Login | Sign Up

Posts Tagged ‘Asif Zardari’

Elements in state apparatus reluctant to trust elected leaders: Haqqani

Monday, January 23rd, 2012

“There are forces in Pakistan that want us to live in fear — fear of external and internal enemies.” So warns Husain Haqqani, until November Pakistan’s ambassador to Washington and now a de facto prisoner of the Pakistani generals whose ire he has provoked.

“But just as the KGB and the Stasi did not succeed in suppressing the spirit of the Soviet and East German people, these forces won’t succeed in Pakistan in the long run, either,” Haqqani told the Wall Street Journal in a wide ranging interview at the Prime Minister House. “I did not craft or write the memo that is currently the cause of controversy,” Haqqani told the Journal.

Admiral Mullen claims to have only a hazy recollection of having received, but not taken seriously, an unsigned memo that did not bear the imprimatur of the Pakistani government. The upshot, as Haqqani points out, is a Pakistani scandal that “involves a memo written by an American and delivered through an American (retired Gen Jim Jones), to an American military official who consigned it to the dustbin.”

“I lived in the United States and taught in the United States,” Haqqani says, referring to his time as professor of international relations at Boston University and his stint as ambassador. “But I never sought American citizenship because I wanted to be able to contribute to the process of reform and the idea of civilian supremacy in Pakistan.”

Haqqani says one of the reasons some people in the establishment hate him so much is because of his book — “Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military”. “In fact, when I was made ambassador, somebody said to me that until you recant your book, you will never be forgiven by the Pakistani establishment.”

He explains that “Pakistan has a long history of military intervention in politics. There were years when the military did not directly intervene but used proxies. “Throughout the 1990s, we had four changes of government and forced early elections each time. For example, among the first allegations against Benazir Bhutto was that she was somehow going to compromise the country’s nuclear programme. So, there are elements entrenched in the apparatus of state who are very reluctant to fully trust the elected leaders of the country.”

The Journal pressed Haqqani on the invisible pressures on President Asif Ali Zardari’s unpopular government. “Soon after I resigned President Zardari fell ill,” he notes. “The psychological-warfare machine tried to give it the colour of President Zardari fleeing the country. He went (to Dubai) to get treated and then came back.” Speaking perhaps as much to reassure himself as to lend some support to Zardari, Haqqani adds that “In all psychological warfare, if the targets keep their nerves, then nothing happens.”

As ambassador in Washington, Haqqani was often referred to as “silver-tongued,” a man able to communicate effectively with officials of different political persuasions. Cultivating a relationship with a senator based on shared appreciation of a book on, say, tribal warfare, was the kind of thing that came easily to him. He says he represented Pakistan diligently at a time when US-Pakistani relations were deeply strained. “There is a longstanding culture of grievance in Pakistan,” he says. “A lot of Pakistanis feel the US has not always been responsive to Pakistan’s geo-strategic concerns. The Pakistani national narrative also says that Pakistan has been deserted by the United States many times. And the US has not done enough to try and change that national narrative.”

As for the current US administration, he says that it “does not have the human resources right now to fully understand the complexities of Pakistan and engage with them. They don’t have the people who understand.”

The traditional pattern of US-Pakistan relations has been that American intelligence wants working relations with Pakistani intelligence, and the State Department wants working relations with Pakistan’s foreign office. “The US will have to find a balance between their immediate needs and the long-term usefulness of their actions,” says Haqqani. “They always say the civilian government is ‘too weak’ for them to engage with. But how will the civilian government become strong if, on all major issues, US officials keep running to Pakistan’s military leaders for advice and consultation?”

Still, Haqqani is not about to blame the US for Pakistan’s failures to develop into a normal state. The progressive dreams of the country’s founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, have been “shattered by religious extremism and repeated military interventions in politics.” Enunciating his words carefully, he adds: “While I respect the Pakistani armed forces, I certainly do not support the idea of a militarised Pakistan.”

“Sometimes I wonder if Salman Taseer’s fate awaits all those of us who stand up for a different vision for Pakistan.”

Originally appeared in The News International.

US pledges support for Zardari govt

Saturday, January 15th, 2011

President Asif Ali Zardari and President Barack Obama met Friday morning at the White House to discuss the stressed relations between the two countries, as well as economic reform and security issues. The meeting was also attended by the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and the US National Security Advisor and Counter-terrorism Advisor.

The top leaders wanted to catch up on how the situation had developed since they last met, said Pakistan’s Ambassador to US, Husain Haqqani in a briefing after the meeting. He emphasized that the meeting went smoothly and the American president assured his support to President Zardari. He said the two leaders talked about the US-Pakistan (more…)

Kashmir: Worse than Afghanistan?

Monday, September 27th, 2010

by Bruce Reidel

When Obama visits India in November, he must secure a deal on Kashmir, the disputed province where unrest is building again. At stake is another Indo-Pakistani confrontation—with nuclear potential.

Just as the war in Afghanistan is getting bloodier and Pakistan is drowning in floods, a new (yet old) battlefield is heating up in Kashmir. President Barack Obama’s strategy for dealing with Afghanistan and Pakistan always needed a Kashmir component to succeed; that need is becoming more urgent and obvious now. His trip to India in November will be a key to addressing it.

An independent Kashmir is not in the offing. Neither India nor Pakistan would ever accept that outcome. Pakistan has been trying to annex Kashmir since the hour it was born in 1947 and has long and established ties to many terrorist groups operating in the province like Lashkar e Tayyiba, the group that attacked Mumbai in 2008. India is determined to hold on to the part of Kashmir it won in the 1947-48 war at all costs.

This summer, after several years of relative quiet, the Muslim majority in the Vale of Kashmir, the heart of the province, began protesting against Indian occupation. Young Kashmiris began protesting against what they allege are Indian occupation forces’ human-rights abuses. Up to 700,000 Indian army and police garrison the province with a very heavy hand. Stone-throwing produced clashes with the Indian army. Over a hundred have died in what is becoming a Kashmiri version of the first Palestinian intifada of the late 1980s. Polling shows the majority of the Muslim population wants independence.

There is a solution, however, to the problem. The cease-fire line that divides Kashmir between India and Pakistan, the line of control, would become the agreed international border between the two countries. At the same time, it would become a permeable border for Kashmiris, who could move back and forth easily. Both countries’ currencies would be valid on both sides of the line. The two parts of Kashmir, Pakistani Azad Kashmir and Indian Kashmir and Jammu, would handle local issues like tourism, sports, and the environment in joint shared institutions along the lines of how Ireland and Ulster work together now on all Northern Ireland issues.

The broad outlines of this deal were worked out by then Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in secret back-channel talks four years ago. Musharraf told me that while a deal was not consummated, they were very close when his domestic political problems shut down the exercise. Lashkar e Tayyiba’s Mumbai attack was designed to kill it for good.

The new uprising in the Kashmiri capital of Srinagar makes it imperative to get back to the back channel and finish the talks. Pakistani President Asif Zardari probably would embrace them eagerly, but he is too weak to go alone. He needs the Pakistani army on board, and it is unclear if the army chief, General Kayani, Musharraf’s intelligence chief during the old talks, is on board. It will take strong and brave leadership to get a deal, but it is critical to defeating the jihadist Frankenstein that now terrorizes Pakistan itself. If left to itself, the Pakistani army will be tempted to intervene in Kashmir again to help the until now largely indigenous revolt, running the risk of another Indo-Pakistani confrontation.

Singh undoubtedly wishes he had seized the pending deal with Musharraf when it was there. India cannot become a global power with a prosperous economy if its neighbor is a constant source of terror armed with the bomb. A sick Pakistan is not a good neighbor.

For the U.S., reducing and resolving the India-Pakistan Cold War before it goes hot is critical to stability in South Asia, isolating the jihadi extremists and preventing a war in South Asia that could go nuclear. But India is understandably averse to American meddling in its internal affairs. President Obama learned that in the transition, when he briefly floated the idea of an American special envoy for Kashmir and he got a firestorm of Indian resistance.

Obama’s challenge is to quietly help Islamabad and New Delhi work behind the scenes to get back to the deal Musharraf and Singh negotiated. He will have a chance to work this subtly when he visits India in November. The new Kashmiri intifada has put the issue back on the front burner. A deal is good for America, India, Pakistan, and especially the Kashmiris, who have suffered enough.

This article originally appeared in www.thedailybeast.com

Pakistani democracy delivers

Sunday, April 18th, 2010

By Wajid Shamsul Hasan

Why Pakistan needs strong institutions is amply demonstrated in recent events of monumental importance. However, these events did not get enough attention either because of indifference from analysts or their lack of comprehension about these issues. It is a tribute to democracy that, despite the challenges of security and economic downturn due to the fight against extremism and terrorism, the government of Pakistan has succeeded in meeting major challenges. Of course, in doing so it enjoyed the support of the masses and the major political forces in the country.

Let us talk about those monumental events at an international and national level, events that have been taking place ever since the democratic government came to power in March 2008. Seven such major events and developments are discernable. (more…)

UN report on Benazir assassination delayed

Wednesday, March 31st, 2010

Pakistan has delayed the delivery of a UN report on the assassination of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto to allow time for input on warnings Bhutto got from three countries, a presidential spokesman said.

The report follows a nine-month inquiry by a three-person UN panel and was due to be presented on Tuesday to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. But it has been delayed until April 15 because of a request by Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, Bhutto’s widower, the United Nations said on Tuesday.

“We requested them to include the views of three countries which had warned (Bhutto) after her return that she should take extra precaution because they had information she would be assassinated,” said presidential spokesman Farhatullah Babar.
He declined to identify the three countries he said had warned Bhutto.

Bhutto was killed in a gun and suicide bomb attack after an election rally in the city of Rawalpindi on Dec. 27, 2007, weeks after she came back from eight years in self-imposed exile.

The then government led by allies of then president Pervez Musharraf blamed then Pakistani Taliban leader and al Qaeda ally Baitullah Mehsud for Bhutto’s murder.
Mehsud was killed in a US drone strike last August. Despite the accusations against Mehsud, conspiracy theories have abounded in Pakistan over who was behind the assassination.

Bhutto was mistrusted by sections of the Pakistani military and security establishment and speculation has lingered that she was the victim of a plot by allies of Musharraf who did not want her to come to power.

A staunch opponent of Islamist militants, Bhutto survived a bomb attack on a rally hours after arriving home in the city of Karachi in October 2007. About 140 people were killed. Bhutto had returned home to contest an election under a power-sharing deal with Musharraf that the United States had helped broker.

Pakistan, Afghanistan redefine ties

Saturday, March 13th, 2010

By Muhammad Jamil

President Hamid Karzai, soon after his arrival in Pakistan, went straight to the Presidency to hold talks with President Zardari. Both leaders have agreed to revive the joint grand jirga process for evolving a common strategy on furthering Kabul’s reintegration and reconciliation plan. Both leaders are of the view that military operations are not the solution, so Pakistan and Afghanistan should cooperate in engaging the Taliban to restore peace in the war-ravaged country. A day earlier, President Karzai had a meeting with US Defence Secretary Robert Gates, and it appears that President Karzai has been tasked by the US to bring at least second rankers from the Taliban leadership on board. Pakistan and Afghanistan seem to be on the same page now. Realising that without Pakistan’s transit facility and facilitating logistics there could be a disaster, measures have been taken to address the concerns and sensitivities of Pakistan.

The London Conference was held in January 2010, which was a prelude to plans for an honourable exit of the US and its allies’ troops from Afghanistan. The objective of holding the London Conference on the future of Afghanistan, arguably, was to find ways and means to hold talks with the Taliban with a view to bringing peace in war-ravaged Afghanistan. In the communiqué of the conference, attended by about 70 nations, a renewed commitment was made towards helping Afghanistan so that it emerged as a secure, prosperous and democratic nation. (more…)

CJ threatens Pakistan’s democracy

Saturday, March 13th, 2010

By George Bruno/ Star-Ledger Guest Columnist

As the NATO military offensive against the revitalized Taliban progresses in Afghanistan, the political situation in neighboring Pakistan remains tense in a way that can directly impact U.S. military and political objectives in the region.
I have long believed that the pacification of the extremist threat in South Asia and around the world can only be accomplished in an environment of democracy and the rule of law. Any assault on these values fuels the fires of fanaticism.

As one who has devoted my life to the international human rights agenda and democratization of former autocratic nations, I am growing increasingly concerned that the historic progress that was made in Pakistan in 2008, reversing a decade of military dictatorship, is now threatened by an unexpected source — the politicization of the Pakistani judiciary and the stark political ambitions of a formerly respected chief justice.

In two Supreme Court decisions, the chief justice, Iftikhar Chaudhry, has unveiled an agenda that is antithetical to democracy and seems fueled by self-aggrandizement and political opportunism. Most recently, (more…)

Now India and Pakistan can get down to business

Sunday, March 7th, 2010

By Najam Sethi

On initial appearances, the first high-level bilateral talks between India and Pakistan since November 2008 weren’t a success. When the two foreign secretaries convened in New Delhi on Feb. 25, at times it was as if they were at different meetings. The Indians tried to focus on terrorism sponsored from within Pakistan, while the Pakistanis wanted a broader dialogue. In the end, there was no noteworthy result. But appearances in this case are deceiving. This meeting is likely to prove more successful than many expect.

That’s because interests on both sides are at last correctly aligned to give talks a shot at success. For India, it has been a matter of reaching several conclusions at the same time. First, New Delhi has failed to browbeat Islamabad into steps like cracking down on Lashkar-e-Taiba, the terrorist group responsible for the Nov. 2008 Mumbai attacks. Indian saber rattling alone hasn’t done the trick, just as in 2002 when India’s armed forces tried but failed to intimidate Pakistan into halting the flow of jihadis into the Indian-controlled part of Kashmir.

At the same time, the United States has been pressing New Delhi to reduce tensions along the Pakistani border. (more…)

A lesson for Pakistani leadership

Thursday, March 4th, 2010

By Yasir Jahangiri

Seeing two news articles hailing from two different parts of the world got me thinking. Is it time our renowned leaders took a crash course on humanity and consideration from Barak Obama?

It was just simple act of humanity. An act to prove that the leader of a country cares for his people.

It’s not unusual and certainly not the first time that someone’s gotten detained in traffic because some official was driving through. In case of Pakistan, people living in the twin cities of Islamabad/Rawalpindi experience this on a daily bases whilst Lahore and Karachi see their fare share of official motorcades. You hear ambulances and sirens for hour on ends because not even a bird is allowed to flap its wings near the motorcade. Let alone opening the traffic for medical emergencies. (more…)

Judicial Coup in Pakistan

Tuesday, February 23rd, 2010

By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey

When U.S. President Barack Obama sharply challenged a recent Supreme Court decision in his State of the Union address, prompting a soto voce rejoinder from Justice Samuel Alito, nobody was concerned that the contretemps would spark a blood feud between the judiciary and the executive. The notion that judges could or would work to undermine a sitting U.S. president is fundamentally alien to America’s constitutional system and political culture. Unfortunately, this is not the case in Pakistan.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, the country’s erstwhile hero, is the leading culprit in an unfolding constitutional drama. It was Mr. Chaudhry’s dismissal by then-President Pervez Musharraf in 2007 that triggered street protests by lawyers and judges under the twin banners of democracy and judicial independence. This effort eventually led to Mr. Musharraf’s resignation in 2008. Yet it is now Mr. Chaudhry himself who is violating those principles, having evidently embarked on a campaign to undermine and perhaps even oust President Asif Ali Zardari. (more…)



Powered by Hashe!