Mystery of Kerry-Lugar conditions solved?

By Shaheen Sehbai

ISLAMABAD: Intense search has begun in political and media circles to find out who is the father of the Pakistan Army and ISI-specific conditions in the Kerry-Lugar Bill, which ultimately led to the assertive statement issued by the 122nd corps commanders’ meeting on Wednesday. But the search will not be too difficult.

All fingers point to the Pakistani lobbyists in Washington who were hired by the Pakistan Embassy after thePPP government came into power in 2008. These lobbyists, including Mark A Siegel and Cassidy and Associates, were supposed to work for Pakistan and were paid million of dollars, but they were actually lobbying against Pakistan and were trying to get anti-Pakistan conditions inserted in the Kerry-Lugar Bill.

Experts, who know Washington, say the lobbyists do only what their client tells them. In the case of the Kerry-Lugar Bill, the client has been the Pakistan Embassy, so the buck will have to stop at the Pakistani mission in Washington DC.

But according to one expert, the details of all these Army-specific conditions were spelled out in a well-publicised book published by a Pakistani scholar-cum-journalist-cum-diplomat, way back in January 2006.

The language in which the scholar, Husain Haqqani, now Pakistan’s ambassador in Washington and the main proponent of the Kerry-Lugar Bill, had urged Washington to put these conditions on Pakistan would shock everyone, when read in today’s context.

For instance, the book ëPakistan between Mosque and Militaryí states categorically that “the United States must use its aid as a lever to influence Pakistan’s domestic policies.” The book states: “Washington should no longer condone the Pakistani military’s support of Islamic militants, its use of its intelligence apparatus for controlling domestic politics, and its refusal to cede power to a constitutional democratic government.”

At another place the book says: “Because Washington has attached a few conditions to US aid, the spending patterns of Pakistan’s government have not changed significantly. The country’s military spending continues to increase…”

On pages 327 to 329, Haqqani says: “Unlike governments in other Muslim countries like Egypt and Turkey, Pakistan’s government – particularly its military – has encouraged political and radical Islam, which otherwise has a relatively narrow base of support. Democratic consensus on limiting or reversing Islamisation would gradually roll back the Islamist influence in Pakistani public life. Islamists would maintain their role as a minority pressure group representing a particular point of view, but they would stop wielding their current disproportionate influence over the country’s overall direction.

“The United States can help contain the Islamists’ influence by demanding reform of those aspects of Pakistan’s governance that involve the military and security services. Until now, the United States has harshly berated corrupt or ineffective Pakistani politicians but has only mildly criticised the military’s meddling. Between 1988 and 1999, when civilians ostensibly governed Pakistan, US officials routinely criticised the civilians’ conduct but refrained from commenting on the negative role of the military and the intelligence services despite overwhelming evidence of that role. ISI manipulation of the 1988, 1990, and 1997 elections went unnoticed publicly by the United States while the Pakistan military’s recitation of politicians’ failings was generally accepted without acknowledging the impacts of limits set for the politicians by the military. The United States appears to accept the Pakistani military’s falsified narrative of Pakistan’s recent history, at least in public. It is often assumed that the military’s intervention in politics is motivated by its own concern over national security and the incompetence of politicians. That the military might be a contributor to political incompetence and its desire to control national security policies might be a function of its pursuit of domestic political power are hardly ever taken into account.

“Washington should no longer condone the Pakistani military’s support of Islamic militants, its use of its intelligence apparatus for controlling domestic politics, and its refusal to cede power to a constitutional democratic government. As an aid donor, Washington has become one of Pakistan’s most important benefactors, but a large part of US economic assistance since September 11, 2001 has been used to pay down Pakistan’s foreign debt. Because Washington has attached a few conditions to US aid, the spending patterns of Pakistan’s government have not changed significantly. The country’s military spending continues to increase, and spending for social services is well below the level required to improve living conditions for ordinary Pakistanis. The United States must use its aid as a lever to influence Pakistan’s domestic policies. Even though Musharraf’s selective cooperation in hunting down Al-Qaeda terrorists is a positive development, Washington must not ignore Pakistan’s state sponsorship of Islamist militants, its pursuit of nuclear weapons and missiles at the expense of education and healthcare, and its refusal to democratise; each of these issues is directly linked to the future of Islamic radicalism.

“The United States clearly has a few good short-term policy options in relation to Pakistan. American policymakers should endeavour to recognise the failings of their past policies and avoid repeating their mistakes. The United State has sought short-term gains from its relationship with Pakistan, inadvertently accentuating that country’s problems in the process. Pakistan’s civil and military elite, on the other hand, must understand how their three-part paradigm for state and nation building has led Pakistan from one disaster to the next. Pakistan was created in a hurry and without giving detailed thought to various aspects of national and state building. Perhaps it is time to rectify that mistake by taking a long-term view. Both Pakistan’s elite and their US benefactors would have to participate in transforming Pakistan into a functional, rather than ideological, state.”

Once these considered suggestions and proposals made by the current Pakistan ambassador are analysed in today’s context, there will be few left who would continue to search for the source of the insulting conditions which the Kerry-Lugar Bill has imposed on Pakistan.

Courtesy: The News

Obama receives request for Afghan troop increase!

Source: Agencies | 2009-10-8 |

US President Barack Obama has received a request for more troops by the top US commander in Afghanistan, the Pentagon said yesterday, moving him a step closer to a long-awaited decision on a new military buildup.

The document recommends sending up to 40,000 additional US and NATO troops to support the stalled, eight-year-old Afghan campaign on top of the 104,000 currently in place, according to congressional officials.

Obama, who has launched a review of his administration’s six-month-old war strategy, remains undecided on whether to send in more troops — the recommendation of the top US and NATO commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, to try to reverse gains by a resurgent Taliban, officials said.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama received the request from Defense Secretary Robert Gates last Thursday before traveling to Europe, where he met with McChrystal. It was unclear how long Obama would take to act on the troop request.

“We’re going to go through this process of evaluating the goals and the strategy, and … at a point after that, we’ll get to discussing resources,” Gibbs said.

Pakistan’s foreign minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, said in Washington he expected Obama to settle on a strategy and troop levels later this month or in early November.

A US official said Obama held a roughly three-hour strategy review on Wednesday focusing on Pakistan, ways to improve cooperation with Islamabad and how to continue “disrupting, dismantling and defeating al-Qaeda.” Another session on Friday will focus primarily on Afghanistan.

The decisions may be the most important, and difficult, of Obama’s young presidency, congressional leaders say.

BACKLASH OR CRITICISM?

US and NATO casualties have risen and public support for the eight-year-old war has eroded. Sending as many as 40,000 additional troops could spark a backlash within Obama’s own Democratic Party.

Sending a smaller number of troops, or no troops at all, will open Obama up to further criticism from congressional Republicans and, possibly, the military, for taking a more politically palatable middle-road approach.

CBS News, without citing named sources, reported that McChrystal wanted to ask for 50,000 troops but was convinced to lower the request to 40,000.

An alternative to the current counter-insurgency strategy, backed by Vice President Joe Biden, would focus more narrowly on air strikes against al Qaeda targets.

But Obama has told congressional leaders that he would neither substantially reduce the US mission in Afghanistan, nor shift the strategy to focus mainly on hunting militants.

Officials said strong consideration was being given to a war strategy that incorporates both counter-insurgency and counterterrorism operations inside Pakistan’s tribal areas.

Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said McChrystal’s request, which will be kept secret, was based upon the assumption that the United States was pursuing a counter-insurgency strategy. This would focus more on securing the support of the Afghan people than killing militants.

“If the decisions that are made in the coming weeks are different from that, there can be adjustments made to the request,” Morrell said.

Gates has yet to provide the president with his personal recommendations, the Pentagon said.

A pivotal player in the decision making, Gates has said that many of his earlier reservations about adding forces have been addressed. He remains a strong proponent of a counter-insurgency strategy, which could signal that he may be leaning toward a further buildup.

Pressure has been mounting on Obama for weeks to make a swift decision. Republican Sen. John McCain, who was defeated by Obama in last year’s presidential election, repeated his call for Obama to implement the commander’s recommendations and not take “half-measures.”

Courtesy: Shanghai Daily

Powered by pride, Pakistan set to reject Kerry-Lugar Bill

By :  The News International

PM favours civil-military scrutiny of US terms

By Kamran Khan

ISLAMABAD: The government is gently moving in a direction where it may reject the Kerry-Lugar Bill in its present shape. The rejection will be accompanied by a request to the US Congress and the Obama administration for an understanding of Pakistan’s sovereignty and its right to decide issues of national security and foreign policy, according to several senior Pakistani officials and an important federal cabinet minister. The sources spoke to this correspondent on condition of anonymity.

“I’ll be very very surprised if Pakistan accepts the Kerry-Lugar Bill with its present formulations because the nation wouldn’t allow a trade-off between sovereignty and US aid,” said an important federal cabinet member, reflecting the prevailing sense in government circles on the issue.

Less than a week after the passage of the Kerry-Lugar Bill by the American Congress, the civil and military leadership in Pakistan is sharing strong concerns with opposition politicians, the media, intellectuals and clerics over certain provisions in the bill where the US government has sought to oversee the key components of Pakistan’s foreign policy and national security. A public outrage was witnessed in the country as the content of the Kerry-Lugar Bill became public last week.

Renowned columnist and MNA Ayaz Amir wrote in his weekly column in The News: “This is less an assistance programme than a treaty of surrender.” “Thank God, Kerry and Lugar did not think of getting the name of Pakistan changed!” wrote renowned columnist Anees Jillani in an op-ed article in Dawn.

Amid growing concerns across the country that an increasingly controversial Kerry-Lugar Bill has also prejudged Pakistan as a state allowing bases for terrorist operations in the tribal areas and cities, Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani has ordered a hold-back of an official response from the government on the bill until it is fully examined by parliament and the country’s military leadership, senior officials said.

As a result of this decision that will entail several actions over the next two weeks, these sources said, the premier also sent an urgent message on Sunday to Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi, now in Washington, not to make any comment on the bill during his public engagements there.

In the backdrop of an upheaval in the media and political circles soon after the passage of the Kerry-Lugar Bill, laced with somewhat insulting clauses, Gilani held an important review of the bill with Chief of Army Staff Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani in an unpublicised meeting on Sunday.

An informed official said an initial review of the Kerry-Lugar Bill by military strategists also shares a negative perception on various clauses of the bill and it is being shared with US security and military officials at various levels.

A federal cabinet minister said the prime minister has devised a multi-tier transparent review of the bill. Parliament and the prime minister want to carry out a threadbare examination of the bill followed by a similar scrutiny by the Defence Committee of the Cabinet (DCC). Officials said the military- and security-related elements of the Kerry-Lugar Bill would soon be placed before the corps commanders of the Pakistan Army as well as the three services at the Joint Staff Headquarters level to assist the prime minister in drafting Pakistan’s official response.

A suspicion is gaining strength in the civil and military leadership that some elements of the Kerry-Lugar Bill aim specifically at creating a deep wedge between the civilian authority and the General Headquarters (GHQ) by raising well-settled issues and linking them with the US aid to Pakistan. The most provocative clause of the bill on this issue states: “An assessment of the extent to which the government of Pakistan exercises effective civilian control of the military, including a description of the extent to which civilian executive leaders and parliament exercise oversight and approval of military budgets, the chain of command, the process of promotion for senior military leaders, civilian involvement in strategic guidance and planning, and military involvement in civil administration.” The clause clearly dictates an upside down approach to turn the way the military and civilian authorities function in their well defined domains in Pakistan, an important official source observed.

“I think this is mischief to create a huge civil-military conflict but this will not happen. The prime minister fully understands the game,” the minister said.

Pakistani officials are unanimous in their opinion that the bill was a humiliating document for the country that has been offered to the government in exchange for Pakistan’s critical support in the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan. In post-Kerry-Lugar Bill discussions held quietly by the prime minister, some officials favour a transit treaty for Pakistan with Nato and American forces for a smooth flow of military and non-military supplies from the port of Karachi to Afghanistan. Some 5,000 containers of military and non-military supplies for the US and Nato forces are cleared through the port of Karachi for various destinations in Afghanistan every month, an official informed.

As controversial elements and critical strings attached to the Kerry-Lugar Bill continue to unfold, there is a growing impression in the opposition circles and the security establishment that Pakistan’s diplomatic corps, particularly its embassy in Washington, failed to convince the US lawmakers on matters of mutual security interest, thus clauses were added in the bill that may compromise Pakistan’s sovereignty over issues of critical national interest. Pakistan’s ambassador to Washington Husain Haqqani consistently maintains that neither the United States nor the government of Pakistan had a sway over content of the bill and Indian lobbying power far outweighs Pakistan’s meagre resources to lobby the US Congress.

The bill determines that major Pakistani cities such as Quetta and Muridke near Lahore were serving as bases for terrorist operations and Pakistan would have to mount operations in these cities to ensure flow of financial assistance under the Kerry-Lugar Bill.

The bill also carries a damning declaration that Pakistani military and its intelligence services support extremist and terrorist groups and desires that this perceived support is “ceased” for continued flow of funds to Pakistan.

The bill has so far not divided the Pakistani political spectrum along party lines. Condemnation of controversial clauses of the bill has been heard both from the leaders of the PPP, including Mian Raza Rabbani, and whole range of PML-N leaders besides more aggressive protests from the Jamaat-e-Islami and the Tehrik-e-Insaf.

Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly Ch Nisar Ali Khan set the ball rolling for an anti-Kerry-Lugar Bill campaign in Pakistan on Monday when he stood up on the floor of the Lower House to declare that the bill only protects the rights and objectives of the American government while for Pakistan it has mortgaged even the future of Pakistani children.

Ex-Intel officer discloses US plans for Pakistan

By: Presstv

Pakistan’s former Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief Hamid Gul

The following is a transcript of a Press TV interview with Pakistan’s former Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief Hamid Gul.Q: The US is planning to establish military bases inside Pakistan. Can you expand on that?

A:They are expanding the embassy and they are bringing in security staff, in the garb of security staff which is not according to the diplomatic norms. And I think the Chinese are objected to that. The Chinese ambassador held a press conference here in Islamabad about a week or ten days ago and he said that, for instance, this is infringement of Pakistan’s sovereignty and secondly that we have also struck at expansion of embassy but we trust Pakistan’s security apparatus to look after us and why are the Americans are doing that. So I think this is a quite big indicator that the Chinese are concerned about our security and so should be everybody else because we know that these security contractors which are being brought like the old Blackwater now under the name of, the new name of Xe and there is the Extreme Dynamic company and there are several others. They are recruiting people from here at very high wages. They are mostly the ex-servicemen, ex-Army officers and men. And besides we think that there are special forces who operate into the garb of locals but basically are American agents and it is a cross mix of the CIA which is known as Delta Force, which is the Marines and the Navy Seals and the Orange Force, which means the Orange Force are actually the hired killers. They are either recruited locally or from abroad or brought in from America and they speak the local lingo. They wear the same dress. And they sort of grow beard, etc. So this is a very dangerous move they are making. So that is the basis on which I said. Besides, I have feared that the new policy which Obama will probably announce in March next year as they have already said so. That is going to be taking bases on long leases in Afghanistan because of the weak Karzai government which is likely to emerge after the announcement of the polling results. And secondly, they are making a tremendous investment in Afghanistan. They are bringing in troops again as security guards but really they are the hardened, trained military men. There are already three thousand five hundred of them and one thousand more are coming. So slowly and gradually, the Indians are moving into this area. The same model is going to be, I think, applied rather at a limited scale in Pakistan because of these security arrangements they are making. They have an excuse. They are trying to create an excuse. They have announced for Pakistan over a period of five years 7.5 billion dollars that is 1.5 billion dollars per year and so far for this year they have disbursed only 174 million dollars which is nothing to the government. There is still the money they are making it quite open that it is going to be spent directly by the Americans in Pakistan in various areas. So they are going to set up a large intelligence network inside Pakistan. And for that the excuse is that because we are spending this money directly on projects, therefore we need the security guards and we are bringing in the contractors. But in reality, what I fear is that, they really want to go for Pakistan’s nuclear assets. They are inching close to those nuclear assets day by day. They are getting very close and I am sure they are, because of their intelligence tentacles there, they are trying to gather information so that whatever surgical operation they have to carry out against our nuclear assets in connivance with Israel and India those will be totally taken out and nothing will be left in the hands of Pakistan. And there is plenty of evidence to suggest this because they have been saying in the past that the end game of war against terrorism is going to be in Pakistan. And that is what disturbs us the most because now they are saying that Taliban are in control of 80 percent of Afghanistan and that al-Qaeda is no longer present in Afghanistan but that a large number of al-Qaeda people are present inside Pakistan and if we think that they are there then we have a right to strike them and we will. That is what the last statement, a very categorical statement made by Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen that was very alarming because he very categorically said that if they find that there are targets inside Pakistan, al-Qaeda targets, then we will strike them. So it is a preparation which is being made. A psychological conditioning which is being done of the international communities, the real powers as well as the Pakistani nation and the Pakistani government.

Q:Do you think the Americans are trying to disintegrate Pakistan through this process?

A:I know the Indians are playing games inside Baluchistan. They are trying to create subversion and acts of sabotage are occurring every day. And they are trying to destabilize Pakistan. But disintegration is a very strong word. I do not think this words needs to be used. But I think they are trying to destabilize Pakistan at the moment so that it feels weak and economically has to go begging on its knees to Americans and ask for succor and help. And in that process they will want to expect certain concessions with regards to nuclear power and also with regards to setting up their facilities here in Pakistan.

Q:And the United States who wants to use Pakistan as a front against China, Iran and other countries in the region.

A:No, I do not think Pakistan can be [used for this purpose]. Even if Pakistan is very weak and is lost hypothetically, I do not think they will pluck out all the nuclear assets of Pakistan. It is not possible. I think the Americans should think twice before they attempt this because a frustrated Pakistan can do a lot of damage. But off course they have designs against Iran. They have designs against China. But, at the moment, I do not see Pakistan being used as a proxy for America against China or Iran for that matter.

Q:You talked about Blackwater. What role these contractors have been playing in the region? Mr. Aslan Beik said on a television interview in Pakistan that Blackwater has played a role in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto and Rafik Hariri in Lebanon.

A:I do not know about Aslan Beik’s statement but what I think is that Blackwater has a very bad record. They were operating in Iraq and they were guilty of many acts of misconduct and killings and rape and kidnapping and also pillage of property but this was settled at that time because I think North Carolina indicted them and they were banned. But now they have started operating under a new name, a new title of Xe Worldwide Services. So, as far as this issue is concerned, I think this comes out from some report from Seymour Hersh, the famous American journalist. He has supposed to have said that Dick Cheney’s agency Blackwater had something to do with the assasination of Benazir. So that is what I know.

Q:You earlier said that American is going to establish military bases in Peshawar and there was a hotel which was bombed in the city and it is said that the hotel was going to be used by the Americans as their base. Can you comment on that?

A:Yes, that is right, because initially they were trying to come in the days of Pervez Musharraf. I think he had entered into some kind of agreement for them to allow 750 people from Blackwater to claim Frontier Corps which is a paramilitary force operating on our border with Afghanistan. And they were to set up this in a fort in Peshawar. Then their presence was reported in this hotel. And this was bombed and it was commonly believed, although no official reports have ever come out, that two floors of that hotel had been occupied by Blackwater basically, I mean, this security contractor. But some people suggested that the marines were also there. It is possible that they were the special forces because, when we say marine, it formally becomes the Armed Forces of America. But the Special Forces are known to have been operating in this area for some time now and they were the ones who created probably some of the trouble in Swat valley where the Pakistani army is still engaged in operations.

Q:If you wanted to put it in one sentence, what is America’s long-term goal that it is seeking in Pakistan?

A:Well, long-term goal for America is that they want to keep Pakistan destabilized; perhaps create a way for Baluchistan as a separate state and then create problems for Iran so that this new state will talk about greater Baluchistan and, I think, a Baluch leader in London held a press conference and he talked a greater Baluchistan and he talked about the Kurd areas, he talked about Iranian Baluchistan and he talked about the Pakistani Baluchistan. So it appears that the long-term objectives are really to fragment all these countries to an extent that they can establish a strip that would be pro-America, pro-India, pro-Israel. So this seems to be their long-term objective apart from denuclearizing Pakistan and blocking Iran’s progress in the nuclear field.