YAKKAGHUND: Nato helicopters attacked a military checkpoint in northwest Pakistan on Saturday, killing up to 28 troops and prompting Pakistan to shut the vital supply route for Nato troops fighting in Afghanistan, Pakistani officials said.
The Foreign Office condemned Saturday’s attack.
“Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani has condemned in the strongest terms the Nato/Isaf attack on the Pakistani post,” ministry spokeswoman Tehmina Janjua said in a statement.
“On his direction, the matter is being taken (up) by the foreign ministry in the strongest terms with Nato and the US.”
Two military officials said that up to 28 troops had been killed and 11 wounded in the attack on the Salala checkpoint, about 2.5 kilometres from the Afghan border.
The attack took place around 2 a.m. in the Baizai area of Mohmand, where Pakistani troops are fighting Taliban militants.
A senior Pakistani military officer said efforts were under way to bring the bodies of the slain soldiers to Ghalanai, the headquarters of Mohmand tribal region.
“The latest attack by Nato forces on our post will have serious repercussions as they without any reasons attacked on our post and killed soldiers asleep,” he said, requesting anonymity because he was not authorised to talk to the media.
About 40 Pakistani army troops were stationed at the outpost, military sources said.
Two officers were reported among the dead.
Nato supply trucks and fuel tankers bound for Afghanistan were stopped at Jamrud town in the Khyber tribal region near the city of Peshawar hours after the raid, officials said.
“We have halted the supplies and some 40 tankers and trucks have been returned from the check post in Jamrud,” Mutahir Zeb, a senior government official, told Reuters.
Another official said the supplies had been stopped for security reasons.
“There is possibility of attacks on Nato supplies passing through the volatile Khyber tribal region, therefore we sent them back towards Peshawar to remain safe,” he said.
Pakistan is a vital land route for 49 per cent of Nato’s supplies to its troops in Afghanistan, a Nato spokesman said.
A spokesman for the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force in Kabul said the coalition there was aware of “an incident” and was gathering more information.
The Afghanistan-Pakistan border is often poorly marked, and differs between maps by up to five miles in some places.
The incident occurred a day after US General John Allen met Pakistani Army Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani to discuss border control and enhanced cooperation.
This raid is the largest and most serious incident of its kind. A similar incident on September 30, 2010, which killed two Pakistani troops, led to the closure of one of Nato’s supply routes through Pakistan for 10 days.
Nato apologised for that incident, which it said happened when Nato gunships mistook warning shots by the Pakistani forces for a militant attack.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the SPY EYES Analysis and or its affiliates. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). SPY EYES Analysis and or its affiliates will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements and or information contained in this article.
Source: www.dawn.com
By Brig (Retd) Nadir Mir
The ‘Memo of Treachery’ has been considerably unveiled. Actually it is no great mystery. This is in fact the corruption, transfer wealth abroad – get foreign support – stay in power or acquire more power – money complex in action. Pakistani liberals (puppets) living abroad, posing as the ‘face of Pakistan ’ the linchpin for this Faustian bargain. (Between Pakistani traitors and alien supporters).
It is certainly not about civilian control over the military establishment (which is a good thing). It is about corrupt, self serving elite , who seek foreign support to keep robbing the people of Pakistan. (Betraying Pakistanis is not an issue, but part of the agenda).
Without confusing the issue, the ‘Memo’ sent by some Pakistanis (with bank accounts, assets and residence abroad) sought foreign (Uncle Sam’s) support which by simple connotation meant:
§ Weaken Pakistan’s National Security by cutting ISI – Army down to size.
§ Invite US military forces in Pakistan for partial occupation (as if drones were not enough)
§ Exposing, denuding and ultimately compromising Pakistan’s nuclear projects. (Depriving Pakistan of its deterrent)
§ Handing over Pakistanis demanded by India. (Today militants, tomorrow hijab wearing women! Any one Delhi considers not friendly or not in love with Indian’s inequality based Brahman Order)
§ Practically advocating steps leading to Pakistani Nation’s eventual and complete enslavement to US Geopolitical diktat and Indian over lordship plus much worse. . . .
All that was asked by the authors of the treacherous memo was to be in power in Pakistan. (Along with their foreign based stolen wealth and to continue duping the innocent people of Pakistan forever).
Now even Admiral Mike Mullen (recipient of the memo) has recollected, after initial denial (a memory loss, apparently from too much work!) And confirmed the memo was sent by Pakistanis (friends of USA)
Hussain Haqqani the Pakistan Ambassador has obviously rejected Ijaz Mansoor, a Pakistani businessman, making this claim about
the ‘Memo’. In any event Hussain Haqqani is better known as ‘America’s Ambassador for Pakistan in Washington’.
Reportedly and predictably Hussain Haqqani initially refused to return to Pakistan (gaining time to lobby in USA) and threatened to seek asylum in USA but later retraced. With an Ambassador like this who needs enemies!
In essence the ‘Memo’ is a clear case of treachery to the state of Pakistan. Articles in The News by Shaheen Sehbai and Muhammad Malick — ‘The Treasonous Memo’ and from Ansar Abbasi – HH resignation alone will not be enough’ are timely, eye opening and riveting.
A complete, impartial inquiry by the Supreme Court would be in order. Hussain Haqqani’s resignation is not enough. He should be tried for treason in a fair trial. If found guilty he should be dealt under the law. (It was Hussain Haqqani who reportedly told the Americans, Pakistanis were like carpet merchants on price haggling issues!)
Not carpet merchants but Pakistanis are a proud, patriotic, peace loving, independence minded nation. (Except for a tiny, mini minority of self serving, thieving, foreign supported elite).
The nefarious characters involved in the plot to weaken ISI, dilute the army, invite American troops into Pakistani homes, compromise nuclear arsenal, accept every Indian demand and the long list of crimes of infamy are traitors of the worst order.
If they are not traitors then what is treachery to Pakistan? This is not about a clash between liberal puppets, pro western in outlook or radical extremists, fundamentalists. (That narrative is old – obsolete and boring). It is about the right of Pakistani Nation to live in peace and freedom, with security, prosperity and honour. An unfettered Nation – master of its own destiny!
Without being sold to the first bidder, invaded by America, threatened by India and betrayed by its own corrupt and treacherous elite. The time has come to squeeze the space on traitors of all hues. If Islamabad – Rawalpindi cannot deal with a ‘Rogue Ambassador’, what can it do?
A fair trial but heads must roll (literally). If those who betray Pakistan are not dealt today, it would be tragic.
But they will inevitably face justice tomorrow by the Pakistan Revolution!
Courtesy: Opinion Maker
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the SPY EYES Analysis and or its affiliates. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). SPY EYES Analysis and or its affiliates will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements and or information contained in this article.
Defence & Diplomacy
ECO with a population of 440 million, is not a small market, the US that is a considered a big consumer market is 300 million. If the countries are given a free hand by the outside forces, the economy, culture, trade, communication, industry etc can be augmented and integrated for the mutual benefit of the member countries.
By Raja G Mujtaba
(S M Hali hosted his talk on PTV with Ambassador Tariq Usman Hyder and Nasir Naveed to discuss the visit. The video clipping is at the end of the article.)
Before I make my analysis on Turkmenistan, I would like to add that seeing into the future, I could visualize that Central Asian Republics (CAR) should be the future focus of Pakistan. It was not just a passion or some gut feeling but signs and the reading of the events was clearly pointing in that direction. Since CAR is part of ECO, therefore CAR cannot be studied separately but in a broader context of ECO. Accordingly a virtual think tank was established in 2008 to study and focus on ECO with a special emphasis on CAR. When I discussed with a number of professors of IR from different universities, all after a deep thought came back as if they come out of sleep and opined that ECO is our future and CAR needs a special study to build strong ties.
A study panel was established and we began holding our monthly meetings at borrowed places for not having a place of our own. Its hoped that one day we shall find some sponsors to sponsor this study group .
I have always compared ECO with SAARC; similarities, potential, advantages and disadvantages etc. SAARC has some inherent defects; it’s the hegemonic attitude of India, the largest country in this block that has not allowed any move forward. All the countries surround India and none are happy with her attitude , aims and objectives. India has long outstanding issues that India is not willing to resolve. Like Zionism, it’s the Hindutwa that has become a real threat not only to the region but reaching far and beyond the region. Even Bangladesh, whom India instigated to secession from Pakistan, has some serious issues with India. Sri Lanka faced a proxy war of India for 30 years. Nepal, a landlocked country has been subjected to various political destabilizations to make it submit to Indian designs, likewise Bhutan has no independent policy of her own but to keep supporting Indian agenda. Sikkim another landlocked country was annexed by India like it did with Junagdh, Manavadar and Hyderabad that had opted for Pakistan. Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) remains a very burning issue that India is not prepared to resolve. This is yet another state that is Muslim majority that was to accede to Pakistan but the conspiracy of Lord Mount Batten, not forgetting Lady Mountbatten, along with Nehru changed the borders and gave Ferozepur and Gurdaspur to India so that India can have land access to J&K state.
Unlike India’s constant threatening postures, ECO has no such issues; there are no border disputes, no religious disparities or cultural dissimilarities. In population, ECO is much smaller to SAARC but in area and resources, SAARC is not match to ECO. The six landlocked countries (CAR) of ECO have no problem except the American presence in Afghanistan that’s a big impediment for the growth of the region. People of Afghanistan are as enthusiastic about ECO as of any other country of the block. Its imperative that the US and her NATO allies leave Afghanistan at the earliest so that a more comprehensive cooperation and development can take place.
ECO with a population of 440 million, is not a small market, the US that is a considered a big consumer market is 300 million. If the
countries are given a free hand by the outside forces, the economy, culture, trade, communication, industry etc can be augmented and integrated for the mutual benefit of the member countries. With surplus in oil, gas and coal the energy needs of the member states would not only be met but would have huge surplus to export to outside world.
Ethnically all the states have common roots and heritage therefore there are no irritants of any sort. What is required to increase the flow of people from one state to another for trade, education, cultural exchanges etc.
It was in this context that Gurbanguly BERDIMUHAMEDOW, Turkmenistan president paid an official visit to Pakistan. This visit is a series of exchange visits by the heads of the governments of the member countries on bilateral basis that in turn are strengthening ECO.
Turkmenistan with a population of 4.9 million, is largely a desert country with intensive agriculture in irrigated oasis and sizeable gas and oil resources. The two largest crops are cotton and wheat. Although agriculture accounts for roughly 10% of GDP, it continues to employ nearly half of the country's workforce. This implies that Pakistan must lay greater emphasis on its agriculture sector to reduce unemployment.
Turkmenistan has taken a cautious approach to economic reform, hoping to use gas and cotton export revenues to sustain its economy. From 1998-2005, Turkmenistan suffered from the continued lack of adequate export routes for natural gas and other trade. At the same time, total exports rose by an average of roughly 15% per year from 2003-08, largely because of higher international oil and gas prices. New pipelines to China and Iran, that began operation in early 2010, have given Turkmenistan additional export routes for its gas, although these new routes have not offset the sharp drop in export revenue since early 2009 from decreased gas exports to Russia. Although the literacy rate is almost 100% but the education system remains poor because of misuse of oil and gas revenues
During his visit, a number of agreements were signed, trade, TAPI, Cultural Exchange, Currency Swap, 1000 MW of electric power, Rail link, air links etc all were discussed and MOUs signed. Besides this, Pakistan must offer military cooperation and train the Turkmenistan defence personnel at all levels. Also, some sales of military hardware can be made by Pakistan to meet the limited needs of Turkmenistan.
Although the MOUs are being signed on bilateral basis, but these must incorporate the extension of the same collectively to cover the ECO block. ECO tariff should be structured in a manner that it encourages free travel with no visa restrictions, visas can be stamped at the point of entry. Within the ECO, an open sky policy must be adopted.
Under the cultural exchange, joint production of TV plays and films should also be included and not remain confined just to cultural troupes. Another strong cultural affinity that we have is the exchange of pilgrims to the holy shrines and promotion of Sufi music and festivals. Turkmenistan has a strong Sufi following and this is a strong bond between the Muslims as it leads to the central personality of Prophet Muhammad (SAW).
Where we are talking to swap currencies, a study should be initiated within the ECO framework to develop a common currency. This would not only stabilize the currencies but also provide a price harmony within the region. This would also demand streamlining the tariff and duty structure.
Turkmenistan has extended the rail link to Afghanistan, Pakistan must step in and link it up from Torkham where we already have our rail head. Once this link is established, then we are linked with Russia and beyond to Europe via yet another route. This rail will also bring traffic to Gawadar port for goods movement to and from CAR.
Courtesy: Opinion Maker
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the SPY EYES Analysis and or its affiliates. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). SPY EYES Analysis and or its affiliates will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements and or information contained in this article.
The US Army has tested a hypersonic missile, which travels six times faster than the speed of sound. It is part of a larger plan to have the capability to strike any place on the planet within an hour.
The missile, called the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon (AHW), was launched from Hawaii on Thursday, the Pentagon reported. A rocket delivered it to suborbital altitude, after which the glider went for its target on the Marshall Islands, some 3,700 kilometers away.
It hit less than 30 minutes later, which means its speed was at least 7,400 kilometer per hour, or about Mach 6. An aircraft must be able to fly faster than Mach 5, to qualify as hypersonic.
A Mach number is used to describe the speed of an object or a fluid in comparison to the speed of sound in that medium. Mach 1 means the object travels at the same speed as sound. However the speed of sound may vary depending on such conditions as temperature and composition, so the speed expressed in Mach number is also variable. The now-retired Concorde supersonic passenger planes used to fly at a cruising speed of about Mach 2.
The test was aimed at gathering data on "aerodynamics, navigation, guidance and control, and thermal protection technologies," the Pentagon said.
The AHW is one of several projects of the Prompt Global Strike program. It is aimed at developing several weapons which can be launched from American territory and reach their destinations within an hour.
On August 11 the US Air Force tested another hypersonic glider called the HTV-2. It is faster than the AHW, with speeds reaching 27,000 kilometer per hour. But unlike the Army’s vehicle, it does not work well – the test was aborted due to a technical failure.
The Soviet Union developed ramjet engines capable of hypersonic locomotion and even tested one design, which successfully reached Mach 5.7. The work was stalled by the collapse of the USSR, and no weapon using this technology was ever produced.
A Mach number is used to describe the speed of an object or a fluid in comparison to the speed of sound in that medium. Mach 1 means the object travels at the same speed as sound. However the speed of sound may vary depending on such conditions as temperature and composition, so the speed expressed in Mach number is also variable. The now-retired Concorde supersonic passenger planes used to fly at a cruising speed of about Mach 2.
The test was aimed at gathering data on "aerodynamics, navigation, guidance and control, and thermal protection technologies," the Pentagon said.
The AHW is one of several projects of the Prompt Global Strike program. It is aimed at developing several weapons which can be launched from American territory and reach their destinations within an hour.
On August 11 the US Air Force tested another hypersonic glider called the HTV-2. It is faster than the AHW, with speeds reaching 27,000 kilometer per hour. But unlike the Army’s vehicle, it does not work well – the test was aborted due to a technical failure.
The Soviet Union developed ramjet engines capable of hypersonic locomotion and even tested one design, which successfully reached Mach 5.7. The work was stalled by the collapse of the USSR, and no weapon using this technology was ever produced.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the SPY EYES Analysis and or its affiliates. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). SPY EYES Analysis and or its affiliates will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements and or information contained in this article.
Source: www.rt.com
By Chris Allbritton
The road to Imran Khan's palatial spread in the hills above Pakistan's capital is a perfect metaphor for his vision of his political career: twisty and pot-holed, but ending in a grand estate.
Alone in the beginning but now surrounded by smaller buildings, the house itself is cool and pleasant, with Mughal-era swords arrayed on a coffee table and two playful dogs -- one a German shepherd named Sheru -- romping about the carefully manicured lawn.
"I built this house," Khan said as he sat on the shaded verandah eyeing the sweeping vista overlooking the city. "There was nothing here. It was scrub jungle all around. There was only a dirt track here."
For Khan, creating something from nothing could be the slogan for a much-checkered life.
A graduate from Oxford and very much a man-about-town in London in the late 1970s, he became one of the world's most admired cricketers. He was captain of Pakistan's team of talented but wayward stars and, with many whispers of autocracy, led them to win cricket's World Cup for the first and only time in 1992.
After years of fund-raising, Khan opened a cancer hospital in the memory of his mother in his native Lahore in 1994.
He is a conservative Muslim but was married to a Jewish heiress and then divorced, joined politics and for years been somewhat of a joke in Pakistan's unruly democracy.
But in the past 15 years, through sheer force of will and a reputation for personal integrity, he has gone from political punch line to a superstar now attracting heavy-hitting politicians to his party, Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (Pakistan's Movement for Justice).
He -- and a lot of other people -- believe he could very well be Pakistan's next prime minister.
Khan's confidence stems from what he sees is a tsunami of support for the PTI in Pakistan as traditional parties falter amid charges and counter-charges of corruption and petty jealousies. On Oct 30, he staged a gigantic rally in Lahore that observers said pulled between 100,000 and 200,000 people, one of the largest political rallies ever in Pakistan.
But Khan remains relatively untested. In the last 15 years, his party has only briefly held one seat in parliament -- his. He has had tumultuous relationships with the established political parties as well as the military, the real decision maker in the nuclear-armed nation of 180 million people.
He does not openly criticize the military but in a book on Pakistani politics published in September, he walks the line, saying: "Only a credible government can save and strengthen the Pakistan army by making sure it stays within its constitutional role. We have no other choice: in order to survive, we have to make Pakistan a genuine democracy."
Khan also has a touchy relationship with the United States, Pakistan's ally in the war on militancy and its biggest aid donor. He says that if he's elected prime minister, he would end Pakistan's cooperation in the fight against militants based in its tribal areas, end the American drone campaign and refuse all U.S. aid, which totals some $20 billion since 2001.
REVOLUTIONARY
It may be all pie-in-the-sky, but Khan, 58, is nothing if not charismatic. Still athletic and craggily handsome with darting eyes and an intense demeanor, he can rarely sit still for long. He fidgets and twists, almost as if he were about to leap to his feet and launch into his fearsome pace bowling.
"For a lot of people who don't have hope in their political system, in a democratic system, he's the one person they seem to have hope in," said a senior Western diplomat, who requested anonymity to speak about internal Pakistani politics.
"I think he's an important phenomenon because he articulates the very real frustration of the country at a time when they need articulation."
And articulate he does. In an interview, Khan quickly lists Pakistan's very serious economic problems: electricity shortages, crumbling railways, a crisis in education, massive unemployment and endemic corruption.
"We've hit rock bottom," he said. "It doesn't get worse than this, where to qualify for any position of important public office, you have to have committed a crime."
For Khan, the current government headed by Asif Ali Zardari, the widower of Khan's old Oxford classmate Benazir Bhutto, who was assassinated in 2007 after returning to Pakistan from self-imposed exile, is the most corrupt government Pakistan has ever seen. Transparency International, which listed Pakistan as the 143rd most corrupt country in its 2010 corruption index, might agree.
As such, Khan believes in a fresh start for Pakistan, a country that, like his home above Islamabad, is a jungle ready to be cleared out and made anew. He believes Pakistan should wipe out the past and rebuild from a clean slate, with he as architect-in-chief.
"You only get out of this by a complete U-turn and what we call a New Pakistan."
He is calling not only for a new government, but a new political order, one based on what he says are the real ideals of Pakistan's founding father, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who worked to forge a homeland for South Asia's Muslims before the bloody partition in 1947 that created India and Pakistan.
Instead of fighting the Taliban militants, Khan said, Pakistan should enter into dialogue with them. He says if he were in power, he could end militancy in 90 days.
A senior Taliban commander and spokesman contacted by Reuters laughed off this idea and said they would continue the fight. "He is, in fact, living in a fool's paradise," the commander said.
And yet, Khan is no fundamentalist. The idealized Islamic state he says he would build in Pakistan would focus on justice, fairness and equality for all its citizens before the law. It would, above all, be "humane."
Khan often veers between shrewd political calculations -- "as a political party, you can't rule out alliances" -- and what seems to be naive idealism.
His plan to raise revenue for Pakistan is to "inspire" people to pay their taxes through his personal example and somehow rooting out all corruption, boosting the country's pitiful tax-to-GDP ratio of about 10 percent, one of the lowest in the world.
Some of the parties he has associated himself with in the past are notably lacking in democratic and liberal bona fides, such as the conservative Jamaat-e-Islami, which has cheered the murder of blasphemers and campaigned against laws that would grant women and religious minorities equal status to Muslims.
POLL?
But how might Khan do in the election? Given the current flux in Pakistani politics, few analysts would hazard a guess. Many think he could split the right-leaning, nationalist vote currently dominated by the former Prime Minister Nawaz Shari's Pakistan Muslim League and keep Zardari's Pakistan People's Party in power.
"He seems to have inspired more people to join the political process," said Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress in Washington. "But to date, his political organization has seemed weak and not well managed, particularly in contrast to his charity."
Khan himself believes his time has come.
"I have this very clear vision, as I say in the book," he said. "This has been a 15-year struggle which no one has conducted in Pakistan before. And now I feel I'm closer to my destiny."
But all that's really clear right now is that Khan reflects the yearnings of a deeply disillusioned and frustrated country that has seen 63 years of military and civilian governments repeatedly fail it -- all in the service of a national ideology looking for a nation.
It is this ideology -- a home for South Asia's Muslims and a shining beacon of Islamic democracy -- voiced by Allama Iqbal, considered the spiritual founder of Pakistan and the man who coined the name of the country, that motivates Khan.
"He says your vision or your destiny for your dream, it should be so great, it should be so noble and selfless that rather than you asking God that God grant you this destiny, that God would be so impressed by your dream, that he asks you: What do you want?"
He paused to consider this. "In other words, our destiny is in our hands. We have to dream; the bigger the dream, the bigger the man."
Reuters
JAIDEEP E. MENON
With the path breaking ceasefire offer by the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, the political environment surrounding the Kashmir issue has changed. The American angle in this development is often mentioned, without much clarification as to what exactly that entailed. It appears that Washington has acted, at the least, as a source of ideas, as a facilitator and perhaps even as an applier of pressure on the parties involved. One of the people apparently batting for the American side is Musawer Mansoor Ijaz, an American-born businessman and policy advisor of Pakistani origin. He visited Kashmir discreetly in recent months and is one of the people whose ideas on the Kashmir issue seems to filter through to President Bill Clinton. Ijaz can be expected to continue to play an intriguing, if somewhat mysterious, role within the US-India-Pakistan triangle. One can also expect that he may move on to greater prominence through this issue. So who is Mansoor Ijaz?
In attempts to understand a person, it is a good idea – as Socrates once said – to begin at the beginning. In the case of Mansoor Ijaz, that would have to be with his parents Mujaddid and Lubna. Both were highly intelligent and, apparently, intense individuals with an inclination towards the sciences, in particular physics. Mujaddid was regarded a very demanding personality, while his wife Lubna – who it is said had a Mughal heritage – was a driven personality who did not flinch from breaching societal and traditional barriers. Their story, and more importantly that of their son, for all intents and purposes begins in 1960 when Mujaddid and Lubna emigrated to the USA.
It is said that Mujaddid played a role in Pakistan's early nuclear programme. What role he could have played is unclear, because at the time of his emigration to the US, there was no indication that Pakistan had a nuclear programme of any sophistication. More likely, however, is that Mujaddid may have been involved at a conceptual/advisory level and in preliminary developments in Pakistan's clandestine nuclear programme initially. In view of his expertise, he probably also kept close links from the US with his old schoolmates and teachers who subsequently went on to occupy very high positions in the Pakistani nuclear establishment. As such, he may have been an important source of offshore nuclear technical expertise for Pakistan. Ironically, Mansoor, may be playing a similar role of information and expertise provider (on Pakistan's nuclear programme) for the country of his birth, the USA. But we get ahead of ourselves.
After Mujaddid arrived in the US, he settled initially in Florida. Mansoor was born in Tallahassee (FL) in August 1961. But in the following years the family soon moved on to the Blue Ridge Mountains area of Virginia, where Mujaddid was to teach nuclear physics at Virginia Tech, a position he held for 26 years. Meanwhile, Lubna started a doctorate at Virginia Tech and became the first woman PhD in solar physics at the institution. Simultaneously, the pater familias branched into another line of work: farming & real estate. Mujaddid accumulated a small fortune by buying, developing and selling land. As he grew wealthier, he sponsored more than 100 Muslim students to study in the US and helped 50 relatives relocate to America.
The Ijaz family lived on their farm, and in some ways Mansoor and his brother Farouk had what might be considered an idyllic childhood – going to school, playing ball, learning the things American children learn, and then returning to the farm where he is said to have "milked Holsteins and pitched hay". Mujaddid and Lubna, however, were not "social rebels". He was a reserved, stoic and reverent man with a deep love for the land he left behind. He and Lubna ensured that their children were brought up with a good understanding of Pakistani and Islamic traditions. Mansoor and Farouk started at childhood to offer daily prayers facing Mecca. Mansoor still does his daily religious duties.
This picture would not be wholly American without at least one example of the racism Mansoor and his brother experienced as children. At their elementary school in Blacksburg (VA), they were the only dark-skinned children and were the subject of taunts because of their colour. In high school in nearby Christiansburg, Mansoor who was small in stature (a "deficiency" compounding the colour problem) was beaten by bullies. This may partly explain why Mansoor took to sports. He had a particular interest in tennis and weightlifting. But his parents, typically sub-continental, were not amused. They saw it as a distraction from academic activities. Mansoor has been quoted as saying: "I would beg to play tennis. My father would ask about my grades". Nevertheless, Mansoor had by then begun to demonstrate his personal smarts as well as qualities of character. He enrolled in the University of Virginia, tutoring the basketball team to help pay his tuition, and while at the university he also earned All-American weightlifting status. At the university he preferred to study law, but was nudged in the direction of architecture by an adviser. In his junior year, his father suggested that he shift to physics. Thus he graduated with a bachelor's degree in nuclear physics from the University of Virginia in 1983.
Once again, the sub-continental cultural heritage kicked in and the time for an arranged marriage was nigh. So, in 1983, his family fixed a spouse for him in the Islamic tradition and Mansoor wed Yasmine (who duly proceeded to issue two offspring). In the meantime, Mansoor pursued further studies at the Massachussets Institute of Technology, where he received a degree in mechanical engineering in 1985. He had trained as a neuro-mechanical engineer under a fellowship granted by the joint MIT-Harvard Medical School Medical Engineering Program. Now the following segment of Mansoor's life is quite vague. It appears he continued postgraduate work at MIT, because according to one of the sources "three and one half years into his graduate studies" at MIT, Mansoor was called home to Virginia for family reasons. His parents, who had lived in the early 1980s in Saudi Arabia (for reasons unknown), had returned to Virginia. But family finances were squeezed, apparently because Mujaddid did not have a clue about basic economics (i.e. interest rates & inflation), which seems rather odd for someone who can understand nuclear physics. In any event, the situation was a turning point for Mansoor, for Mujaddid ordered him to New York to learn the ropes on Wall Street.
A new phase of Mansoor's life commenced. His took a job at Van Eck Associates, a mutual fund company. His first project with them was to analyse nuclear fallout from the Chernobyl accident in the Soviet Union. His models of how world geo-political events affected market conditions proved profitable for Van Eck, and he was soon entrusted to run a large mutual fund that anticipated changes in foreign policy. To build his models, Mansoor drew extensively on his experience at MIT. Having learned the ropes, Mansoor wasted no time in starting his own company: Crescent Investment Management, located on Lexington Avenue, in 1991. The company's logo, designed by his father Mujaddid, is the Islamic crescent moon recognised worldwide. (It is also the dominant motif on the flag of Pakistan). Mansoor began traveling extensively, visiting Pakistan and several Middle East countries seeking business deals. He built up an impressive network of contacts. At Crescent, he once again put his MIT analytical modelling experience to good use and developed the company's proprietary currency and interest rate risk management systems known as CARAT, TRACK, RMU and CALOP. Crescent rapidly became a successful company, with a $2.7 billion investment portfolio by the mid-1990s, according to Mansoor.
For Mansoor, 1992 was a watershed year. It was marked by personal tragedy and change, when his father died of brain and lung cancer. In a gesture mixed with symbolism and drama, Mujaddid had left a lasting message for his son – giving his dying instructions on videotape. In the tape, Mujaddid indicated that – since Mansoor had shown his capability to adapt to changes – he should dedicate himself to helping the Islamic world. Mansoor subsequently said that his father had passed the baton (given Mujaddid's expertise, outsiders may wonder what exactly the baton was), noting: "There was always a cultural gap between us…His death gave me a conscience". Although the father-son relationship had not been one of overtly displayed affection, not unlike most sub-continental father-son relationships, Ijaz had been a dutiful son and had always wished to please his father. It is no leap of faith therefore, to assume that his father's final dramatic gesture had a lasting impact on Mansoor. It is equally safe to assume that Mansoor was already on the radar of the American intelligence agencies because of his obvious brilliance, his parentage, his business skills and his connections. No doubt, they also noticed his growing contributions to the Democratic Party. Indeed, he was singled out in 1994 by the Democratic National Committee which had by then recognised that he was more than just a source of funds.
In May 1994, one Ari Swiller (one strand in Mansoor's Jewish links), who has been described as being "in charge of $100,000 donations" for the Democrats, sent a one-page memo fax to Maria Haley, a director of the US Eximbank who has found jobs for many Asian-Americans in the Clinton Administration. According to the Arkansas Democrat Gazette (ADG) of 28 April 1997, the memo claims that Mansoor is "very interested in using his background in nuclear physics", and accompanies a biographical sketch listing his background and contacts. Subsequently, Haley and Swiller have clammed up. Mansoor has been quoted as saying he does not know anything about the fax, adding (with good reason): "Why would I want a job with the government? I make a hell of lot more money where I am".
The biographical sketch, nonetheless, emphasises Mansoor's knowledge about the nuclear establishment in Pakistan. According to ADG, the memo says that Mujaddid's "closest classmates and teachers in Pakistan are now in charge'' of Pakistani nuclear facilities, including the directors of the Centre for Nuclear Studies and of PINSTECH, Pakistan's leading nuclear-research facility. Further, ADG claimed that a note at the bottom of the sketch says this, "These names have been provided at the request of the DNC in order to more fully evaluate the potential of a mutual relationship.'' The note asked for strict confidentiality. Whatever the case may be, by 1995, Mansoor was hobnobbing with the Washington elite, including Clinton and his wife. By then he was also in a position to directly send letters to Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto through a high-ranking intermediary. In other words, he was in the thick of intrigues in 1995 involving the US (at re-election fund-raising time) and an "attempted coup" in Pakistan.
Imagine the scene, a glamorous fund-raising dinner ($1000/plate) for the Democrats on 11 July 1995, at the home (haveli) of Pakistani cosmetics millionaire Rashid Chaudhary. Guests of honour were Vice President Albert Gore and his wife Tipper. In a gesture to symbolise long-term friendship, Gore planted a tree in his host's back yard that evening. Chaudary's wife gave Tipper a shalwar kameez, which she changed into before dinner in order to please the hosts; the objective was to raise $150,000 that night from the 150 guests.
Yet the event was not about food (which was plain, catered chicken and vegetables) but about politics – both the American and sub-continental versions. And this is where Mansoor comes into the picture. He was seated at the head table, along with Chaudhary and Gore as well as Izzat Majeed, a former Saudi oil adviser and chief Executive of Alyph Ltd., a London financial consulting firm; Nancy Soderberg, then Deputy Assistant to the President for national security affairs; Alexis Herman, a former Democratic National Committee chief of staff who moved on to become head of the White House Office of Public Liaison and Clinton's nominee for secretary of labor; naturalized American Yusuf Haroon, a former Pakistani politician whose family owns the Pakistani newspaper group Dawn; and two unidentified businessmen. Just as important as who was present at the dinner was who was not: namely, Maleela Lodhi, Pakistan's then Ambassador to the United States. She had not been invited. Instead, the Bhutto government was represented by Wajid Shamzil Hassan, Pakistan's Ambassador to London.
Why so? Well, intrigue was in the air. Plans of a "coup" in the making against the Bhutto government were already afloat and the White House was already aware of it. US media reports have it that Yusuf Haroon was the point man on this on the American side. His goal was to get maximum publicity coverage with the high and mighty in the US so that the credibility of the coup would be enhanced. A speech by Gore at a dinner hosted by Chaudhary at which Haroon was at the head table was just such an opportunity. (Photos were taken by Larry Glenn, a pro hired by the Democratic National Committee). But this plan collapsed, in manner similar to how the coup fizzled out some months later. Pivotal in the derailment of the plan was Mansoor, the American-born Pakistani with the "cultural gap" with his late father. He had to choose between divergent interests and outcomes, and he did. Here's how.
Mansoor, through his sources in Pakistan, had learned that a coup was being prepared against Bhutto. He then injected himself into the situation by doing two things: (1) informing the US government which had a pro-Bhutto stance at the time; and (2) informing Bhutto herself in a four-page letter dated June 29 and delivered to Zafar Hilaly, her National Security Adviser. The thrust of the information provided by Mansoor was as follows: Yusuf Haroon and Lt. Gen. Ali Quli Khan, then Pakistan's Chief of Military Intelligence, were plotting to oust Bhutto. According to the ADG, Mansoor said that he learned of the plot from sources inside Pakistan who were aware of his political connections in the US.
In the letter to Bhutto, Mansoor recommended that she send a trusted friend to represent her at Chaudhary's dinner, namely Shamzil Hassan, the ambassador to London. Oddly enough, it appears that she may not have trusted Maleeha Lodhi, ambassador in Washington; perhaps Bhutto, a fairly shrewd judge of character, recognised that Maleeha – like her brother Amir Lodhi – would sell herself to the highest bidder (and she has done so since). One would have thought that Mansoor's interjection to save Bhutto would have earned him her eternal appreciation, but this was not to be. She dealt with the 'coup attempt' in her own way, apparently compromising Lt. Gen. Quli Khan and getting him to nail his own underlings, but that's another story.
Gore's office and the National Security Council had been forewarned by Mansoor about the coup and were in no mood to be used. Indeed, it has been reported that on the day of the dinner, Mansoor called the Vice President's office to warn his staff. At the same time, foregoing $150,000 was not an option. So, Mansoor provided an escape route by suggesting a way to subvert the plotters' plan: Gore should somehow address the coup issue when he spoke. Thus Gore gave a long speech and at the end said a coup in Pakistan against Bhutto would not be tolerated by Washington. As numerous journalists were present, the Haroon-Quli Khan plan was quashed in public – at least from the US perspective.
The question here is, what made Mansoor decide that the best course of action was to inform the US Government. He obviously knew that, having family members still in Pakistan, they would be vulnerable. He also knew that, if it came out (as it did) that he was the leaker of information, powerful people in Pakistan would gun for him (perhaps literally). On the other hand, he knew that if he did not inform the US (and if the US found out that he had known), Pak-Americans in general would be cast in a negative light. He could not be sure, in another uncertainty, that the US would believe him.
Yet he took the course of informing the US, and it seems he was right; in subsequent years he has been noted wearing US presidential cufflinks and the White House has said it welcomes his views. In April 1997, the White House press spokesman (also the National Security Council press officer) David Johnson has been quoted as saying: "We found him (Mansoor) to have an interesting cultural perspective, particularly with respect to Pakistan… We've had no discussion with him about nuclear capabilities, nor negotiations, nor about code names''. The issue of "code names" came up because it was reported that Mansoor was known among circles interested in his activities as "Leo" (the star sign of his birth month August), a bit obvious perhaps but reality does not always conform either to Fleming's fantasy or to notions of bureaucratic alphanumeric efficiency. In any case, it seems Mansoor did not decide to inform the US about the coup purely on grounds of personal benefit – although that too may have been involved (as will be shown later).
The year 1995 was eventful for Mansoor in other ways. He was honored as the Endowment for Democracy's 1995 "Humanitarian of the Year" in recognition of his efforts to aid poor and disaffected people in Bosnia, South Africa, Hungary and Pakistan. The Endowment for Democracy is seen as a Jewish-controlled organisation. From late 1995, however, Mansoor became a severe critic of the Bhutto government, attacking it for corruption, etc. He said subsequently to ADG that, "We were saving democracy from the hands of military dictators, not Mrs. Bhutto as a person…When I wrote the anti-corruption pieces, I was speaking out on behalf of the poor and disaffected people of Pakistan who had no other voice to protect them from the ravages of the Bhutto regime's unforgivable conduct. There is no contradiction". This earned him her lasting enmity.
Was there something more than plain old altruism to Mansoor's criticism of Bhutto? We'll never know for certain, but consider this: for what other reason was the year 1995 eventful for Pakistan? The Brown Amendment was passed that year. Indeed, from the beginning of the year the Clinton administration was lobbying for the bill with help from Chaudhary. In June 1995, as Mansoor became aware of the coup plans, the bill was a hot topic, and at the time of the Chaudhary haveli dinner in July it was being debated in the Senate. The Brown Amendment was included in a foreign appropriations bill passed by the Senate in September 1995. In the same month, Mansoor hosted a low-profile fund-raiser for Gore at his Manhattan penthouse. Twenty contributors with "blue-chip credentials'' contributed $150,000 to the Clinton-Gore Re-Election Committee, according to a Pakistani journalist present. (White Houe records show 25 guests present contributed $5,000 each). Gore promised during the dinner that the Clinton administration would devote more energy to the "South Asian situation'' in its second term. By November 1995, the Brown Amendment was passed.
After the Brown Amendment was passed, however, Mansoor's ties with Bhutto began to deteriorate fast. He began writing high profile critiques of her government for corruption. This continued through the following year. That there may be reasons beyond altruism for his views was suggested in October 1996 when Pakistani Foreign Secretary Najmuddin Shaikh said a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Mansoor arguing against foreign investment in Pakistan was "infantile, vindictive and without any credibility" as well as being the result of "pique". Shaikh said Mansoor was attacking Bhutto because he could not "derive sufficient benefit" from the government.
Separately 'Dawn' quoted a Pakistan Embassy spokesman in Washington as saying that Mansoor was blasting Islamabad because the embassy denied him $15 million he had demanded to secure votes in the US House of Representatives for the passage of the Brown Amendment. The spokesman said that in 1995, after the Brown Amendment had made it through the US senate and then had to be voted on by the House, Mansoor went to the embassy along with his lawyers with a proposal that smacked of a 'sting operation'. He added, "Mr. Ijaz wanted us to release $15 million for a satellite communications company R.D.D.A. which had done some work for Pakistan in 1979 for which they were not paid and they would sue the government to recover the monies. Ijaz told us that in this way you will kill two birds with one stone, one we will ensure votes in the US House for the Brown Amendment and the other the company R.D.D.A. will not sue you".
The spokesman also said that when Ambassador Maleeha Lodhi was given this proposal she saw it as a trap wherein the Pakistani government could land in bigger trouble; so she turned down Mansoor's proposal saying that "it was illegal". In the Wall Street Journal article, Mansoor implied that Lodhi used "aggressive tactics" in pushing to recoup the payments for the stalled F-16s (the focus of the Brown Amendment) after the passage of the Amendment because her brother, Amir Lodhi, was interested in the Mirage deal with France as he was the middleman.
According to the 'Dawn Wire Service' of 04 October 1996, the Pakistan Embassy in Washington struck back with a press release in which it refuted Mansoor's allegations regarding the reasons for Maleeha Lodhi's eagerness to recoup the F-16 payments. Interestingly, the press release added that Mansoor had been urging Islamabad to recognize Israel. It said he had visited Israel on several occasions, once on the invitation of the mayor of Jerusalem.
The press release pointed out that in 1995 Mansoor had been given the "Humanitarian of the Year" award by a "major Jewish organization" (Endowment for Democracy – as mentioned earlier). It added further that the reasons for this award was his efforts in establishing clinics and schools in Belgium and parts of Eastern Europe for the Jewish communities there. The press release said Ambassador Ahmad Kamal, who attended the award ceremony, praised Mansoor and his "philanthropist activities". Then in his speech Mansoor thanked Ambassador Kamal's wife saying "Thank you Mrs. Kamal for Dal, Roti and Kabab". Also in October 1996, Mansoor served as a Plenary Session speaker on nuclear proliferation at the State of the World Forum in San Francisco, along with General Lee Butler, Senator Alan Cranston, Nobel laureate Joseph Rotblat and others. Not surprisingly, Mansoor was not too unhappy with the departure of the Bhutto government after President Farooq Khan Leghari sacked it on charges of corruption. It must be noted, in the meantime, that allegations of financial blackmail by Mansoor had surfaced in 'Dawn' and 'Dawn Wire Service' – both owned by Yusuf Haroon, the man who paid the price for Mansoor's decision to inform the US government about the coup plot against Bhutto.
Mansoor continued to maintain a high profile in the US on matters related to Pakistan and, increasingly, Sudan. He is said to have had good links with the Nawaz Sharif administration. It has been reported (Washington Post, 29/4/97) that by the summer of 1996, Mansoor was lobbying strongly for improved US-Sudan ties; Sudan has been on the US list of terrorism-supporting states since 1993. He reportedly made In a half-dozen trips to Khartoum between July 1996 and April 1997, and met several times with Sudan's president, Lt. Gen. Omar Hassan Bashir, and the country's real power – the militant Islamic leader, Speaker Hassan Al Turabi, advising them on how to soften the Clinton administration's position.
According to the Post, in that time frame, Mansoor also met with senior White House and State Department officials - including Sandy Berger - to urge "constructive engagement" which would include enlisting Turabi's help in curbing international terrorists. A White House spokesman subsequently said the Mansoor had provided helpful "insight", although other officials have said they did not find his analysis "compelling". Other officials he met included Susan E. Rice, special assistant to the president for African affairs; senior officials in the State Department's African affairs office; and several senior members of Congress, including Rep. Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.), ranking minority member on the House International Relations Committee, according to government sources. Mansoor also had meetings with FBI and U.S. intelligence officials. At the time, Mansoor had not registered with the Justice Department as a lobbyist for Sudan and said he had received no known compensation from the Khartoum regime.
The Post said that in April 1997, Mansoor "returned from another trip to Khartoum with a letter from Bashir to Hamilton. Bashir offered in the letter to allow FBI agents unrestricted access in Sudan to determine whether the government supports international terrorists, according to a Sudanese official". Hamilton passed the letter on to the State Department and told the Post that he had met Mansoor three or four times and found him "a very bright, energetic guy" with "a lot of contacts in the Sudan". The Post also quoted Mansoor as saying: "I am of the view that Doctor Turabi (then speaker of Sudan, an Islamic radical now marginalized somewhat in Sudanese politics) has access to every single major fringe radical group on the face of the planet," Ijaz said. "Let's use him to be our bridge to all of these fringe radical groups".
(This writer finds the statement by Mansoor to be debatable. Turabi, who fancies himself something of an intellectual with global pretensions (Sorbonne-educated PhD), does indeed have vast links across the spectrum of Islamist militant activity. But he is only a "moderate" within a militant spectrum. His antecedents are with the Muslim Brotherhood, and he will not hesitate to turn extremely radical if he judges the time to be right. In other words, his moderation is reserved for the right audience).
On 10 June 1997, Mansoor, provided a testimony to the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime on "Prohibition on Financial Transactions With Countries Supporting Terrorism Act". According to a profile appended as Exhibit B to the testimony he had also become involved in "designing, funding and implementing projects for the people of third-world countries under the direction of his private foundation, The Ijaz Group. His current projects include structuring the asset management systems for the governments of the CIS and designing models for low-income housing in poor African countries". He was also becoming highly visible in the media, with op-ed pieces in the Wall Street Journal, LA Times, BARRON's Roundtable Currency discussions, ‘CNN', etc.
Mansoor by 1996/97 had begun displaying photographs in his New York office of him and Clinton, Gore, etc. Wearing his Crescent Investment hat, according to the Exhibit B profile, he had also "advised the Unity Government of President Nelson Mandela on low-income housing programs, President Sam Nujoma of Namibia on global investment programs for domestic pension plans, and President Haidar Aliev of Azerbaijan on investment of the revenues from Caspian oil reserves. He also meets regularly with the economic and political leaders of Russia, China, Israel, Pakistan, the Sudan and Persian Gulf states on economic and political issues related to his investment management business".
Yet his efforts with Sudan were to take a sudden turn for the worse, (at least temporarily). In summer 1997, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were hit by bombs. The culprits were judged to have received help from Sudan and Afghanistan. In August 1997, both countries were hit by the US with cruise missiles, although later it was acknowledged that the Sudanese target was perhaps wrongly identified. What was Mansoor's Sudan angle? Well, Sudan was preparing to export oil around 1997 and Mansoor wanted to place himself in a position so that Crescent would be chosen to manage some of Sudan's export income.
After the Sudan developments, it did not take very long for Mansoor to raise his profile once again. In May 1998, India set off nuclear bombs, and this was followed by Pakistan within the month. Mansoor's analytical skills were much in demand by the broadcast and print media and he obliged. After the October 1999 coup in Pakistan, he was once again in high demand and his views (strongly anti-military) were well appreciated.
In the meantime, Mansoor had managed to get on the prestigious Council for Foreign Relations in the US where he got involved in policy recommendations for South Asia. His background in Washington and his current position no doubt helped Mansoor in arranging a discreet visit to Jammu & Kashmir in May 2000. The fact that he did not have to go through the usual check-up formalities at Srinagar airport in Kashmir may be explained by the fact that he was accompanied and guided throughout his visit in Kashmir by officials of the Indian intelligence agency Research & Analysis Wing (RAW) and military officials, who no doubt have assessed his present and future value as an opinion maker and policy driver.
Notes:
Dawn Wire Service (October 4, 1996); Dawn Newspaper (date unavailable); Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (April 25th & 28th, 1997); Washington Post (April 29, 1997); The News online; and Exhibit B from Mansoor Ijaz's Testimony to the House of Representatives (June 10, 1997, 10:00 am, at the Rayburn House Office Building). All the information contained in this article is in the public domain.
Courtesy: BHARAT RAKSHAK MONITOR
The ISI conclusively authenticated the delivery of treasonous secret memo to Admiral Mike Mullen before Chief of the Army Staff, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani recently took up the serious issue with all seriousness with President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani.
Informed sources said that a key ISI official personally flew to Europe recently and met Mansoor, the man who caused the storm, to ascertain the authenticity of the evidence as claimed by him. It was only after the ISI’s satisfaction over the kind of evidence that Mansoor produced that the army chief decided to take up the matter with the president and prime minister.
Although, Pakistan’s Ambassador to Washington Husain Haqqani categorically denied his involvement in the memo issue in any manner, Mansoor showed to the ISI all the relevant messages, e-mails and other evidence to prove that Haqqani was the person who initiated and drafted the memo.
Of late Mansoor, an influential Pakistani-American businessman, had told Geo TV n an interview that he had already shared his evidence with some Pakistani officials. He, however, had not disclosed that the official(s) he met was from the ISI.
Husain Haqqani, however, pleads that he is innocent and has nothing to do with the memo as referred to by Mansoor and confirmed to have been received by Mike Mullen after his initial denial. Haqqani also assures that he would be in Islamabad in a few days time to explain his position before President Asif Ali Zardari.
The Presidency as well as the government insists that Haqqani would be here very soon to clarify his position but some believe that he might not come unless he is sure that he would not be arrested or interrogated.
Haqqani says that he has a lot of opposition in Pakistan for the reason that many in Pakistan do not like a civilian ambassador to serve Pakistan in Washington. He did not explain as to who precisely are against him in Pakistan, he is believed to be referring to the country’s Establishment that from day one was not happy with his appointment as Pakistan’s ambassador in Washington.
There are some who do suggest here in Islamabad that Haqqani should be taken into custody upon his arrival in Pakistan. The secret memo issue remained a non issue for the Presidency, prime minister, the regime and even the ambassador till the time the army chief took a clear stance that this is too serious an issue to be overlooked. Although the government has finally moved and sought an explanation from Haqqani, despite the publication of Mansoor’s article on the memo issue in the Financial Times on Oct 10, the Presidency, the Washington embassy or the government here have not issued a rebuttal to FT.
Before the memo issue, the Pakistan Army and the ISI have been extremely upset with Haqqani on the matter of visa issuance to hundreds of Americans without due prior-scrutiny of the Pakistani security agencies. Haqqani, however, denied this charge but despite the Establishment’s reservations the Gilani regime following US pressure authorised the Haqqani-led Washington embassy to issue visas on its own without referring their cases even to the FO and the ISI and other security agencies.
The News
| WASHINGTON: US businessman Mansoor Ijaz, who is at the centre of the Mullen Memo-gate controversy, Friday released another chunk of evidence-his phone records of calls made to and received, allegedly, from the Pakistani Ambassador to US Husain Haqqani and his US contact between May 9 and 10, when the controversial memo was prepared and sent. Reacting to Pakistani ambassador's statements on the issue, in which Mr Haqqani said the SMS record was fake, Mansoor Ijaz sent what he said was an authenticated copy of the telephone company record of calls. "I presented my original telephone company records to the senior Pakistani official whom I met to verify and validate the evidence in my possession," Mr Mansoor said adding that "I asked him (the official) to independently verify and check that the numbers of the individuals concerned were in fact their telephone numbers. I further asked him to put the calls in sequence with both e-mail and BlackBerry Messenger messages that had been sent to the ambassador and my US contact so that he could develop a comprehensive picture of the entire set of events." Mr Mansoor claimed that "the data was transferred to his (the official's) secure e-mail address directly from my computer, and he verified in front of me that the original telephone bills and original e-mail and BBM traffic were authentic and forensically unaltered." The US businessman also recalled a Blackberry Message conversation in which Mr Haqqani had stated: "Husain Haqqani: you can keep saying you delivered a message and show BBM convos (conversations) to prove it... Basically, you don't get it." In another such conversation, this time by SMS, on November 11, 2011, Mr Haqqani says: "I have just changed BBs...I may never trust you or your judgment again..." The telephone record released by Mansoor shows the dates, time, phone numbers, duration of the calls made and received. "All calls were made from or received into my GSM number, +44 7730 33 --." The following is the record. Name and phone numbers of the US contact have been deleted (IN indicates incoming call, OUT indicates outgoing call): DATE/TIME/TEL NO/ DURATION IN/OUT/DESCRIPTION 05-09-2011,12:35:49, +442071060900, 16:03, OUT, Husain Haqqani at Intercontinental London, Room 430 05-09-2011, 12:58:06, +1703----, 02:25, OUT, US CONTACT, Home (spoke to wife, left message) 05-09-2011, 13:54:31, +1703----, 19:26, IN, US CONTACT, returning phone call from mobile phone 05-09-2011, 17:51:41, +16179532835, 00:23, OUT, Husain Haqqani mobile 05-09-2011, 18:28:45, +16179532835, 02:34, IN, Husain Haqqani mobile calling in 05-09-2011, 18:36:41, +1703----, 00:48, OUT, US CONTACT mobile, relaying essence of Haqqani call 05-09-2011, 21:20:11 +442071060900, 00:31, OUT, Husain Haqqani at Intercontinental London, Room 430 05-10-2011, 00:30:55, +16179532835, 01:17, IN, Husain Haqqani mobile calling in 05-10-2011, 00:33:05,+1703----, 01:39, OUT, US CONTACT mobile 05-10-2011, 09:06:16, +442071060900, 11:16, OUT, Husain Haqqani at Intercontinental London, Room 430 05-10-2011, 14:51:33, +1703----, 02:55, OUT, US CONTACT mobile | ||
 |
HALIFAX, Nova Scotia (Reuters) - Defense chiefs from the United States and Canada said on Friday that budgetary pressures would not derail development of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, saying there was no real alternative to what has become the Pentagon's costliest weapons program.
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said flatly he was confident Congress would approve funding for the F-35, which is facing fresh scrutiny for possible cuts as lawmakers weigh how to scale back the U.S. deficit.
Two days ago Canadian Defense Minister Peter MacKay expressed concern about reports of delays in F-35 delivery and said his government was in direct talks with manufacturer Lockheed Martin Corp.
MacKay, speaking to reporters alongside Panetta at a security conference in Halifax, said his country would press ahead with the program.
"There is no fifth generation aircraft other than the F-35 available to Canada and the United States. So all of the hypothetical discussions, and negative discussions, quite frankly, about this program are really just clatter and noise," MacKay said. "This program is going ahead."
The United States is developing a family of radar-evading F-35s with eight international partners - Canada, Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Australia, Denmark and Norway.
It is projected to cost the United States more than $382 billion to buy a total of 2,447 F-35 models over the next two decades. Other countries, including the co-development partners, are expected to buy roughly another 750 aircraft.
Canada says it plans to buy 65 of the jets, which in theory will start arriving in 2016. It has not yet signed a binding contract.
Panetta acknowledged that the Pentagon was still looking at ways to make the $450 billion in cost-cuts over the next decade, approved by Congress.
"But we also have to look to areas where we have to continue to invest for the future. And the F-35 is one of those areas, where we are going to continue to invest for the future," Panetta said.
Panetta's comments appeared predicated on the expectation that Congress would reach a deficit reduction deal before a November 23 deadline.
If a 12-member congressional "super committee" fails, automatic, across-the-board cuts would kick in. Those would force the Pentagon to slash another $600 billion over the next decade, something that Panetta warned in a letter to Congress this week could affect the F-35 program this week.
"This is the fighter plane for the future. And in some ways we really have no alternative," Panetta told reporters in Halifax.
"This is the plane that is going to be able to provide the technology, the capabilities for the future. We need to have those. It's true for us. It's true for our partners."
General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in Washington he did not mean to leave the impression during a recent hearing that he was contemplating canceling a version of the F-35.
Dempsey told a congressional hearing last month that in the tight budget environment maintaining three variants of the F-35 "creates some fiscal challenges for us" and added it's "something we'll have to keep an eye on."
He told reporters on Friday that he meant it would be a challenge if the Pentagon was hit with an additional $600 billion in across-the-board cuts, which would slash funding for a proportion of all programs equally.
"I didn't have a crosshair on the F-35," Dempsey said. But he added that everyone should understand that an additional across-the-board cut would "affect ... everything we do."
(Reporting by Phil Stewart and David Alexander in Washington; Editing by Paul Simao and Christopher Wilson)
Reuters
Posts
