is playing with fire. It gets us involved in their covert war, whether we want to be involved or not."
The Israeli operation left a number of recently retired CIA officers sputtering in frustration. "It's going to be pretty hard for the U.S. to distance itself from an Israeli attack on Iran with this kind of thing going on," one of them told me.
Jundallah head Abdolmalek Rigi was captured by Iran in February 2010. Although initial reports claimed that he was captured by the Iranians after taking a flight from Dubai to Kyrgyzstan, a retired intelligence officer with knowledge of the incident told me that Rigi was detained by Pakistani intelligence officers in Pakistan. The officer said that Rigi was turned over to the Iranians after the Pakistani government informed the United States that it planned to do so. The United States, this officer said, did not raise objections to the Pakistani decision.
Iran, meanwhile, has consistently claimed that Rigi was snatched from under the eyes of the CIA, which it alleges supported him. "It doesn't matter," the former intelligence officer said of Iran's charges. "It doesn't matter what they say. They know the truth."
Rigi was interrogated, tried, and convicted by the Iranians and hanged on June 20, 2010. Prior to his execution, Rigi claimed in an interview with Iranian media -- which has to be assumed was under duress -- that he had doubts about U.S. sponsorship of Jundallah. He recounted an alleged meeting with "NATO officials" in Morocco in 2007 that raised his suspicions. "When we thought about it we came to the conclusion that they are either Americans acting under NATO cover or Israelis," he said.
While many of the details of Israel's involvement with Jundallah are now known, many others still remain a mystery -- and are likely to remain so. The CIA memos of the incident have been "blue bordered," meaning that they were circulated to senior levels of the broader U.S. intelligence community as well as senior State Department officials.
What has become crystal clear, however, is the level of anger among senior intelligence officials about Israel's actions. "This was stupid and dangerous," the intelligence official who first told me about the operation said. "Israel is supposed to be working with us, not against us. If they want to shed blood, it would help a lot if it was their blood and not ours. You know, they're supposed to be a strategic asset. Well, guess what? There are a lot of people now, important people, who just don't think that's true."
Courtesy: Foreign Policy



READ MORE