Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 29th May 2012

[kasthuri]

Clearly looks like a planted one...

U.S.-Pakistan Talks Hit Snag

WASHINGTON—U.S. and Pakistani officials have held secret exploratory talks on a new counterterrorism partnership, but that initiative and others are held up by the impasse over an American apology for the deaths last year of 24 Pakistani troops, both countries said.

The dispute over an apology for the Nov. 26 deaths—which Pakistan has demanded but which the White House has refused to give—has widening implications. It is delaying a deal to reopen critical supply routes for U.S. and North Atlantic Treaty Organization troops in neighboring Afghanistan, U.S. and Pakistani officials say.
The dispute also makes reaching a deal on counterterrorism cooperation that much harder.

Senior U.S. officials in recent months have quietly sounded out their Pakistani counterparts about negotiating a broad accord intended to give Islamabad a greater role in what has largely been a unilateral U.S. drone campaign against Pakistan-based militants, participants in the preliminary talks say.

The proposals call for a joint military campaign against militants that would incorporate U.S. drones as well as Pakistani F-16s and ground forces, these officials say.

The Central Intelligence Agency, which pilots the hunter-killer drones in Pakistan, invited the new head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency, Lt. Gen. Zaheerul Islam, to Washington last month to discuss counterterrorism cooperation, but the visit was postponed, reflecting the two countries' fraught relations.

A partnership with Pakistan on counterterrorism operations is critical, advocates say, to ensure that the U.S. can keep the pressure on al Qaeda and its allies as American and international forces gradually pull out of Afghanistan. Without a deal, they say, Pakistan could move to block CIA drone flights.

Islamabad has publicly called for the U.S. spy agency to halt all drone attacks on its territory but it hasn't taken any tangible steps to stop the flights.

The Pakistanis have in recent months grown so frustrated that they have explored options to counter the drones, including shooting them down and mounting a legal challenge to the program in the World Court as a violation of international law and of the United Nations Charter, say people familiar with the matter.

Senior U.S. and Pakistani officials acknowledge the difficulty of forging a real counterterrorism partnership given deep-seated Pakistani public opposition to U.S. drone operations.

Reflecting its frustration with Pakistan, the White House has authorized stepped-up CIA strikes in tribal areas bordering Afghanistan in recent weeks. {Is this the way to show frustration??}

The hurdles to any deal are great, both sides acknowledge. Vali Nasr, a former top Obama administration adviser on Pakistan, said the current U.S. strategy of "pressure, pressure and more pressure" is unlikely to lead to a "grand bargain" on the drone program and counterterrorism. "We can't even get out of the gate with an apology."

Moreover, officials say talks on a counterterrorism deal setting out the roles of U.S. and Pakistani forces would be complicated by disagreements between the countries over which militant groups should be targeted, officials say.

While U.S. officials believe Pakistan would consent to U.S. drone strikes targeting top al Qaeda leaders and Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan, which is battling the Pakistani government, Islamabad has so far balked at strikes against the Haqqani network, which American officials say has long-standing ties to Pakistan's intelligence agency and is responsible for attacks against U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

To try to address Pakistanis' concerns that the drone strikes impinge on their sovereignty, U.S. officials have raised the possibility of a more collaborative approach under which U.S. drone operations could be conducted in concert with strikes from Pakistan's fleet of F-16s.

The U.S. would, in turn, share more intelligence with Pakistan to support operations by its air and ground forces, officials say. Intelligence sharing has been hampered in the past because of U.S. concerns that Pakistan will tip off wanted militants before the strikes take place.

The Obama administration has made clear that drone strikes will continue to target what remains of al Qaeda's network in the tribal areas of Pakistan, whether Islamabad agrees or not. But U.S. officials involved in the preliminary discussions believe the Pakistani government would be more receptive to cooperating if those operations were seen as part of a broader campaign supporting Pakistani forces. Officials said such a strategy could allow the Pakistanis to argue that the drone attacks aren't an affront to their sovereignty because they directly benefit Islamabad.

Advocates of such an arrangement acknowledge that reaching a deal may be a "long shot" in the near-term, but they want negotiations to begin.

U.S. officials said President Barack Obama was wary of apologizing to a country that continues to harbor militants. Such an apology at the height of a presidential campaign could expose him to criticism from Republicans.

The U.S. officials say they believe Pakistan postponed Lt. Gen. Zahir's visit to Washington because the government wants to settle other outstanding differences, including over the reopening of NATO supply routes into Afghanistan, before tackling thorny counter-terrorism issues, encompassing the drone program. The Pentagon said this week that it pulled U.S. negotiators.

Pakistan's ambassador to the U.S., Sherry Rehman, said the lack of an apology is holding up counterterrorism discussions. "We are committed to working with the international community to bring stability to the region, and this includes the U.S., of course," she said.

"The apology is holding up important discussions in many areas, including a broader conversation on counterterrorism cooperation. I hope we resume productive cooperation in many areas, but all of it will have to pass the test of transparency. Drone attacks need to cease, especially since most of al Qaeda has been destroyed, that too with our active cooperation."

A U.S. official said there "there's always room for discussion" with the Pakistanis on ways they can partner with the U.S. and "get more involved in the defense of their own country from terrorists." But the official said progress in this area tends to "happen incrementally" and that there were no active negotiations "when it comes to conducting the counterterrorism operations needed to protect the U.S. and its interests."

A Pakistani official said that a counterterrorism program using Islamabad's F-16s and the U.S.'s drones would only be acceptable if the Pakistanis were involved with the operations of both. The F-16s could be used in relatively unpopulated areas.

Among the proposals that were floated were a joint program run out of the Pakistani military's headquarters in Rawalpindi and a joint program run out of one of the border patrol outposts along Pakistan's border with Afghanistan, according to a person familiar with the discussions.

The Pakistani official said Lt. Gen. Zahir will visit the U.S. when his schedule allows, and that a visit is expected in the near future.

A U.S. official said: "The ball's in their court. We're ready to have him back."

[pankajs]

By calling UK as Pakistan's mother, he has reminded them that Pakistan owes them their existence.

And that it is the English who are more interested in propping up papistan against a resurgent India. The idea that India could be boxed up in south-asia was originally an English idea later adopted by US and China.

[SSridhar]

pankajas, that is why India has been fighting the 'powerful enemies' since Independence. This is a point that was emphasized in the Siachen thread as well.

[pankajs]

The Afghan policy shift

After 9/11 Pakistan-US ties have experienced many ups and downs. However, a marked policy shift was seen with the election of President Obama. The new administration attached Afghanistan’s affairs with “Af-Pak,” and delivered a new list of objectives concerning this region. For Pakistan this new package brought many do’s and don’ts. The monitoring stage of this new policy ended in 2010 and it was decided by the US that Pakistan needed to be dealt more firmly. The Kerry-Lugar Bill was an expression of the same pressure involving the carrot-and-stick approach. After the May 2 operation in Abbottabad, US advisers in Washington, who wanted a firm dealing with Pakistan, gained more attention. Accusations regarding the Haqqani Network, the statements of Mike Mullen and other tactics of the same kind of pressure were used.

However, this pressure proved counterproductive. The Pakistani establishment refused to give in. In addition to the detention of Raymond Davis, the activities of the CIA were restricted, and the US request for an operation in North Waziristan by the Pakistani military was also refused. This infuriated the US even more and together with the stoppage of aid, the amount under the collation support fund was also frozen, an amount that Pakistan has already spent on its activities to combat terrorism. Pakistan neglected its monitoring of the Taliban in Afghanistan and, to convey displeasure to the US, Pakistani officials visited Iran, China and Russia. The matter did not end here; the US increased its support to anti-Pakistan militants and Baloch nationalists in Afghanistan.

The Salala check-post incident pushed Pakistani-US relations further downwards. Pakistan used its only remaining card, that of blocking the Nato supply routes. At first the US tried to use Afghanistan, however this time Karzai refused to be utilised against Pakistan. At this the US used the India card to blackmail Pakistan. After the punishment of Ghulam Nabi Fai, Hafiz Saeed was declared a wanted person with a huge head money for his capture. Each visit of Pakistani or Indian delegates to each other’s country was followed by a US official in India issuing a provocative statement. However, this time India played with caution and Pakistan too dealt with India with care. In Afghanistan the US tried its best to use anti-Pakistan elements. However, this time Pakistan, with the active use of its relations with the leaders of northern Afghanistan, minimised the risk. Besides all this tug-of-war between the US and Pakistan, the US was confident that Pakistan would give in before the Chicago Conference.

However, on the internal front the issue changed into an interesting but dirty game between the establishment and the government. It was assumed by the Pakistani establishment that even they could adopt a hard line against the government due to its financial and diplomatic limitations. Zardari had two concerns: the upcoming elections and the risk of public defamation by the establishment and the Difa-e Pakistan Council. So this time they did exactly the opposite and went two steps ahead in their anti-US statements. They scheduled visits for Russia and China and made active dialogues on the Pakistan-Iran pipeline.

The media was given the wrong perception that Zardari requested participation in the Chicago conference. This is also wrong that Pakistan demanded $5,000 dollars per container. The only fault of the Pakistani government is its failure to properly use the international media in presenting its stance. In fact, the proposal for tri-lateral negotiations at the Chicago conference was presented by President Obama at the Seoul conference to Prime Minister Gilani. Later, the US denied the invitation and conditioned it with the opening of the supply routes of Nato. Pakistan refused any conditional participation and thus Pakistan was invited by the Nato secretary general unconditionally.

At that stage the US expected the opening of the supply route before the Chicago conference. However, when Pakistan showed no intention, the US refused to participate in the trilateral meeting at Chicago. Besides, in his meeting with Hillary Clinton at Chicago, Zardari not only reaffirmed Pakistan’s stance on an official apology on Salala but also stressed other demands. This resulted in an uproar in Washington against Pakistan. Now the US is determined to achieve all its objectives in Pakistan, including reopening of the Nato supply route, but not with concessions.

The Pakistani response indeed has disturbed US and stunned the international community. However, the most disappointing aspect is its spontaneous nature. All this is not the result of some calculated effort and set objectives. Rather, it is a by-product of the institutional tug-of-war and the effort to gain political mileage. Before the Chicago conference, statements issued by the Cabinet Defence Committee and certain officials resulted in the impression that once again Pakistan has surrendered. While at Chicago our president demanded an apology from the US, our prime minister declared that an apology could not bring back our soldiers. In this tense situation, about two dozen CIA agents were caught. However, they were handed back to the US silently. Though there was an option that those agents could be presented to the media.

The situation is tense and sensitive. Indeed, at any time our government could surrender and show its willing to work on previous terms and conditions.

[pankajs]

The sensible course

The writer is editor, The News Karachi.

The tidings from Washington are getting ominous for Pakistan. In yet another sign of worsening ties, the Pentagon announced withdrawal of its negotiators from Pakistan after weeks of talks over the reopening of Nato supply routes into Afghanistan ended in failure. Though the Pentagon tried to give a diplomatic gloss to its decision by saying that the United States remains willing for dialogue over the issue, there are clear indications that the gridlock between the two sides is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon.

Earlier, Washington’s frustration with Pakistan was highlighted by US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta, who in hard-hitting statements made in New Delhi, Kabul and Washington in a span of less than a week, reiterated his government’s position of no letup in drone strikes on what it terms Al- Qaeda and Taliban militants hiding in Pakistan’s northern region. His warning that the United States was “losing patience” with Islamabad over its failure to eliminate safe havens for insurgents reflects the growing chasm and distrust between these two uneasy allies in more than a decade-long war on terrorism. In the words of Panetta, the United States is now at war in Pakistan’s Federally Administrated Tribal Areas (Fata) from where militants allegedly mount cross-border attacks on US forces in Afghanistan.

Pakistan’s efforts to underplay these statements – now being echoed at the highest level of the US administration and Congress – and cliché-ridden diplomatic explanations that the country will follow its well-thought-out strategy to eradicate terrorism under its own timeline, falls too short, given the grave challenge it faces on the external and internal fronts. The point is that it’s not business as usual in Pakistan-US relations and the country’s international isolation is growing. Under the current civilian and military leadership, Pakistan has not only lost its initiative – which once it had – in the fight against Al-Qaeda and its inspired local militants, but is increasingly seen as an unwilling partner in the UN-mandated international efforts against terrorism. This lack of drive in combating terrorism stands in stark contrast to former military ruler Pervez Musharraf’s days in which quick decisions were taken on crucial foreign policy issues and there was a sea-change in the way Pakistan dealt with militants.

The tense Pakistan-US relations can only be good news for Al-Qaeda, the Afghan and the Pakistani Taliban and of course their cheerleaders in the country’s mainstream religious and rightwing parties opposed to Islamabad’s cooperation in the international effort against terrorism. But this bodes ill for Pakistan’s long-term geo-strategic and economic interests.

In politics, be it national or international, perceptions matters the most. And the hard fact is that today the international perception about Pakistan’s commitment in the war on terrorism remains highly questionable. The country is seen as a safe haven for terrorists from across the globe. In many high-profile terrorist incidents not just in the region, but around the world, investigation threads often lead towards Pakistan.

The Haqqani network, the Al-Qaeda operatives and the Afghan Taliban – from their lowly soldiers to their leaders – all have footprints on our soil and allegedly use it to rest, regroup and plan assaults across the porous border into Afghanistan. The response of Pakistan’s current civil and military leadership to this perception appears to be that of self-denial and their position of tackling the problem at their own sweet pace lacks the urgency which the international community demands from them. No wonder, Pakistani narrative finds few takers in important world capitals. This, indeed, is sad, given the fact that Pakistan paid a far higher price than the US and any of its Nato allies in this war, with more than 36,000 dead that include thousands of security personnel.

The recent killing of Al-Qaeda’s number two, Abu Yahya al-Libi, in a US drone attack in a village of North Waziristan, has come as yet another blow to Pakistan, where terror mastermind Osama bin Laden was also killed by the US Marines in May last year. These high-profile killings of Al-Qaeda leaders and operatives came against the backdrop of continued rejections of charges by top Pakistani officials about the presence of militant leadership in the country. But the killing of al-Libi again exposed these statements and undermined Islamabad’s demand for a halt to US drone attacks, which have been fairly effective in targeting militants despite concerns about civilian deaths in collateral damage.

The surge in the number of drone attacks under US President Barrack Obama’s administration – seen as one of the key stumbling blocks in Pakistan-US relations – has resulted largely because of Pakistan’s inability or unwillingness to act against foreign and local militants. From the US point-of-view, the logic is simple: if you can’t act against them, we will.

Given the high-stakes in Afghanistan’s endgame in which Nato allies plan to end their combat operation sometime in 2013 and hand over security to Afghan security forces, Pakistan indeed appears an odd man out as its leadership drags its feet in going for decisive steps to combat the twin ghost of extremism and terrorism that also threaten its own stability and future.

Since Bin Laden’s killing, which embarrassed Pakistan’s military establishment, there has been a rapid deterioration in relations between the two sides as Pakistan curtailed cooperation in the fight against terrorism. The attack of US choppers on the Salala check post in November that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers proved to be the proverbial last straw, following which Islamabad closed the Nato supply routes.

As anti-American sentiment was drummed up in an organised manner through different shades of legal and banned religious groups, as well as rightwing leaders like Imran Khan, the mainstream political parties present in parliament got swayed away under what is being dubbed as “popular pressure,” rather than moving quickly on addressing the fundamental issues marring Pakistan-US relations. The civilian and military leadership failed to give a vision and direction to Pakistan’s foreign and geostrategic policy keeping in view the new realities and challenges. Apparently, they remain stuck with the old game of keeping a few options handy among militants on the assumptions that it will be back to the good old days of 1990s once the United States and Nato troops end combat operations in Afghanistan. But the world has changed and the old games of duplicity in the stated policy and covert action won’t take us anywhere.

The brinkmanship in relations with the United States on account of the Salala post tragedy and connecting it to unrelated issues including revision of Nato cargo tariff upwards is in no way any kind of statesmanship. Instead of trying to resolve the issue on a war footing, the government wasted precious time in emotional debate in parliament and tried to play the popular card rather than leading and moulding public opinion for a sensible and rational solution. When the United States wanted to get over Salala after issuing an apology, we jacked up stakes from where it is now difficult for the civil and military leaders to climb down without losing face.

In the US election year, Obama will be more aggressive in getting results on the Afghan warfront as he wants to be seen as a strong leader. Expecting concessions at this crucial juncture from his administration is too unrealistic. On the other hand, the Pakistani establishment’s strategy, if there is one, appears to wait for the exit of the US and Nato troops and then show its cards. Therefore, to expect a breakthrough in the impasse seems a fry cry in the coming months, which will have its negative repercussions on Pakistan especially its economy. For Islamabad, the sensible course should be to keep itself aligned with the international community, rather than going for an adventurous course. But perhaps common sense and rationality is too much to ask in the Land of the Pure.

Seems the direct pitch to the Green card holders at least increased the number of farticles calling for papistan to assume GUBO position.

[Anujan]

^^^^

And the hard fact is that today the international perception about Pakistan’s commitment in the war on terrorism remains highly questionable.

Apparently the perception is questionable. Pakistan commitment to war on terror is strong, there is only a image problem. Every article written by any paki is soaked with H&D.

[Murugan]

So Unkil is using Shikhandi United K*n dom

[partha]

So Unkil is using Shikhandi United K*n dom

Insult to the great scholar Bhishma!

[Lalmohan]

Whats the point of inviting TSP to investor meet on Afghanistan while they are begging around for funds themselves?

Paki ko Paki Mille, kar kar lambe Haath, Dekh ke Halat Dono ki, Hum ko Aavat Haaas

ramana, i am not able to find the word "motherhood" in the original article, nor can i find any references to it in other news sources. would be interested to see where the quoted text comes from and how it was used by hague

[Aditya_V]

May this Mullah tribe increase and let the pious in the Land of the pure shun medicine.

Cleric says polio vaccination 'un-islamic, warns of jihad against docs

[Dilbu]

^^
The only problem is threat of polio spreading back into India again.

[Neela]

So Unkil is using Shikhandi United K*n dom

Let them. UK gets a high out of that and they love it. It makes them feel nostalgic and important at the same time. I wish they get embroiled in Pak more. May more Pakis reach UK shores.
Does it really matter to India when the procession of dead English soldiers in their hometowns are boo-ed down my Muslims who make their displeasure felt by the natives. Like they say ...what goes my father.

No schadenfreude. In "Mind your language" everyone comes from the their native country except the Indian , who comes from Poonjab! Of course this had nothing to do with the Khalistan movement. Did I mention no schadenfreude?

[Lalmohan]

actually i think uk engagement is much more driven by fear of islamic terrorism and child s*x grooming drug dealers in the homeland

[Dilbu]

After TSP mainland, TSP based jihadis have their largest support base and sleeper cells in UKistan. A large number of UKistan passport holders will wear the jakkit in unkil land and EU if it comes to that. So whenever TSP threatens the west it is naturally UK who will wet their pants first.

[Brad Goodman]

looks like napakis are furious at yindoos not handing them siachin on platter

Pakistan violates ceasefire again, fires at Indian positions

In second incident of ceasefire violation in the last two days, an army jawan was injured when Pakistani troops today fired at Indian posts along the Line of Control (LoC) in Krishna Ghati sector of the district.

[Rony]

ramana, i am not able to find the word "motherhood" in the original article, nor can i find any references to it in other news sources.

Beeb has removed the 'motherhood' word and replaced it with 'friendship'. yesterday when i was surfing google news, 'motherhood' was present in that article in the place of 'friendship'

[Lalmohan]

After TSP mainland, TSP based jihadis have their largest support base and sleeper cells in UKistan. A large number of UKistan passport holders will wear the jakkit in unkil land and EU if it comes to that. So whenever TSP threatens the west it is naturally UK who will wet their pants first.

and this group are highly politicised and fully convinced that they are fighting against the next crusade, and they will/are gradually reach out to the euro mainland and into massaland

[Anindya]

Sometimes juxtaposition helps...you will find most of these reports in the pages herein, but repeating nonetheless.

The ceasefire violations have been going on for the past few days - causing the death of one jawan at least...

Pakistan violates ceasefire for the twelfth time this year

POONCH: In second incident of ceasefire violation in the last two days, an army jawan was injured when Pakistani troops today fired at Indian posts along the Line of Control (LoC) in Krishna Ghati sector of the district.

The Indian troops, however, exercised restraint, he said. An army jawan received gun shot wounds and was air lifted to Command Hospital at Udhampur for treatment.

This is the 12th ceasefire violation by Pakistan this year.

Meanwhile, the BSF jawan who was injured in the ceasefire violation on Monday in the same sector, succumbed to his injuries this morning, officials said.

We Indians on the other hand, have decided to give away electricity, which we do not have, knowing fully well, that we may not receive payments for this...

India to Give away 500MW of power to Pakistan

Continuing its efforts to bridge trust deficit with neighbouring Pakistan, the government on Monday announced to supply 500 MWs of electricity to Pakistan as a major confidence building measure.
"Pakistan has asked us for power. We have decided to supply 500 megawatts to them
immediately. We have power and they are in need," said Union power secretary Dhruv Vijay Singh during the 7th International Hydel Power Convention at SKICC auditorium in Srinagar.

"They (Pakistan) asked us politely, we said sure," said Vijay.

The power ministry has decided to make transmission lines available for Pakistan and the neighbouring country will be asked to pay at the international rates.

"Transmission lines are being laid for this purpose," said Vijay without disclosing the name of the state where these transmission lines are being laid to supply power to Pakistan.

Pakistan, on the other hand, has not changed its stance towards legitimate generation of electricity within India - for quite flimsy reasons...

Pakistan's stance on Indian power generation in Kashmir remains unchanged

The gesture (see above) has come despite Pakistan expressing objections to the construction of 330 MW Kishenganga hydel power project in north Kashmir’s Bandipora district.

"Pakistan is likely to raise objections in each and every dam constructed in Jammu and Kashmir for power generation," said Singh.

For small concessions to India, huge paybacks are asked for by Pakistan...

Pakistan wants large territorial-strategic concessions from Indian for Afghan route

Pakistan must seek to augment its industrial base before being directly exposed to massive Indian economy but the triumph card will be the transit route to Central Asia. While Indian investment in Afghanistan is a strategic move to counter this maneuvering, Pakistan should link this transit route opening to resolution of all outstanding issues like Kashmir, water resources, Siachin etc.

No comments.

[kasthuri]

Why do these rats use WaPo or NYT, when in trouble?

My real ‘crime’: Standing up for U.S.-Pakistan relations

Husain Haqqani, a professor of international relations at Boston University and a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, served as Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States from 2008 to 2011.

I am saddened but not surprised that a Pakistani judicial inquiry commission has accused me of being disloyal while serving as my country’s ambassador to the United States. The tide of anti-Americanism has been rising in Pakistan for almost a decade. An overwhelming majority of Pakistanis consider the United States an enemy, notwithstanding the nominal alliance that has existed between our countries for six decades. Americans, frustrated by what they see as Pakistani intransigence in fighting terrorism in Afghanistan, are becoming less willing to accept Pakistani demands even though Pakistan has suffered heavily at the hands of terrorists.

This is a difficult time to openly advocate friendly relations between the United States and Pakistan. I am proud that I did so as ambassador. During my tenure, the United States agreed to initiate a strategic dialogue with Pakistani civil and military leaders. The idea was to overcome the episodic nature of bilateral relations: Our countries had a pattern of working together for a few years and then falling out amid complaints about each other. The strategic dialogue sought to reconcile Pakistan’s regional concerns about Afghanistan and India with U.S. global concerns about nuclear proliferation and terrorism. But the dialogue stalled last year, and a series of unfortunate incidents, culminating in Osama bin Laden being found in Pakistan last May, has brought our countries to the brink of an adversarial relationship.

My sincere efforts to transcend the parallel narratives that have shaped U.S.-Pakistani relations were not always appreciated in Pakistan, where conspiracy theories and hatred for the United States have become a daily staple of the national discourse. My detractors in Pakistan’s security services and among pro-Jihadi groups have long accused me of being pro-American; they condescendingly described me as the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan based in Washington. Falsehoods were circulated in Pakistani media about my issuing thousands of visas to “CIA spies” who would allegedly act with impunity against my country. Few considered that Pakistan was pledged record amounts of U.S. aid and that Pakistani views were being heard on a range of issues. The expectation that Washington should simply do whatever the Pakistani hyper-nationalists desire remains unrealistic.

I resigned last November after an American businessman of Pakistani origin — now residing in Monaco — claimed that I had asked him to deliver a secret memo to Adm. Michael Mullen, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, seeking U.S. help in thwarting a military coup right after the U.S. operation that killed bin Laden. The affair was dubbed “Memogate” by the Pakistani media. Our Supreme Court, pursuing a populist ideological agenda without regard to legal or constitutional niceties, intervened directly. Without any trial, it barred me from leaving Pakistan and created a Commission of Inquiry.

This week the commission presented its findings. It alleged that I had acted against Pakistan’s interests and had authorized the controversial memo. The report’s release has been timed to distract attention from serious allegations by a Pakistani businessman that he paid millions to the son of Pakistan’s chief justice as part of efforts to buy favors.

How ironic that Pakistani hard-liners claim I was an American agent of influence with access in Washington’s power corridors. Were that true, there would have been no reason for me to seek help, certainly not from a businessman of dubious credentials, to deliver a message to the U.S. government. The one-sided “evidence” has failed to prove my connection to the memo. I have not been charged or tried — though the report could lead to charges, and a treason conviction carries the death penalty. No, I was simply labeled guilty by a “fact-finding” commission that bent over backward to accommodate my discredited accuser.

The commission’s bias was clear in its refusal to hear from me via videoconference — a request I made in light of security threats — and its disinterest in seeking the testimony of U.S. officials who received the controversial memo, Mullen and Gen. Jim Jones. Notably, Jones said in a sworn affidavit that I had nothing to do with the document that had been transmitted to him and that the memo reflected the ideas of its author, the American businessman Mansoor Ijaz.

The commission’s findings are motivated by politics, not law. I served Pakistan sincerely. Most people in Washington saw and know that. Branding me a traitor will not solve any of Pakistan’s myriad problems, not least of which is the prospect of international isolation. The 2012 BBC Globescan poll found that the international perception of Pakistan is as bad as that of Iran and North Korea.

It is tragic that anti-Americanism is being exploited to push ideological agendas, but I stand by my view that positive U.S.-Pakistan relations under a civilian-led Pakistani government are necessary for international peace and Pakistan’s stability. My real “crime” is standing up for U.S.-Pakistan relations for Pakistan’s sake. I had nothing to do with writing and sending that memo. But many people around the world would recognize that its contents suggesting changes in Pakistan’s counterterrorism and nuclear policies reflect reasonable views that are not treasonous and are, in fact, in line with global thinking.

[pankajs]

Pakistan Court Initiates Contempt Charge Against Justice’s Accuser

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Pakistan’s Supreme Court initiated contempt-of-court proceedings on Wednesday against a property baron who a day earlier accused the chief justice’s family of accepting $3.7 million in kickbacks and cash payments.

The contempt proceedings, which were announced after normal court hours, marked the judiciary’s first riposte in an extraordinary scandal that threatens Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, who in some quarters has become an admired figure for his flamboyant court crusades against the country’s rich and powerful.

At a later news conference, Mr. Hussain went even further, suggesting that he had held secret meetings “in the dead of night” with the chief justice, although he did not directly accuse him of corruption.

‘‘I will make more disclosures,’’ he said, holding a copy of the Koran in one hand. ‘‘I will tell people what is happening in Pakistan.’’

Chief Justice Chaudhry, who had recused himself from the court proceedings, did not directly answer Mr. Hussain's allegations. But the strong language used against the country's top judge during the news conference offered ammunition to his colleagues on the bench to strike back against Mr. Hussain.

The judges may be hoping that contempt proceedings will stop Mr. Hussain from making further accusations outside the courthouse. The meeting of the Supreme Court bench on Friday will probably determine whether Chief Justice Chaudhry enjoys the full support of his fellow judges.

The spectacle, mixing politics, money, high drama and the law, has riveted the Pakistani media, which had largely treated the chief justice with deference bordering on reverence. ‘‘This is unprecedented,’’ said Cyril Almeida, an analyst with the English-language daily Dawn. ‘‘An institution like the Supreme Court is not designed to withstand this kind of ignominy. It cuts too close to the bone.’’

Mr. Hussain said he had warned Chief Justice Chaudhry through an intermediary about his son’s demands for money. ‘‘There are several other businessmen, like me, who are being blackmailed,’’ he said. But instead of taking action against the chief justice’s son, the courts charged Mr. Hussain with murder.

Why Mr. Hussain chose to come forward remained unclear. ‘‘No one has prompted me,’’ he insisted.

[ramana]

Pankajs, That article "Afghan Policy shift" is really a plea for the TSP civilians and how they are getting cornered by the TSPA. Dus Percenti is forced to appear tough to stave of sellout charges. Does US want a coup in TSP is something to ponder. Dus Percenti is determined to stay his full term as President and gives no reasons for the TSPA to pull of a coup or regime change.
Hidden in that article is this gem:

The matter did not end here; the US increased its support to anti-Pakistan militants and Baloch nationalists in Afghanistan.

So MMS was not doing a sellout in Sharam-el-Sheikh about non rle of India in Baloch. He knew that the US role will get exposed if the matter are investigated further.
Also shows Christine Unfair is also a liar when she alleged that Indian consulate in Zahadan, Iran was to support the Baloch!

Most likely the TTP is also a US creation.

[pankajs]

I take oath on Quran I never received a penny from Malik Riaz: Imran

Brushing aside allegations of receiving money from real estate tycoon Malik Riaz, Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan said; I take oath on Quran I never get even a penny from Malik Riaz. Imran Khan categorically denied that any of his party member had taken money, reasoning if it happened he must have known that. The cricketer-turned politician said he would not let the judiciary to be toppled.

Doesn't the book allow taqiyya?

[ramana]

Someone should tell Imran Khan thats w-e-c material. Quran is not Bible to take oaths on!

But interesting comment that "he would not let the judiciary be toppled!"

[Theo_Fidel]

You always know the RAPE's/Rapettes are having their a$$ handed to them when the sweet 'earnest reasonable' language busts out.

[chetak]

I take oath on Quran I never received a penny from Malik Riaz: Imran

Brushing aside allegations of receiving money from real estate tycoon Malik Riaz, Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan said; I take oath on Quran I never get even a penny from Malik Riaz. Imran Khan categorically denied that any of his party member had taken money, reasoning if it happened he must have known that. The cricketer-turned politician said he would not let the judiciary to be toppled.

Doesn't the book allow taqiyya?

Really??

It's that simple?

[RajeshA]

But interesting comment that "he would not let the judiciary be toppled!"

Is Chief Justice Chaudhary simply another MI6 agent?

[SSridhar]

Imran Khan takes oath on the Koran that he did not receive money from Riaz and Riaz asserts on the same Koran that he gave. CJP Iftikhar Chaudhry takes oath on the Koran that he never knew Riaz and Riaz asserts on the same Koran that he met him several time midnight. Who is more pious and who is less pious ? Ultimately, the most pious will have to settle this dispute among the low church fellas.

[pankajs]

Pakistan tycoon could face contempt charges in Supreme Court saga

Riaz's accusation "prima facie amounts to contempt of court for scandalizing the court and bringing the court and the judges of the court into hatred, ridicule and contempt", the Supreme Court said in an order on Wednesday.

The case could damage Chaudhry, who became a household name in Pakistan and gained international recognition in 2007 after standing up to then President General Pervez Musharraf over his legally questionable bid to hold on to power.

The Supreme Court also said Riaz's statements appeared to be "causing obstruction in the administration of justice because of the pendency of his cases in the court".

[SSridhar]

But interesting comment that "he would not let the judiciary be toppled!"

Is Chief Justice Chaudhary simply another MI6 agent?

They are all siblings from the same 'motherhood'.

[pankajs]

Not aware of Pak CJ son's case: Rehman Malik

Islamabad: Pakistan's former interior minister Rehman Malik has denied knowledge of any film related to Arsalan Iftikhar, son of Pakistan Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and who is allegedly involved in a graft case.

Malik, now an adviser on interior affairs to Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, has also categorically denied that the government is aware of the film, Dawn reported on Wednesday.

In a statement issued under oath, Malik said neither he nor the Federal Interior Ministry had any information about a film on Arsalan Iftikhar.

Rehman Malik has been accused of making a video of Arsalan Iftikhar and giving it to Malik Riaz.

Was the good book used for that oath?

[pankajs]

Malik Riaz has turned Pakistan into an auction house: Imran Khan

LAHORE: Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf Chairman Imran Khan said Wednesday that Malik Riaz had turned Pakistan into an auction house.

Speaking to the media at the Lahore airport, Khan called on Malik Riaz to swear on the Quran and reveal the names of judges, politicians, generals and journalists who were on his payroll.

“At one hand there is an independent judiciary while on the other there is the political mafia and those who support the status quo and do not want change in Pakistan,” Khan said when asked about developments relating to the Supreme Court.

In reply to a question regarding the memo case, Khan said that President Asif Ali Zardari was responsible for the memorandum because he was the one who had appointed Husain Haqqani as ambassador.

Khan also sent a message to the Sharif brothers accusing them of protecting Zardari and scaring the people regarding democracy being in danger. “I want to tell those sitting in Raiwand that there will be no Martial Law nor will the Army be called in.”

Khan added that the solution to the country’s problems was free and fair elections which could not be held in the presence of President Zardari.

[pankajs]

Good News From Pakistan

It was truly encouraging to see Muslims from several countries come together to serve such a worthy cause. I am sure there are many such projects and ventures taking place, but we rarely hear about them.

The media today is full of stories about the havoc wreaked by extremist groups from Pakistan. A Globescan survey recently confirmed that Pakistan was perceived very negatively worldwide. Its global influence was rated as the second most negative of all countries in the world. Pakistan is now mainly associated with intolerance and violence in the eyes of many people in the world.

Who has usurped pukistan place at the top?

[pankajs]

US drone strike kills four militants in Pakistan

MIRANSHAH: A US drone attack killed four insurgents on Wednesday in Pakistan's northwestern tribal region, known as a hotbed of Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants, security officials said.

[pankajs]

Pew survey finds US drone program unpopular around the world

In 17 out of 21 countries surveyed, more than half of the people disapproved of U.S. drone attacks targeting extremist leaders and groups in nations such as Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, Pew said Wednesday.

But in the United States, a majority, or 62 percent, approved the drone campaign, making American public opinion the clear exception.

“There remains a widespread perception that the U.S. acts unilaterally and does not consider the interests of other countries,” the study authors said, especially in predominantly Muslim nations, where American anti-terrorism efforts are “still widely unpopular.”

Indians support US drone strikes: Poll

Washington: The frequent CIA drone attacks on terrorist safe havens in countries like Pakistan is widely opposed around the world but not in India, US and UK, according to a recent survey on America's image abroad.

Indians who have an opinion tend to support American drone strikes (32 per cent approve, 21 disapprove), but nearly half (47) do not offer a view on this question.

[pankajs]

Not aware of Pak CJ son's case: Rehman Malik
Was the good book used for that oath?

Further details
Malik to file for Rs3b damages against TV anchors

ISLAMABAD: Adviser to the Prime Minister on Interior Affairs Rehman Malik said on Wednesday that he, as advised by his lawyer, will file for damages worth Rs3 billion against all TV anchors who had dragged his name into the Arsalan Iftikhar case and promised to quit politics if found guilty.

Referring to the allegations that he made a video of Arsalan Iftikhar, Rehman Malik said that yesterday he swore upon his children denying having any knowledge or involvement.

“Today too I say, neither my government, nor I, did any such thing,” he said.

Malik said that he would appeal to the Supreme Court to summon him if anyone was doubtful about his involvement in the case, adding that he was “willing to give a statement under oath”.

He mentioned that Riaz, while holding a copy of the Quran had said that neither the government nor any government employee was involved.

“Holding God as my witness, I too, say that neither I, nor the government have anything to do with this incident.”

“My humble appeal to the media is that don’t try to involve me in everything,” he said.

“Even if someone’s buffalo gets stolen, they’ll say ‘Rehman Malik did it’.”

[archan]

So MMS was not doing a sellout in Sharam-el-Sheikh about non rle of India in Baloch. He knew that the US role will get exposed if the matter are investigated further.
Also shows Christine Unfair is also a liar when she alleged that Indian consulate in Zahadan, Iran was to support the Baloch!

Most likely the TTP is also a US creation.

Not quite sure how you concluded all of those. First and foremost, this was a paki saying that. The whole world knows how easily a paki lies thru his /teeth. And Mr. Z has some big gaps in his.
S-e-S: I am not actually very sure what was the impact of S-e-S fiasco and how has it affected India of today. I put it down to my lack of understanding of international matters and remain open to be educated on the issue. As of now, I don't see any impact. Indian leadership leaves much to be desired and whether or not SeS would have happened, these worthies would still have continued to offer them electricity, would continue to consider more relaxed visas, would continue to talk up "people to people" contact, continue to fiund aman ki asha ityadi. Coming to your conclusion, which is, MMS took the so called "blame" on himself and hence on India only to protect American interest and that some detailed investigation would have uncovered American support to Baloch activists. My question then is, what investigation and by whom? the TSPA? I may call the TSPA many things but I won't risk thinking of them as clueless and dumb. They control Balochistan with an iron fist and if there was a money trail to the US, they would know it before MMS did.
Christine Flair: true, she was lying. It is quite obvious she would want to protect her country's interest. I don't see why she would care about India's image.
TTP an American creation: I am open to learning, but how does this come about?

[pankajs]

Pakistan Rift Costs U.S. $100 Million Extra a Month

WASHINGTON—The U.S. is spending an extra $100 million a month to get supplies into Afghanistan because of Pakistan's closure of key transit routes into the war zone, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Wednesday, putting a dollar figure for the first time on the added cost of the breakdown in relations with Islamabad.

Defense officials said they wouldn't disclose dollar-figures because of concerns that Pakistan would use the information in negotiations in Islamabad to drive up the amount the U.S. pays per container.

Pakistan FM Denies ‘Price Gouging’ on Higher NATO Tariffs

Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar told reporters Wednesday that suggestions Pakistan is involved in what she called a “price-gouging debate right now” are “wrong and must be dispersed [dispelled] as soon as possible.”

Pukistan is not price-gouging but just asking for price match onleeee.

[pankajs]

Pakistan's Judicial Farce

The investigating commission of the Pakistani Supreme Court has handed down its findings in the "memo controversy." I've told the back story in these columns many times. It's crazily complicated, but the basic plot is: a hoax, perpetrated by a deeply implausible person, perhaps acting on his own, perhaps not, that has had the effect of besmirching the reputations of Pakistan's democrats and strengthening the hand of Pakistan's militarists and Islamists.

The hoax contained so many manifest fabrications and falsehoods that I assumed that no court could accept it, not even a Pakistani court (despite their notorious non-independence). I was wrong, as we read today in the Washington Times:

Pakistan's former ambassador to the United States Tuesday denounced a judicial inquiry that accused him of "disloyalty" to Pakistan and claimed he orchestrated a letter to the Pentagon seeking U.S. help in case of a military coup against the civilian government in Islamabad.

"I am hurt, but not surprised, by the claim of an ideological judiciary, motivated by politics and not law," Husain Haqqani told Embassy Row in an e-mail.

The case against Mr. Haqqani underscores an ugly habit of Pakistani politicians and journalists to hurl charges of conspiracy or corruption against political opponents.

It also is seen by some as an example of the traditional tension between a democratically elected government and Pakistan's military and intelligence community, often suspected of promoting anti-American terrorists.

Mr. Haqqani repeatedly has denied he had any part in writing or delivering a letter last year to U.S. Navy Adm. Mike Mullins, who was head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff until his retirement in September.

Mansoor Ijaz, a Pakistani-American businessman based in London, sparked the so-called "Memo-gate" scandal by claiming he worked with Mr. Haqqani to deliver the letter to Adm. Mullins from Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari.

Mr. Ijaz said Mr. Zardari feared a Pakistani military backlash after U.S. Navy commandos killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, who was hiding in a Pakistani garrison town in May 2011. Mr. Zardari also has denied any role in the affair.

Before his appointment as ambassador, Husain Haqqani wrote what ranks as the best study of the destructive role of Pakistan's military in Pakistani democracy. That work documented how the military worked through civilian institutions to subvert democracy, push Pakistan toward confrontation with the rest of the world, and promote reactionary forms of Islam.

This "memo controversy" could form almost a case study of the ugly method. The upshot demonstrates why Pakistan so consistently plays an irresponsible role in regional affairs—and why democracy in that sad country so consistently fails, even during intervals of civilian rule.

[Vriksh]

I take oath on Quran I never received a penny from Malik Riaz: Imran

Brushing aside allegations of receiving money from real estate tycoon Malik Riaz, Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan said; I take oath on Quran I never get even a penny from Malik Riaz. Imran Khan categorically denied that any of his party member had taken money, reasoning if it happened he must have known that. The cricketer-turned politician said he would not let the judiciary to be toppled.

Really??

It's that simple?

Technically he may be telling the truth, might have received $$ instead of pennies and therefore theologically valid.

[abhijitm]

Looks like pukies have requested UK to mediate between them and uncle sam, not the other way around