Login | Sign Up

Posts Tagged ‘Al Qaeda’

A blow to religious freedom in Pakistan

Tuesday, March 8th, 2011

by Michael Gerson

Last week, Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) was awakened by a 2:20 a.m. call. His first response was to fear bad news about his children or grandchildren. But when the American ambassador to Pakistan came on the line, Wolf immediately knew that his friend Shahbaz Bhatti had been killed. Bhatti was Pakistan’s federal minister of minority affairs, the only Christian in the cabinet and an advocate for the rights of religious minorities.

Wolf had sent letter after letter to the State Department, warning that Bhatti’s life was “in grave danger.” In December, along with then-Sen. Sam Brownback, he wrote Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “to ask that Ambassador Cameron Munter be immediately instructed to communicate to the most senior officials of the government of Pakistan that Minister Bhatti’s security is a matter of high importance to the United States.”

The recriminations are now thick in Islamabad, but for whatever reason the Pakistani government did not protect Bhatti. On March 2, as he left his mother’s house for a cabinet meeting, his black Corolla was ambushed. Bhatti was shot at least 20 times. The killers left behind a pamphlet claiming credit for the Pakistani Taliban and al-Qaeda.

A few months previously, Bhatti had given a video interview that eerily, though not unreasonably, anticipated his own murder. “I’m ready to die for a cause,” he said, “I’m living for my community and suffering people, and I will die to defend their rights. So these threats and these warnings cannot change my opinion and principles.” The most admirable and risky of those principles was Bhatti’s opposition to Pakistan’s blasphemy law, used to harass and intimidate religious minorities, including unpopular Muslim sects. Two months before Bhatti’s death, the governor of Punjab, Salman Taseer, was murdered for criticizing the law.

Other Pakistani politicians, according to Wolf, now live in “absolute fear.” Pakistan’s government has no interest in reforming the blasphemy law. Following Bhatti’s murder, the two minutes of silence in parliament to honor him was a political compromise, because no member dared to offer a public prayer on his behalf.

If Bhatti’s murder is the last word, it will be a significant victory for extremism. America depends on cooperation with Pakistan to gain intelligence on tribal areas near Afghanistan. The United States is spending considerable amounts on aid to Pakistan, hoping to bring stability to lawless regions. But the political case for billions in civilian and military assistance becomes complicated if the Pakistani government seems helpless amid chaos, intimidated by radicalism and desperate to appease the unappeasable.

Events such as the murder of Bhatti elicit a difficult balance of attitudes. Some view every such killing as a confirmation of violence as the essence of Islam, thereby feeding the apocalyptic civilizational struggle that extremists fondly seek. Others, particularly in diplomatic circles, play down or ignore the role of religion in international affairs – an awkward topic on which they know little.

The alternative to a conflict of civilizations or uncomfortable silence is the steady, principled promotion of religious freedom. Freedom of conscience is not only an expression of respect for human dignity; it is essential to the consolidation of democratic institutions. Nations that honor religious freedom are far more likely to respect other rights. Nations that allow or encourage the oppression of religious minorities are enabling and rewarding extremism.

American leverage in these matters is limited, but it is worth applying what we have – something the Obama administration, to this point, has not done. Its National Security Strategy avoids the topic. It did not appoint an ambassador at large for international religious freedom – a congressionally mandated position – until a year and a half after it took office. (The confirmation of that ambassador, by the way, is now held up by Republican Sen. Jim DeMint.) “This has not gotten,” Clinton said at a recent hearing, “the level of attention and concern that it should. . . . I think we need to do much more to stand up for the rights of religious minorities.”

This was precisely what Bhatti was doing – defending the rights of believers in every faith, not just his own. But the source of his courage in the cause of pluralism was clear: “These Taliban threaten me. But I want to share that I believe in Jesus Christ, who has given his own life for us. I know what is the meaning of [the] cross, and I am following the cross.”

Which he followed all the way to the end.

This article originally appeared in The Washington Post

US opens shooting probe

Thursday, February 17th, 2011

The detention of a U.S. Embassy employee after two shooting deaths in the Pakistani city of Lahore last month has prompted urgent action both at home and abroad: a Justice Department criminal probe of the killings and a fence-mending diplomatic mission to the volatile Asian nation by a top American senator.

Justice officials were cautious and non-committal about whether the probe could eventually lead to any charges against Raymond Davis. Spokeswoman Alisa Finelli said, “It’s our practice to conduct criminal investigations of such incidents, and we intend to follow that practice here, considering all the facts and relevant laws.”

Sen. John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, visited Pakistan to pass along “our deepest sorrow for the loss of life” as he and other American officials underscored the U.S. position that Davis has diplomatic immunity under an international treaty and should be released.

Many Pakistanis want the man to remain incarcerated in Pakistan and face justice in its courts.

The senator — who visited Lahore on Tuesday and Islamabad and Rawalpindi on Wednesday — left the country later Wednesday after conferring with officials.

He delivered a statement before he departed, saying he was “encouraged” with the “excellent” visit devoted to tackling the fallout of the “tragic incident.”

He said everybody “talked about their willingness to work together, in unison, in order to put the incident of Lahore behind us, to find a way not to overlook it, to give it meaning, but to use it as a building block so that we all learn the lessons of what happened there.”
“I look forward in the next few days, hopefully, to finding ways that we all agreed on, that we can find in order to resolve this issue that’s in front of us.”

Davis has claimed he was defending himself against an attempted robbery.

His arrest has strained relations between the United States and Pakistan, a key ally in the war against al Qaeda and the Taliban in neighboring Afghanistan, and many Pakistanis are outraged by the incident. During several protests earlier this month, hard-line Pakistani clerics condemned the shootings and demanded the government not release Davis to the U.S. government.
Davis has been detained since the shooting on January 27, an incarceration U.S. officials call illegal.

He is a contractor for the group Hyperion Protective Consultants LLC, and was attached to the U.S. Embassy contingent in Pakistan as a “technical and administrative official,” according to American officials, who say he falls under the label of “diplomat.”

Under international agreements, people carrying diplomatic passports are granted diplomatic immunity, the State Department says, and Davis was carrying such a passport.

The United States says Davis was assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad but was working at the U.S. Consulate in Lahore at the time of the shootings.

Kerry met with Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani and other Pakistani officials on Wednesday, Gilani’s office said in a news release.
Gilani — who said it is “imperative” that the Davis matter “must not be allowed” to harm bilateral ties and the fight against terror — called Kerry a “known friend of Pakistan” and noted that the senator wants an “early resolution” of the matter.

Gilani said his country’s superior court has “taken cognizance of the case” and ordered that the question of immunity — “if it arises” — be determined by the court, the news release said. He also said that the “remorse and regret” shown by the United States over the deaths “should be considered to cool down the rising temperatures.”

The Punjab provincial government has had control of the Davis case, and the Pakistani federal government apparently never went to the authorities there to raise the issue of his release under diplomatic immunity.

That’s partly because there continues to be confusion over Davis’ diplomatic status and partly because of the outrage toward the United States sparked by the killings and by U.S. policies in the region.

Now the case is in Punjab courts.

“There’s been a bit of a breakdown between the federal and provincial government.” said Pakistani analyst Mosharraf Zaidi. “It’s a political minefield.”

Pakistanis enduring stress, indignity, and conflict amid the war on terror and the country’s economic and infrastructural problems want something in return for Davis’ release, Zaidi said.

Kerry’s respectful visit to Pakistan and the announcement of a Justice probe is “a good start. It reflects what the U.S. is all about,” he said.
“He expressed regret,” said Zaidi, saying it was the first time any remorse or condemnation was heard, and that is giving Pakistanis confidence that Americans don’t think Pakistani life is cheap.

Last week, a Pakistani court ordered Davis to remain in custody for 14 more days, and a hearing will be held on the case later this month.

A separate hearing will be held Thursday on a petition calling for his immediate release on the grounds he is covered under diplomatic immunity.

“From our standpoint it is not a matter of dispute, certainly not a matter that should be resolved by courts in Pakistan,” said U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley. “That said, there will be a hearing in court tomorrow and we will present a petition to the court that he, in fact, has diplomatic immunity … and should be released.”

Mark Quarterman, director of the Program on Crisis, Conflict, and Cooperation of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said this incident is occurring against the backdrop of a negative perception in Pakistan toward the United States.

Pakistanis think the United States is pushing the country around and that intelligence and security agencies are acting freely there, with the Pakistani government taking a blind eye to that reality.

In addition, it’s unclear exactly what role Davis has in the embassy, and that has aggravated suspicions and conspiracy theories toward the United States.

So, Quarterman said, the government has been reluctant to accede to U.S. wishes and release Davis, and it is satisfied to have his case in the courts, saving politicians from making unpopular decisions.

“This is touching one of the most sensitive nerves in U.S.-Pakistani relations,” Quarterman said. “There’s a drama being played out now because of the potential domestic consequences.”

One former senior intelligence official who asked not to be named believes that Davis could be a security contractor or an employee of an intelligence service.

The fact that he was armed and proficient with firearms indicates “he’s got some relationship with our intelligence services,” the official said.

The source — who doesn’t have direct knowledge of the case but is familiar with issues involving diplomats and security — said the United States never wants its diplomatic personnel taken and will do what they can to have them released.

“We really care about this guy,” the source said. “The response of the U.S. government has been particularly strong. That to me is an indication that he has some well-defined relationship to the U.S. government.”

There are people in embassies located in hotspots where particular expertise, specialties and resources are required, the source said. Sometimes there are intelligence people in those places because they have close relations with the host country’s intelligence service.
“Those people are particularly important,” the source said.

Davis has a diplomatic passport and therefore has diplomatic immunity, a status respected by nations across the world, the source said.
Pakistan’s behavior is “pretty outrageous” and the United States is “irritated with this,” the former intelligence official said.
Pakistani officials are behaving this way perhaps because they think the man is more directly related to specific U.S. intelligence activities than Washington has acknowledged, the source said.

As for the question of whether diplomats customarily carrying guns, Crowley told reporters on Wednesday that “there are people with diplomatic status in countries around the world who are authorized to carry weapons.”

Davis said he was attacked by the two men as he drove through a busy Lahore neighborhood, according to the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan.
Lahore Police Chief Aslam Tareen has rejected Davis’ claim that he shot the men in self-defense, telling reporters, “It was clear-cut murder.”

Witnesses told police that Davis kept firing even when one of the men was running away, Tareen said.

“It means he wanted to ensure that that they were killed,” he said.

He acknowledged the two men were armed and that one of them pointed his gun at Davis but, he said, the man didn’t shoot, because “all the bullets were in their chamber.”

A police report submitted to the court appears to contradict that assertion, saying that the chambers of both the victims’ pistols were empty.

The report cites witnesses as saying Davis first fired at the victims from inside his car, then stepped out and fired twice at the back of victim Faizan Haider.

After the incident, the accused took pictures of Fahim Shamshad and used his cell phone to call for help, the report says. The two traffic wardens who arrested Davis said he tried to run to his car after the incident, and he could not provide the license of the weapon he was carrying.

Each victim was hit with five bullets, the police report says.

Davis didn’t cooperate during the investigation and he was asked by the U.S. consulate general to not answer questions, the report says.

Daniel Pearl case and Lashkar e Jhangvi

Sunday, January 23rd, 2011

By Mary Phillips-Sandy

American journalist Daniel Pearl was beheaded by alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, but more than a dozen Pakistani militants believed to have been involved in Pearl’s 2002 kidnapping and slaying have not been captured.

That’s the conclusion of a report released today by the Pearl Project, an investigative journalism project at Georgetown University.

Mohammed, who is being held in Guantanamo Bay awaiting trial on terrorism charges, has not been charged in Pearl’s death. According to the new report, Pakistan’s government considers the Pearl case closed and the United States is no longer pursuing an investigation.

The report notes that Pearl’s kidnapping and killing was the first known instance of collaboration among al-Qaida operatives and Pakistani militants. Of the 27 men said to be involved in Pearl’s death, 14 remain at large, among them many members of a notorious militant group called Lashkar-e-Janghvi.

Surge Desk has five facts on the group that the U.S. declared a terrorist organization in 2003.

1. It’s named for a slain Sunni cleric
Lashkar-e-Janghvi, or LeJ, was founded in 1996 by a splinter group of Sunni extremists who had been affiliated with a group called Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan. SSP was founded by a cleric named Haq Nawaz Jhangvi, who was killed by a Shia bomb in 1990. After his death, members of the splinter group claimed that SSP had moved too far from Jhangvi’s sectarian ideals.

2. It has close ties to other militants and terrorist groups
LeJ retains ties with SSP, and both groups are linked to the Taliban militia. Members of LeJ have reportedly trained alongside the Taliban and members of the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen in Pakistani training camps.

3. Its co-founder, Riaz Basra, was one of Pakistan’s most wanted men
Riaz Basra was killed in a gunfight with Pakistani police in 2002. He was said to be responsible for at least 100 killings.

4. Its members are thought to have been involved in Benazir Bhutto’s assassination
Pakistan’s Interior Ministry said the suicide bomber who attacked Benazir Bhutto’s motorcade and rally was a member of LeJ.

5. Its funding comes from multiple sources
Authorities say LeJ receives most of its funding from wealthy patrons in Pakistan, particularly its largest city, Karachi. But sources in Saudi Arabia have also funneled money to fund LeJ’s activities.

Setbacks plague US aid to Pakistan

Friday, January 21st, 2011

By Tom Wright

A massive US aid program that has made Pakistan the world’s second-largest recipient of American economic and development assistance is facing serious challenges, people involved in the effort say.

The ambitious civilian-aid program is intended in part to bolster support for the US in the volatile and strategically vital nation. But a host of problems on the ground are hampering the initiative.

• A push to give more money directly to local organizations and the Pakistani government has been slowed by concerns about the capacity of local groups to properly handle the funds.

• Some international groups have balked at new requirements, such as prominently displaying US government logos on food shipments, and have pulled out of US government programs. (more…)

Bring it down a notch CIA

Wednesday, December 29th, 2010

The Islamabad station chief of the Central Intelligence Agency hastily departed from Pakistan last week after his cover was blown due to a suspected deliberate leak by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence. This act is the latest evidence of the tense relationship between the two spy agencies.

It is believed that his cover was blown in retaliation for naming ISI chief Ahamad Shuja Pasha in a US lawsuit by families of 26/11 Mumbai attack victims. The suit asserts that Pasha and other ISI officers were ‘purposefully engaged in the direct provision of material support or resources’ to the planners of the Mumbai attacks.

A similar legal complaint was filed in Pakistan on behalf of Kareem Khan, a resident of North Waziristan who said that his son and brother were killed in a drone strike. Khan was seeking $500 million in compensation, and accusing CIA’s top officer in Pakistan of running a clandestine spying operation out of the United States Embassy.

This locking of horns should have been tackled sensibly. Instead, (more…)

Is Pakistan an ally in the war on terror?

Tuesday, December 28th, 2010

The Pakistani government’s decision to halt the flow of NATO supplies into Afghanistan through the Torkham Gate during the first week of October has led many Americans to believe that Pakistan is not fully committed to the fight against militant extremism.

That notion is insulting. Pakistani support of US-led efforts in Afghanistan is complicated. Pakistan has more than 147,800 troops deployed conducting combat operations in the tribal areas along the Afghan border.

The Pakistan army has lost more than 3,200 soldiers in recent fighting (more…)

Pak-US relationship based on “co-dependency”

Friday, December 10th, 2010

The relationship between the United States and Pakistan has been for too long transactional in nature while at the same time based on mutual mistrust, the former American envoy to Islamabad said in a cable to Washington in 2009. The document was published Sunday by the whistle blower Web site WikiLeaks.

Ambassador Anne Patterson’s communique was sent ahead of (more…)

CIA came close to al-Zawahiri

Wednesday, December 1st, 2010

Officials say the United States targeted, and missed, Al Qaeda second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahri three times since 9/11, more frequently than had previously been acknowledged.

According to a news report carried by CNN yesterday, CIA missed the chance to nab al-Zawahri in 2003, 2004 and then later in 2006. The secret information provided to the agency and shared with the Pakistani intelligence was initiated from the Northern tribal areas of Pakistan.

The very first intelligence report about al-Zawahri came out in 2003, when he was believed to be in Peshawar and was meeting with Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, the alleged 9/11 mastermind. Khalid was tipped off the (more…)

Frenemies in need can be friends indeed

Thursday, October 21st, 2010

By Arif Rafiq

Senior Pakistani and U.S. officials meet today in Washington to start what’s being billed as the third in a series of high-level “strategic dialogues” between the two war on terror partners.

Over the remainder of this week, thirteen working groups on a wide variety of issues, ranging from energy to women’s empowerment, will finalize their recommendations for enhancing cooperation and furthering objectives that are said to be mutually shared. A few major transactions, including a new $2 billion military aid package, will reportedly be announced. But the pomp, circumstance, and scale of the pledges belie the reality that Islamabad and Washington are as much strategic competitors as they are partners.

Glaringly, the two governments are pursuing separate and largely antagonistic endgames to the Afghan war. Recent press reports claim that NATO is facilitating peace talks between the Karzai government and Afghan insurgents, including the infamous Haqqani network that the Pakistani military allegedly sponsors to purge Afghanistan of arch-rival India’s influence.

General David Petraeus is promoting (or wants us to believe he is) a peace process in Afghanistan sans Pakistan but with the very groups that the Pakistani military-intelligence apparatus has urged the United States and Afghan President Hamid Karzai to reach out to. Yet, at the same time, the United States is asking Pakistan to smack the hornets’ nest in the North Waziristan tribal area, home to the Haqqani network.

Why would Pakistan create bad blood with an entity that could very well be integrated into the Afghan power structure in the coming years in a U.S.-endorsed reconciliation process? So its own Taliban-style insurgencies can live on even after the Afghan war comes to an end?

Unlike the United States, Pakistan cannot engage in a front-loaded withdrawal from the region. Barring a dramatic subcontinental drift, Pakistan and Afghanistan are — in Karzai’s words — “conjoined twins.” What goes on in Afghanistan doesn’t always stay in Afghanistan — it often bleeds into Pakistan. The thousands of Pakistani civilians and security personnel killed since 9/11 are case in point.

Pakistan and the United States can continue their transactional relationship. But no amount of money will induce Pakistan to commit strategic suicide. And no American president can be indifferent toward a safe haven in Pakistan where terrorist plots against the United States have been and continue to be plotted.

Maintenance of the status quo will not produce a lasting peace in Afghanistan, which is essential to the security of both Pakistan and the United States. Only a joint effort by the United States, (the predominant occupying force in Afghanistan) and Pakistan (the entity with the most leverage over Afghan insurgents) can end the thirty-year conflict in Afghanistan once and for all, and thereby seriously weaken regional and transnational militants in Pakistan’s border areas, such as al-Qaeda, that have thrived off of instability and foreign occupation across the Durand Line.

Pakistan, as the glue holding together a peace deal between the many Afghan factions and armed with a potent counterinsurgency force to man its frontier with Afghanistan, can serve as the guarantor for an enduring Afghan peace. But for this formula to even be fathomable requires adjustment by both Pakistan and the United States. Pakistan needs to take more seriously the threat posed to the United States and Western Europe by al-Qaeda and its affiliates inside its border regions with Afghanistan. And the United States will have to accommodate Pakistan’s legitimate fear that rising Indian influence in Afghanistan will result in it being strategically encircled by an emerging superpower on a $50 billion dollar military spending spree with which it’s fought three wars.

Peace in Afghanistan and containment or defeat of al-Qaeda are not possible if Pakistan and the United States work at cross-purposes. And so if the status quo continues, it will remain mission unaccomplished for both countries.

– Arif Rafiq is president of Vizier Consulting, LLC, which provides strategic guidance on Middle East and South Asian political and security issues. This piece was first published at the Foreign Policy website.

Pakistan’s Project of Renewal

Wednesday, August 11th, 2010

By Asif Ali Zardari

Pakistan, a nation beset by political tragedies for generations, now faces a new test of its national character: a natural calamity unprecedented in our history. Millions have been displaced and thousands have died in floods caused by unabated rain. The monsoons are destroying villages and exposing thousands to illnesses including cholera and dysentery. Apart from organizing immediate rescue and relief operations, our people and our government also face the challenges of rehabilitation and reconstruction.

As the floods hit the country, I faced a dilemma as head of state. I could stay in Pakistan and support the prime minister in our response to the floods, or I could continue with a scheduled visit abroad. (more…)



Powered by Hashe!