Friday, June 15, 2012

A Leaked TV Show Video Leave Questions on Pakistan’s Media Credibility

June 14, 2012
By
Share9
Malik Riaz PLanted Inteview Dunya News
A scandal has erupted in the Pakistani Media today as a leaked video reveals that an interview with Malik Riaz, the property tycoon, shown on Dunya TV was planted. The video reveals the anchors of the show talking with Riaz.
The video gives a behind the scenes look at the agreements made between the property developer and the journalists on the rules of the interview as well as questions that were agreed between them. It confirms that the interview was planted and the ethics of the journalists, and the entire network, have been called into question.
Riaz is currently involved in a complicated legal battle which has inflamed the Pakistani media. It is alleged that he bribed Arsalan Iftikhar, the son of the Pakistani Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, in order to influence legal decisions.
The Supreme Court of Pakistan today made a ruling on the case indicting all involved and asking the attorney general to exact justice on them. The ruling insisted that the bribery was a sin on the part of the giver and the taker and accused Riaz of attempting to buy justice.
The case has shaken the country’s Supreme court for weeks and now it appears the media will be under fire for its part in the corruption. The Supreme Court may be slightly vindicated after today’s ruling but the firestorm in the media will continue.
The two anchors involved in the planted interview were Mehar Bokhari and Mubashir Lukman. They will have to answer for their involvement in the proceedings but the full weight of the blame may sit higher up the food chain.
For Riaz, who has been convicted of bribery, to have influenced the media to give him a break in the form of the planted interview some benefit must have been imparted. The anchors probably acted under one of two conditions, personal gain or orders given from above. There may have been some mix of the two.
What will need to be discovered is the reason behind the planted interview. Perhaps there is a system of institutionalized corruption inherent in Dunya TV. The Riaz interview may not be the first of its type to be planted on the news station. Those who accept bribes once are more likely to do it again.
Pakistan, after spending weeks looking at its own Supreme Court, cannot rest in looking for the weaknesses and corruption in its Media. Dunya TV, and the anchors, have been caught red handed and their deeds will be punished to some degree. There may be other cases out there like this one.
Mian Amer Mahmood, the owner of Dunya TV, has a great deal to answer for in this case. In the behind the scenes footage Mubashir Lukman mentioned him by name as a source of pressure at the network forcing him to do the interview. News emerged today that Mubashir Lukman had been suspended from the network for his comments.
Gratitude must be felt for the man or woman that leaked this video onto the internet and exposed the corruption. It is hoped that more like them will emerge from any other corrupt alcove of Pakistan’s media and unleash a wave of Justice to wipe out the corruption.
Though exhausted after the Riaz legal battle, Pakistan cannot rest. The corruption in the media is one of the most powerful negative forces operating in the country at the moment. The leak of this video, the source of which Dunya TV is now investigating, is but the first step in what will form a long battle for purity in broadcasting.
Leaked Video [Behind The Scene] (In Urdu Language):


Update: A record of payments allegedly made to 19 senior-journalists of Pakistan, by the property Tycoon Malik Riaz has surfaced on the social networking site Twitter.
Link to full list shared on Aaj News Website (a Pakistani news reporting agency).
1 Crore = Ten Million (in Rupees) = (106,044.54 USD)
10 Lakhs = One Million (in Rupees) = (10,604.45 USD)

Thursday, June 14, 2012

Is Pakistan's chief justice on his way out?

A scandal threatens Pakistan’s most respected public figure

IFTIKHAR CHAUDHRY, the chief justice, is a hero in Pakistan. He heads the Supreme Court—the only institution in the country seen to be relatively free of corruption. So allegations in the Supreme Court on June 12th that he turned a blind eye to his own son’s corruption have traumatised the country.
A virtual storm has overtaken Pakistan as a result of the tirade launched by property tycoon Malik Riaz Hussain, accusing Arsalan Iftikhar, son of the Pakistan chief justice, of blackmailing him to extract nearly Rs 3.5 crore. These charges have been followed by media reports that the Asif Ali Zardari [ Images ] government is contemplating filing a disqualification reference against Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, as had been done by the Pervez Musharraf [ Images ] regime in 2006.
 
The Arsalan-Malik case, which started off on the social media and went to the Supreme Court as a suo motu case after being picked up by the mainstream print and electronic media, has now overwhelmed the political sphere and the media scene in the country.

The scam has literally become a potential time bomb which is ticking while many more details wait to be revealed.

What is apparent is that Riaz, who used to be a close friend of the chief justice until recently, has admitted that he paid Iftikhar millions of rupees in the hope that he would get some relief in his cases pending in the supreme court of Pakistan.

However, this could be a double-edged sword. While it is an incriminating statement, Riaz claims he was blackmailed and was a hostage in the hands of Iftikhar, whom he called 'the don' controlling the so-called independent judiciary.

Riaz, a real estate tycoon, used to be an ordinary clerk in the Military Engineering Service, but turned a billionaire in a span of 20 years and continues his journey of amassing wealth. He started off as a small-time contractor in the 1980s, but eventually climbed up the ladder of success and became one of the biggest business magnates of Pakistan.

All the country knows is that Riaz is the man behind Bahria Town, one of the largest private sector housing projects in Southeast Asia. In a battle that is bound to be nasty, and played out in public, the property magnate has decided to take on, not just Dr Arsalan Iftikhar, but the entire judiciary.

With a pocket-sized copy of the Holy Quran in his hand, an emotionally-charged Riaz hurled serious charges against Chaudhry and his son [at a press conference the other day] in defiance of an apex court order not to speak to the media. His charges were cloaked, yet fierce, and cast a shadow over the integrity of the top judge of the country.

"The chief justice of Pakistan should tell the nation how many meetings he held with me in the darkness of night," Riaz said, as he began his assault. "Can he tell the nation about his meetings with the prime minister at the residence of Ahmed Khalil who is my partner in a project? And would the chief justice tell the nation how long he has known that his son was blackmailing me?" Malik Riaz added.

He did not, however, elaborate when the purported meetings took place, the purpose of these meetings or what transpired during them. He did claim though that in some of the meetings he had with the chief justice, the incumbent registrar of the supreme court and Iftikhar were also present.

During the meeting between the premier and the chief justice at the residence of Ahmed Khalil, another sitting judge was also present, Riaz added. By now, Riaz had reached a crescendo. "I am being pushed to the wall. Civil judges are being dictated orders against me. The chief justice has asked an FIA (Federal Investigation Agency) official to implicate me in a murder case. This judiciary is being run by a don," he said.

He quickly added though: "I am not saying the chief justice is a don. Iftikhar is a don. But I still respect the chief justice".

Riaz said he knew the implications of what he was doing and was ready to go to jail or face contempt of court charges. Asked if he had the backing of the president or some other institution, Riaz said he was not speaking at the behest of anyone else.

A furious Riaz asked the chief justice to place the Holy Quran in front of himself and answer these three questions: "For how long have you [the chief justice] known the [Iftikhar issue]? Why did you not take a suo motu then? Why did you take a suo motu only when the media broke the news?" Promising to disclose more facts in 'due time', Riaz said: "I did not bribe anyone; I was being blackmailed."

"Blackmailers were sent after me. Where should I go? Why was I being pushed into a blind alley?" he said. Riaz added that a common friend went to the chief justice to tell him that his son is involved in wrongdoings, but the chief justice replied that "Malik Riaz Hussain is a blackmailer".

As a matter of fact, Riaz was compelled to spill the beans after being summoned by the supreme court which did not allow him to speak during his court appearance. According to the written statement he was allowed to submit in the supreme court, he had spent a total amount of Rs 3.42 crore on the chief justice's son. As per his statement, Arsalan Iftikhar had "promised" that he would help settle cases in his "father's court", but "did not get any relief despite the money spent."

In response to Riaz's diatribe, the chief justice has taken suo motu notice of the press conference, set up a three-member bench to charge Riaz with contempt, and called a full court meeting of the apex court on June 15.

The chief justice has also summoned Riaz on Thursday to charge him with contempt of court. As things stand, no one is in a position presently to ascertain the truth or otherwise of Riaz's charges, but the fact remains that a distinction needs to be made between what appear prima facie to be serious charges against the chief justice and his son, and wild statements that do not stand up to logic or scrutiny. The allegations levelled by Riaz, however, have dragged the Pakistani judiciary through mud.

On the other hand, a defiant Riaz has reacted sharply to the chief justice's move of charging him with the contempt of court, saying he does not accept the supreme court as he does not expect justice from the sitting judges of the superior judiciary.

"This court is being controlled by a don -- Iftikhar -- and the entire court is under his influence," Riaz said in an interview. "Iftikhar has influence on his father and other judges. He is the don of the entire judiciary".

Asked if he had burnt his boats by going public against the chief justice, Riaz said he had become desperate and had been pushed to the wall. "Why will anyone commit suicide until absolutely desperate?"

Amidst all these developments, the Pakistani media has reported on Thursday that the government is consulting its legal aides to file a disqualification reference against the chief justice in a bid to remove him on corruption charges.

At the same time, Pakistan's leading English newspaper Dawn has stated in an editorial that whatever the chief justice and the apex court do in their defence and in defence of the respect and dignity of the superior judiciary, the taint of accusation will be difficult to jettison or wash clean. 'Therefore, it would be in the interests of justice, the respect and dignity of the judiciary, and the country if the chief justice were to contemplate stepping aside or at the very least going on leave until the whole matter is cleared up following a probe.'

Judges in Pakistan throw out case of tycoon

Attempting to defuse a legal scandal that threatened Pakistan's judiciary, the Supreme Court in Islamabad on Thursday 14th June 2012 declared "utterly baseless" charges that the integrity of its chief justice had been compromised by claims that his son had accepted money and gifts from a rich businessman.


The surprisingly swift judgment was an attempt to shore up the position of the crusading chief justice, Iftikhar Chaudhry, who's a hero to many Pakistanis for tackling government corruption and human rights abuses by the military. Many saw the hand of the armed forces or President Asif Ali Zardari's administration behind the claims against the judiciary, which had turned the affair into a clash of the most powerful institutions in Pakistan, a volatile U.S. ally.
Property tycoon Malik Riaz Hussain had claimed that he gave $3.6 million in cash and paid-for vacations to Arsalan Iftikhar, the 32-year-old son of the chief justice, in return for a promise to favorably influence court cases pending against the businessman. The chief justice took up the case after a media outcry and recused himself from the panel of judges hearing the allegations.


In its ruling Thursday, the judges effectively washed their hands of the case, raising major doubts about the evidence against Iftikhar while not pronouncing his guilt or innocence. The justices said it was "our expectation" that Hussain and Iftikhar "are pursued and brought to book with the full force of the law," although it issued no orders to do so.

The judgment overlooked the fact, pointed out by many in Pakistan, that the chief justice had failed to notice and question the lavish vacations in London and Monte Carlo enjoyed by not only his son but also his wife and daughters. Iftikhar has admitted that a friend of a friend paid for the vacations, a man who turned out to be working for Hussain. Iftikhar claims to have paid back the money later.

Hussain said in court earlier this week that he'd paid the money so Iftikhar would "manage to resolve" his court cases, but that he "did not get any relief whatsoever" from the courts. Focusing on this testimony, the judges concluded that the lack of results had "cleared the situation," whether or not bribes were paid. In fact, the judges concluded, the process had shown how incorruptible the court is.

"To put it simply, even a resourceful person such as Malik Riaz has been forced to concede failure in his attempt to compromise the integrity and independence of the judiciary," the verdict said.

The speedy decision seemed unlikely to end the public buzz over the revelations of Hussain's extensive financial dealings with members of the chief justice's family, as well as current and retired military officers and senior politicians. The ties between the mega-rich property tycoon and Pakistan's establishment have once again roiled the country and distracted from its many pressing problems, including an economic crisis, battles with domestic militants and an ongoing bitter feud with the United States over access to transit routes through Pakistan for U.S.-led coalition forces in neighboring Afghanistan.

The court lashed out at the news media for running with the story of the chief justice's family, which the judges said had forced them to open hearings on issue hurriedly without properly probing the evidence.

While the case exposed Hussain's links to politicians and military personnel, observers said the media might be damaged the most. On Thursday, unaired parts of an interview Hussain gave to Pakistan's Dunya News were leaked on the Internet, appearing to show the interviewers colluding to avoid embarrassing the tycoon.

At one point, one of the interviewers takes a phone call, during which she's heard saying she has "received the instructions" that no challenging questions will be put to Hussain. At another point, a son of Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani appears to call the other interviewer, seemingly to fix the tone of the show.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/14/2849862/judges-in-pakistan-throw-out-case.html#storylink=cpy



New Political Showdown in Egypt as Court Invalidates Parliament

Egypt’s Judges and Generals Dissolve Parliament: Is the Revolution Now Truly Over? 

The coup d’etat that began 18 months ago in Egypt with the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak initially camouflaged itself in the language of “revolution” and promises of democracy, even as it worked to prevent the collapse of the old order and divide and conquer its challengers. But Thursday’s rulings by the Supreme Constitutional Court have shed the “revolutionary” disguise: Egypt will be effectively ruled by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces junta and its backers in the bureaucracy and judiciary until further notice.

Egypt’s Supreme Constitutional Court on Thursday ruled that the Islamist-led Parliament must be immediately dissolved, while also blessing the right of Hosni Mubarak’s last prime minister to run for president, escalating a battle for power between the remnants of the toppled order and rising Islamists.

The high court, packed with sympathizers of the ousted president, appeared to be engaged in a frontal legal assault on the Muslim Brotherhood, the once-outlawed organization whose members swept to power in Parliament this spring and whose candidate was the front-runner for the presidency as well. The presidential election runoff is scheduled to go ahead Saturday and Sunday.

“Egypt just witnessed the smoothest military coup,” Hossam Bahgat, director of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, wrote in an online commentary. “We’d be outraged if we weren’t so exhausted.”The ruling means that whoever emerges as the winner of the runoff will take power without the check of a sitting Parliament and could even exercise some influence over the election of a future Parliament. It vastly compounds the stakes in the presidential race, raises questions about the governing military council’s commitment to democracy, and makes uncertain the future of a constitutional assembly recently formed by Parliament as well.
The decision, which dissolves the first freely elected Parliament in Egypt in decades, supercharges a building conflict between the court, which is increasingly presenting itself as a check on Islamists’ power, and the Muslim Brotherhood.

The ruling, by the highest judicial authority in Egypt, cannot be appealed and it was not clear how the military council, which has been governing Egypt since Mr. Mubarak’s downfall in February 2011, would respond. But in anticipation that the court’s ruling could anger citizens, the military authorities reimposed martial law on Wednesday.

In the weeks before the first round of presidential voting, Parliament had passed a law banning Ahmed Shafik, who was Mr. Mubarak’s last prime minister, and other top officials of the Mubarak government from seeking the presidency. The law was previously set aside by a panel of Mubarak-appointed judges and on Thursday was ruled unconstitutional by the high court.

At the same time, however, the ruling raised new questions about the presidential runoff itself. Although the court did not invalidate Mr. Shafik’s candidacy, some argued Thursday that it may have raised new questions about the candidacy of his opponent, Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood. The ruling may have had the effect of invalidating Mr. Morsi’s nomination, which relied on his party’s presence in Parliament.

The Egyptian state media reported that a senior member of the court, Judge Maher Sami, said the ruling would require the immediate breakup and re-election of the Brotherhood-led Parliament, and that the application of the decision could also make it harder for the Brotherhood to re-establish its current sizable plurality.

The ruling was immediately criticized by advocates for a transition to democracy and civilian rule.

“From a democratic perspective, it is the worst possible outcome imaginable,” said Shadi Hamid, research director of the Brookings Doha Center. “The democratically elected Parliament was the biggest step in Egypt’s transition, and this casts the entire transition into doubt. It is an anti-democratic decision.”

“This is an all-out power grab by the military,” he added. “Egypt witnessed a coup today, I think it is fair to say.”

The question at issue in the high court’s decision was the application of a rule setting aside two-thirds of the seats in Parliament for selection by a system of party lists, also known as proportional representation. The other third was reserved for individual candidates competing in winner-take-all races.

Other authorities had decided before the parliamentary election that parties could run their members under their banners as candidates for the individual seats as well as the party list seats, but the court ruled Thursday that the parties should not have been allowed to compete for those seats, and so the results were invalid.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party, as the largest and strongest, stands to lose the most from the ruling. As many as 100 of its 235 seats in the 508-member assembly were elected as individual candidates running under its banner. If it lost all of those seats, the Brotherhood would still control the largest bloc in the chamber, and together with the ultraconservative Salafi parties Islamists would still command a majority. But the Brotherhood’s leadership of the chamber would be much less decisive.

A senior Brotherhood official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly, said leaders of the Freedom and Justice Party were meeting to consider the party’s response. The official said all possible responses included refusing to immediately dissolve Parliament and rejecting the decision as legally baseless. He also said the party was considering withdrawing Mr. Morsi from the presidential runoff, to invalidate its legitimacy.It was also unclear whether the ruling might force the dissolution of a recently formed 100-member panel picked by Parliament to write a new constitution. Many of its members were chosen because of their position as members of Parliament. The panel was selected only days ago after tense negotiations between the Brotherhood and smaller liberal parties. With Parliament dissolved, administrative courts might strike down the panel, raising questions about how a new panel could be named.

Nor was it clear Thursday how the Muslim Brotherhood or the leaders of the dissolved Parliament would respond to the decision.

The Brotherhood and others in Parliament had passed a law banning top Mubarak government officials like Mr. Shafik from seeking the presidency because they feared that such candidates could reactivate the powerful networks of businessmen, former military officers and security officials who thrived under Mr. Mubarak’s party, then push to replicate Mr. Mubarak’s style of government as well. But election authorities set aside the law, pending review by the constitutional court.

Mr. Shafik has indeed revived some of those old networks among the old elite, campaigning as a strongman who can reimpose order on the streets and stand as a bulwark to the Islamist Parliament. A former air force general and then minister of aviation, he was long considered for at least a decade an inside candidate to succeed Mr. Mubarak within his autocratic, one-party system, and Mr. Shafik has made no secret of his admiration for his former boss.

When r Mr. Shafik and Mr. Morsi advanced to the runoff after the first round of voting — each with just under a quarter of the vote — many Egyptians were shocked to find themselves with a choice between the two polarizing throwbacks to the Mubarak era: the last chief of Mr. Mubarak’s government and a conservative leader of the old Islamist opposition.

Many liberal activists and some Islamists began petitioning the court to strike Mr. Shafik from the race in part to block his ascent. Some hoped for a ruling that would require a do-over of the first round in the hope that a less divisive or less conservative candidate might emerge. Many analysts and political activists reasoned that the Mubarak-appointed court might seek to block Mr. Shafik because a do-over that produced a less polarizing alternative might present stiffer competition to Mr. Morsi.

The most likely outcome of the weekend’s runoff, if it takes place, remains a subject of intense debate here, with no reliable polls to shed light on the odds. If Mr. Shafik wins, he is likely to face immediate doubts — whether justified or not — about the possibility that elements of the old Mubarak government improperly assisted him to the victory. He also faces pending corruption charges related to his role in the Mubarak government. But by validating his candidacy, the court’s ruling has cleared away at least one potential hurdle to his legitimacy.

Mayy El Sheikh contributed reporting.
.................

Health of Egypt's Mubarak deteriorates in prison
"Egypt has sold me out. They want me to die here."






FILE - In this June 2, 2012 file photo, Egypt's ex-President Hosni Mubarak lies on a gurney inside a barred cage in the police academy courthouse in Cairo, during a hearing in which he was sentenced to life in prison for his role in the killing of protesters during the revolution in the spring of 2011. An Egyptian security official says Mubarak has been slipping in and out of consciousness, more than a week after he was transferred to a hospital inside a Cairo prison to serve his life sentence. The official says Mubarak's wife, former first lady Suzanne Mubarak, and her two daughters-in-law were visiting him in prison Sunday, June 10, 2012, after rumors circulated that he had died. (AP Photo, File)


Hosni Mubarak's health worsened Monday, with doctors twice having to use a defibrillator on the imprisoned former leader, adding to the tumult in Egypt before this weekend's runoff election for president.
Mubarak, 84, was slipping in and out of consciousness, was suffering from high blood pressure and breathing difficulties, and was in a deep depression, according to security officials at Torah prison where he is serving a life sentence. Doctors there could not find a pulse twice, and used the defibrillator, they said.

The deposed leader, who was being given liquids intravenously, also lost consciousness several times Sunday.
His health crisis came at time of political anxiety in Egypt, with a former prime minister from the Mubarak regime facing an Islamist in a showdown at the ballot box on June 16-17.

"He is causing everyone a headache," said Ahmed Badawi, a liberal activist who participated in last year's Arab Spring uprising that ousted Mubarak. "There are daily rumors that he died and where he is held is also a thorny issue. He is definitely feeding the nervousness we are all living in these days."

Mubarak has been held in the intensive care ward of the prison hospital south of Cairo since June 2, when he was convicted of failing to prevent the killing of protesters in the February 2011 uprising. He was sentenced to life in prison.

His two sons, onetime heir apparent Gamal and wealthy businessman Alaa, were at his bedside, the security officials said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media. The sons also are being held at the prison, awaiting trial on insider trading charges after they and their father were acquitted June 2 of corruption charges.

Mubarak's death would bring down the curtain on a chapter of Egypt's modern history that has divided this mainly Muslim nation of 85 million people. That legacy is alive today through the Shafiq-Morsi rivalry: Shafiq, a self-confessed admirer of Mubarak, is pitted against Morsi, a U.S.-trained engineer who belongs to a group that the ousted leader spent most of his time in office cracking down on it.

Mubarak's 29 years in power are the second longest by any ruler of Egypt since the 19th century, when the Ottoman general Mohammed Ali ruled the country for about 44 years ending with his death in 1849. While Mohammed Ali went down in history as the founder of modern Egypt, Mubarak's rule has been defined by corruption, police brutality and the behind-the-scenes rise to power by a coterie of regime-backed businessmen.

But Mubarak's demise could be a gift to the next president as well as the generals.

For example, where Mubarak is held -- he was detained in hospital suites from the time of his arrest in April 2011 -- has been and is likely to continue to be a divisive issue, with many Egyptians accusing authorities of showing him too much reverence. Others continue to see him as a decorated war hero whose old age and service to Egypt are grounds for leniency.

The issue is even more sensitive to the generals, who are led by Mubarak's defense minister of 20 years and who owe their ascent to his patronage. A pardon for Mubarak or a transfer back to a military hospital -- a luxury when compared to his prison hospital -- would confirm long held suspicions by revolutionaries that the generals have only grudgingly ordered his arrest and that they remain loyal to him.

Mubarak would not get a military or a state funeral if he dies now, since his conviction meant that he is stripped of military rank and any claim to special treatment as a former president.

"The generals will breathe easier if he is gone," said Michael W. Hanna, an Egypt expert from New York's Century Foundation. "The ongoing saga about his health, the prospect of him getting an acquittal on appeal, that is all very destabilizing and they have to deal with it."

In his last public appearance at his June 2 sentencing, the bedridden Mubarak sat stone-faced in the defendants' cage in the courtroom, his eyes hidden behind dark glasses. Officials said he broke into tears when he learned he was being transferred to a prison. It took officials hours to convince him to leave the helicopter that ferried him from the courthouse to the prison.

Media reports quoted Mubarak at the time as saying the military council who took over after his ouster had deceived him. "Egypt has sold me out. They want me to die here," he reportedly said.





Sunday, June 10, 2012

Rivals talk of demilitarizing highest-ever battlefield

 
SIACHEN
ISLAMABAD - Defense Ministry on Sunday confirmed arrival of Indian Defense Secretary Shashikant Sharama who would take up Siachen’s glacier-Saltoro Ridge dispute with his Pakistani counterpart Nargis Saithi here on Monday.
According to sources in the Ministry, the Secretary-level talks on defense would underline the impact of Gyari tragedy wherein over 130 troops of Pakistan Army had lost their lives under a snowball sliding in April this year. Pakistan has proposed demilitarization of highest ever war zone on the globe in the backdrop of the natural calamity that ate up the entire frontline post.
Although India had initially rejected Pakistan’s proposal to demilitarize Siachin’s snowy borders over the peaks of Kara Kuram, officials anticipate the two Defense Secretaries would certainly ponder on the tragedy prompted peace measures.
“Indian Defense Secretary Shashikant Sharama has arrived here along with his delegation to participate in the talks,” Defense Ministry officials requesting anonymity told Online.
Defense Secretary Nargis Sethi would lead the Pakistani delegation in the talks and that the military officials from both the country would also participate in the talks.
The officials however made it clear to Online that they were not anticipating any break-through out of the talks chiefly because of a reluctant India to resolve the dispute at the earliest.
On Friday, Indian Defence Minister AK Anthony had cautioned India against expecting any breakthrough when defence secretaries meet in Islamabad.
Anthony had said “No dramatic announcement or decision” should be expected, thereby virtually dismissing any hope that the meeting offered.
“Do not expect dramatic announcement or decision on an issue which is very important for us, especially in the context of national security,” Anthony had said.
Earlier this year, Army Chief Gen Ashfaq Pervaiz Kayani had said there should be a peaceful resolution of the Siachen issue. Kayani’s statement had hyped hopes that a negotiated settlement to demilitarize the area might be on the anvil
During a visit to Siachen in 2005, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had said that the two countries should work to convert the highest battlefield into a mountain of peace.
The Siachen troop withdrawal issue has gained prominence following a massive avalanche which buried an entire Pakistan army forward operating base on April 7, resulting in the death of 129 soldiers and 11 civilian contractors.

A drone strike that killed al-Qaeda leader Abu Yahya al-Libi in the Pakistani region of North Waziristan, and other similar attacks on militant hideouts, have not made the region any safer. (Reuters)
A drone strike that killed al-Qaeda leader Abu Yahya al-Libi in the Pakistani region of North Waziristan, and other similar attacks on militant hideouts, have not made the region any safer. (Reuters)

Al-Qaeda in Pakistan: Down but not out


When al-Qaeda leader Abu Yahya al-Libi arrived in northwest Pakistan several years ago, he commanded so much respect that even some of the world’s most dangerous militants held him in awe.

Already a legend in the shadowy world of jihad for breaking out of a high security U.S. prison in neighboring Afghanistan in 2005, he seemed to promise endless funds, training and inspiration for men who dreamed of unleashing carnage in New York or London.

By the time he was killed in a U.S. drone strike last week, he was the latest victim of a series of the unmanned aerial attacks that has crushed al-Qaeda’s network along Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan, Pakistani intelligence officials and commanders of militant groups said.

Its finances have dried up, and those who once idolized the group wonder whether it can survive.

“Imagine. They used to travel in Land Cruisers and double-cabin pickup trucks a few years ago,” said a commander from the Pakistani Taliban, which is close to al-Qaeda. “Now, they are riding motorcycles due to lack of resources.”

The downfall of the network in the border area started with the killing of Osama bin Laden in a Pakistani town in May last year, and the sustained campaign of drone attacks has further weakened the group. Only about eight hardcore al-Qaeda leaders are still believed to be based in the lawless borderlands of Afghanistan and Pakistan, compared with dozens a few years ago.

Current al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahri is among those believed to be hiding in the area.

Many al-Qaeda loyalists have sold their weapons or sought donations to fund attempts to escape to their home countries, the Taliban commander added, speaking in a telephone interview.

But the strike that killed Libyan cleric Libi in North Waziristan, and other similar attacks on militant hideouts, have not made the region any safer. Several other armed groups infest the area, and are not noticeably weaker.

While the aerial campaign has weakened al-Qaeda, its ally the Pakistani Taliban remains a highly potent force despite a series of Pakistan army offensives against its strongholds in the northwest. Seen as the biggest security threat to the U.S.-backed government, the Taliban is blamed for many of the suicide bombings across Pakistan, and a number of high profile attacks on military and police facilities.

The Haqqani network, which is strongly allied to the Taliban in Afghanistan, also has bases in Pakistan’s northwestern badlands, according to U.S. officials. The group and Pakistani officials however deny they operate from there.

For the United States, however, the leaders of al-Qaeda, the group that was behind the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, appear to be the prime target.

“We just took down another leader in al-Qaeda the other day,” U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told NATO forces during a visit to Kabul last week, referring to Libi, who was al-Qaeda’s second in command and top strategist.

“The worst job you can get these days is to be a deputy leader in al-Qaeda, or for that matter, a leader,” he added, to laughter.

Al-Qaeda funds dry up

Residents in the area, Pakistani intelligence officers and former militants said in interviews that the aerial offensive has put al-Qaeda commanders and fighters on the defensive, restricting their
Financing was proving troublesome, since it is traditionally done in cash and in person to avoid being tracked through the banking system.

Libi was one of the few al-Qaeda leaders who kept up personal contacts with commanders from other major militant groups like the Pakistani Taliban.

He used his charisma, and credentials as a theologian, to try and keep al-Qaeda’s network intact in the face of growing pressure from the remotely-piloted drones.

“Libi’s death is a big blow to al-Qaeda. It is currently facing serious financial problems in the Pakistani tribal areas,” said a Pakistani intelligence official, a view echoed by some diplomats in Islamabad.

“Sending and receiving money has become very difficult for them because most of their channels have been shut down or compromised. That is impacting their operations.”

Al-Qaeda commanders who once appeared at training camps to motivate fighters are rarely seen, according to Taliban commanders and Pakistani intelligence officials.

“Most of them have gone underground, hiding in bunkers and basements, avoiding contact with the outside world,” an intelligence official in the tribal border areas told Reuters.

Militancy a long-term threat

One senior Pakistani security official estimates there are only about eight core al-Qaeda leaders left in Pakistan.

But that does not mark the end of al-Qaeda’s leadership in the porous border frontier area between Pakistan and Afghanistan, which President Barack Obama once called the most dangerous place in the world.

“It would be a mistake for anyone to conclude there is no one on the bench. It’s a thinning bench, but there are still bad guys, with bad aspirations in al-Qaeda’s core group in Pakistan,’ said a U.S. official in Washington.

“However, these individuals are not as capable and don’t have the profile or following in the wider extremist movement that Abu Yahya or his predecessor Abu Atiyah had.”

Much will depend on whether the United States can push Pakistan to go after the remaining al-Qaeda leaders, especially in North Waziristan, where Washington says some of al-Qaeda’s most lethal allies are based.

But Pakistan is unlikely to commit itself to what could be a bloodbath, especially during a crisis in relations with the United States that has been worsening since the unilateral raid that killed bin Laden. Pakistan says its army is stretched fighting the Pakistani Taliban in other areas and it alone will decide when to fully take on groups in North Waziristan.

U.S. officials have said the drone strikes, which inflame anti-American sentiment, will continue despite Pakistani demands they cease. That could undermine cooperation from Islamabad.

The senior Pakistani security official agreed the remaining handful of core al-Qaeda leaders left in Pakistan were most probably hiding in North Waziristan.

It’s a small number. But getting to them and their friends, like the notorious Haqqani network, won’t be easy.

Intelligence, especially, is hard to come by.

A few years ago, Pakistani Taliban fighters managed to track down a large number of tribal informers for Pakistani intelligence in North Waziristan and slaughtered them.

“Many were killed and other people are too scared to cooperate with intelligence agents. It will take a long time to build up a network again,” said the security official.

Even if Pakistan decides to mount a full-scale offensive there, that may only offer short-term solutions.

Conditions that breed militancy are still ripe in nuclear-armed Pakistan, and they won’t go away until the government implements bold reforms that strengthen the struggling economy.

More jobless young men could turn to militancy, which gives them a sense of power through the AK-47 assault rifle. Suicide bomber vests offer a path to paradise, they are told.

In an area where more than 60 percent of the population is between the ages of 15-25, job opportunities are virtually non-existent, and the state has little control.

“Every day someone turns 18 in Pakistan,” said the senior Pakistani security official, referring to an ever-growing pool of possible recruits for the jihad.

Sunday, June 3, 2012

Egos, armies of India, Pakistan biggest hurdle to Siachen peace: Mukhtar

Published: June 3, 2012
Mukhtar says that both Pakistan and India stood to benefit from resolving Siachen issue.

ISLAMABAD: With Pakistan Army Chief having recently stated that Pakistan wants a resolution to the Siachen issue, Defence Minister Ahmed Mukhtar pointed out to BBC Urdu that the biggest hurdle in resolving the icy issue were armies of both Pakistan and India.
In an interview to the Urdu-language version of the British news service, Mukhtar said that both Pakistan and India would stand to benefit from resolving the Siachen issue.
In response to a question, he said reminded that Siachen was Pakistan territory and when India claimed it was theirs, Pakistan responded. However, he said that the only way to coexist was to sit at the table, discuss the matter. He pointed out that neither Pakistan nor India stood to gain anything from the stand-off on world’s highest battleground, rather it more to satiate respective egos. However, it remains to be seen what does this cost both sides.
“We think we can come to an agreement. India wants to talk on the Sir Creek issue first, we want to talk about Siachen first – the same issue of egos.”
“I think Chief of Army Staff Ashfaq Pervez Kayani understands this issue better than all of us and will help reach a decision when the time comes.”
When asked that he, being the Minister for Defence, was higher placed than the Army Chief, would he then allow a rank subordinate to take a decision, Mukhtar said that ‘Kayani would offer guidance – support, just as the government cooperates and supports the army.’
When asked if Pakistan wants a solution, why does it not make the first move (withdraw unilaterally), Mukhtar responded that India was a big country, and Pakistan expects that it would demonstrate magnanimity by making the first move.
In response to another question, he said that Prime Ministers of both countries, Yousaf Raza Gilani of Pakistan, and Manmohan Singh of India, wanted to resolve the Siachen issue via dialogue.
When asked that since the governements of both India and Pakistan wanted a resolution, what was stopping them, the Defence Minister smiled and said that the hurdles were in what had been talked about earlier, the armies of both countries.

An isolated Pakistan

Speaking in Karachi on May 31, President Asif Ali Zardari said that “disengagement with the world was not a democratic option”. In the next breath, however, he asked “the international community to also take Pakistan’s domestic compulsions and national interest into account when taking stock of the country’s role in efforts against extremism and terrorism”. He then explained why Pakistan painted itself into a corner at the Chicago Summit: the government had to change the policy decision of opening the Nato supply route “because the Salala incident had necessitated a review”.
Pakistan first played up the Salala incident and demanded an apology, but when it got close to getting one, the ‘honour’ hype overwhelmed the country. Parliament took its time deciding what to do, while the politicians fulminated against the US and encouraged the media dogs to unleash themselves. Where did the “democratic option” go then? Thereafter, other unanticipated factors intervened: US President Barack Obama got sensitised over the apology in the midst of his re-election campaign; and the Pentagon’s disagreement over his Pakistan policy became intense. The Pakistan Army, seeing the aggressive approach of the US to the renegotiated rates of the supply route, has now allowed the American trainers — it had kicked out in a moment of dudgeon — to return.
Isolation is something that a state has to think about as a cornerstone of its approach to the world. This, in turn, depends on an objective assessment of the state’s importance in the international community. Any ‘outward’ approach will also depend on these ‘inward’ factors: the state of the national economy and the state of law and order. When considering these factors, a country is forced to change its stance and embrace realism. Pakistan is not like Iran and cannot afford to roar like a lion when, unlike Iran, it is sunk in a colossal energy deficit. After the national paroxysm against ‘unfair’ treatment, Pakistan is now realising that there is a limit to how much it can go on playing the “frontline state” card and telling the world it cannot move an inch on Afghanistan unless Pakistan’s spoiler’s role is recognised and it is accordingly appeased.
Whether we like it or not, Pakistan has prospered when it avoided isolation or was placed in a non-isolationist situation by happenstance during the Cold War. By going jihadi and nuclear at the same time it now puts a lot of store by ‘honour through isolation’. Just look back and see the pattern of past behaviour: after the Cold War ended, Pakistan was most at risk of clutching at isolationism for emotional satisfaction. The success of General (retd) Pervez Musharraf during his ‘high growth’ tenure occurred in sectors where Pakistan was linked to the outside world. In 1998, the country fell into a trough of global isolation after conducting the nuclear test. Despite promises of assistance from friends in the Middle East, Pakistan was soon faced with default and prospects of what was then termed a ‘failed state’. Breaking out of a period of isolation, which included turning off the tap of jihad and normalising relations with India, Pakistan embarked on a foreign policy that helped its economy to rise from its dangerously low growth rate to reach its highest growth rates by 2005. All that, of course, is now reinterpreted as a ‘phase of Pakistan’s slavery’.
Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar tried to break out of this latest phase of lethal isolation by saying that Pakistan was faced with alienating, not only the US, but also scores of other nations taking part in the Nato operation in Afghanistan and that Pakistan could not afford to offend them all. But then, the PPP got scared of offending the ‘nation’ on the eve of another election, which it hopes to win despite its abysmal governance. It has plumped for a warlike gesture of national honour. President Zardari should know that elections cannot be won through false bravado and by ignoring the economic plight of the people. No one is going to vote for the incumbent government just because it stood up on its hind legs and snarled at the rest of the world.


CAIRO, June 2: Egypt’s former president Hosni Mubarak and his security chief were given life in prison on Saturday over the deaths of protesters in 2011, but the acquittal of six police chiefs sparked calls for mass protest.
Judge Ahmed Refaat sentenced the 84-year-old former leader and his interior minister Habib al-Adly to life for their role in the deaths of protesters during the revolt that ousted them, but acquitted the six security commanders on the same charges.
A senior lawyer for Mubarak’s defence team said the strongman, who was taken to a Cairo prison after the hearing, will appeal the sentence.
But once at Tora prison on Cairo’s outskirts, a tearful Mubarak refused to leave the aircraft, and security officials said he “suffered from a surprise health crisis” before they finally convinced him to go in.
The verdict prompted outrage both inside and outside the courtroom.
“Void, void” and “The people want the judiciary purged” could be heard, as furious lawyers said they feared Mubarak would be found innocent on appeal.
The powerful Muslim Brotherhood said it had called for mass protests nationwide, while other groups including the pro-democracy April 6 movement announced they would take to the streets in protest.
Rights groups slammed the verdict as failing to deliver full justice.
Mubarak’s sentence “is a significant step towards combating longstanding impunity in Egypt” but the security chiefs’ acquittal “leaves many still waiting for full justice”, Amnesty International said in a statement.
“Many see the acquittal of all the senior security officials as a sign that those responsible for human rights violations can still escape justice,” it said.
“The verdict fails to deliver justice, it fails to deter police from future abuse and it comes against the backdrop of acquittals in police trials,” Heba Morayef, Cairo-based researcher for Human Rights Watch, said.
Corruption charges against Mubarak’s sons, Alaa and Gamal, were dropped because of the expiry of a statute of limitations, and the former president was acquitted in one of the graft cases.
“We will appeal. The ruling is full of legal flaws from every angle,” Yasser Bahr, a senior member of Mubarak’s defence team, said.
Asked if Mubarak was likely to win the appeal, Bahr said: “We will win, one million per cent.”
Mubarak, in sunglasses and wearing a beige track-suit, had his arms folded and showed no emotion inside the caged dock as Chief Judge Ahmed Refaat read the verdict.
Alaa and Gamal, looking tired with dark circles under their eyes, appeared close to tears on hearing the verdict.
“It’s vindicating to Egyptians to see Mubarak and his interior minister sentenced to life, but the verdict raises more questions than answers,” said Hossam Bahgat, the director of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, who was outside the court with members of the victims’ families.
“The court appears to have found no evidence that the killings were committed by policemen.
“It seems the court convicted Mubarak and Adly for failing to prevent the killings,” Bahgat said.
“It’s 100 per cent certain that this will go to appeal and the court is very likely to order a retrial,” said Bahgat, a respected activist and lawyer.
In delivering the ruling, Judge Refaat painted a grim picture of life under Mubarak, listing hardship after hardship suffered during his three-decade rule.
He said some “went hungry” and spoke of conditions in the “rotting slums.”
Refaat said the protesters who joined in the 2011 uprising in Cairo’s Tahrir Square were “peaceful” and wanted only “justice, freedom and democracy”.
Clashes erupted outside the courtroom after the sentencing, with police resorting to stun grenades to control angry crowds

Muslim women: Neither hidden nor exposed

The Islamic culture of segregation of sexes was based on early marriages that sought to curtail sexual frustration, but economic pressures and evolving social attitudes are rapidly changing this tradition.
Those living in urban areas, particularly the educated middle class, are in their 30s when they get married – and until then, they are expected to live celibate lives. However, it does not seem to work, particularly as the society opens up with the passage of time.
More and more women are coming out of their sheltered places. There are girls’ schools and colleges in every city, town and even in big villages. Thousands of women go out to work every day. So the chances of unmarried men and women meeting each other are stronger now than ever before, which is shifting social and moral attitudes slowly but surely. Until the 1960s, it was common to see veiled women in the cities. In many Islamic countries, such as Pakistan, it has become as less common sight.
This mixing of sexes is not always “benign” as most Muslims would like to believe. Many Muslim men claim to have had more than one affair before their marriage. Most of these affairs, they claim, are platonic but many also acknowledge having sex before marriage and not many have recourse to prostitution. So who are their partners?
If you suggest that they have been intimate with girls from their neighbourhoods, schools and work-places, they get offended. “Our girls? Never. They never do such things,” is the usual answer. This has created a strange attitude toward women. Most men want women before they are married but are reluctant to acknowledge it.
It is considered wrong to express your desires to a woman. But not many hesitate to touch, pinch or even grope a woman when walking in a busy street or bazaar. Rubbing hands against a woman’s body is so common in most Muslim cities that there probably is no woman who has never been rubbed or touched. Some men even try to put their hands inside her veil.
If a man is caught doing this he is beaten, often badly. But if he is not caught, he boasts about his exploits in the bazaar with a sense of pride, like a hunter discussing his successes. There are few who condemn such behaviour, but the same people would very enthusiastically join in beating one of their ‘kind’ if he is caught in the act.
Sometimes Muslims also can be very expressive, very open. Sex is not something you discuss in public but nobody stops the quack doctors and the itinerant sex experts from doing so on the roadside. The expert describes every action and every gesture in vivid detail, often with the help of Western sex magazines. And nobody seems to mind.
It is bad for a woman to show her body in public, so she has to be properly covered when she goes out. A young woman is not even supposed to buy her own under-garments until she is old. Before that, the shopping is done by her husband if she is married or by her mother or grandmother if she is single.
But it is not bad for a shopkeeper to display the same goods. Some stores love to display bras. I have never seen so many bras, in all colours and sizes, displayed from every angle, outside the Muslim world. They stare at you from store windows. Sometimes they festoon the store doorway.
Such displays are more than a mere device to sell the merchandise. Often it is an expression of the store owner’s sexuality or perhaps an attempt to lure a male customer into the shop. Youngsters can be seen staring wide-eyed at the forbidden goods. They often go inside for a closer look and end up buying something else to justify the visit.
Television and newspaper advertisements are full of sexual innuendos. Sometimes women can be seen promoting even exclusively male objects, such as a razor blade or an after-shave. When it comes to appreciating female beauty, Muslims are partial to blondes.
Fashion models in the Islamic world have mastered the art of exposing everything – while at the same time keeping a token cover-up. The qameez or the sari never slips but they can show all the curves and contours.
All this hide-and-seek has made women extremely vulnerable. They are no more the objects behind the veil that they used to be. They are no more protected from the male eyes by the four-walls and the thick curtains that separated their world from that of the men. Yet at the same time they are not allowed to come out and live with confidence.
This half-hidden and half-exposed woman gets neither the respect the Muslim culture claims to give her, nor the economic strength the opportunity to come out and work for a living provides her. She is no longer a traditional Muslim, and therefore, does not enjoy the protection her position behind the veil automatically provided her. And neither is she a fully liberated worker, like those in the West, and therefore lacks the confidence that economic freedom brings.
How does a woman feel living in such an environment?
When I saw M. K., she was playing with clay. With a pair of restless hands she would separate a piece from a lump lying on her table, shape it up, make a figure and flatten it, only to reshape it, make another and flatten it again. I watched her quietly for a few minutes and then asked her why she was doing that.
“I like playing with clay. It is so soft, so gentle, changes shape so easily. But despite its adaptability it has a definite character,” she said.
M was one of five young women artists who were exhibiting their work at a gallery in Islamabad. It was their first major exhibition and they were all excited. These were young, educated, self-confident and forward-looking women who wanted to “come out and make our contribution to developing the place where we are born,” as one of
them said.
Four of the five girls had spent four years learning creative art. Now they were graduating with an intention to go out and make their mark. Before coming here, four of them studied journalism and psychology. The fifth, A. M., was a senior student and already had participated in several exhibitions.
“What does the future hold for you?” I asked one of the graduating students.
“Anything I want. Things have changed now. Ours is not the first group of girls graduating from a school or a college in Pakistan. There are hundreds of thousands of educated women in this country. Many are working outside their homes. There are women in the judiciary, in police, in engineering and at senior positions in the bureaucracy. We now even have women pilots. So I think the time has come for men to stop worrying about our future. We can take care of ourselves,” she said.
All the women said they had a strong desire to communicate with others through their work. When asked why they had not chosen journalism after studying it, they said they did not find words strong enough to communicate their feelings and so they went for a stronger medium.
N. S. is a painter. She paints portraits that are not portraits because she masks the faces of her subjects. When I asked her why, she said: “I want the viewers to try and see the real face behind the mask without removing it. It is important that we learn to do that.”
She said most people hide behind something to cover their real faces. “They carry several masks with them. One is for their family, another for their friends, one for their colleagues and yet another for their bosses. They keep changing the masks according to the occasion. To understand these people you have to unmask them, layer by layer, and then perhaps you can see their real faces.”
N uses bright colours. “People prefer to show the brighter side of their personalities. But I use the mask to expose their dark side, too,” she said.
P.M. is a sculptor. She creates female figures. One of her women is shown drowning in a whirlpool. “This is the whirlpool of race, colour, creed and religion. We are all drowning in it,” she said. She also was displaying caged women: some totally trapped in their cages, others at the brink of freedom.
She said she had distorted their faces and twisted their figures to show “how lack of freedom distorts a human being.”
P comes from a family that placed no restrictions on her. She was free to do what she wanted to. “Yet I want more freedom. I want to be free of all ties, emotional or physical.” She selected sculpture because of its “three-dimensional affect and also because it gives me more freedom to express myself.”
A Malik was also a sculptor but different from P. Her figures were tender, more feminine. They had all the curves of a female body but the faces were covered in veils. Those not wearing veils had no faces. “I am not displaying veiled figures. It is not their faces that they are hiding, it is their fears,” she said.
Fears of what? “Perhaps my women are afraid of the society, perhaps of masked men and the bearded priest or maybe they are afraid of themselves. Don’t ask me. Look around and you will find the answer,” she said.
M. A. was different from all others. Her paintings had an Islamic touch. In one of her works the “kalima” or the Muslim declaration of faith was shown emerging from behind an abstraction of lines and curves. Domes and minarets dominated her other paintings.
She does not see a conflict between the past and the present. “What we are now is because of what we were yesterday,” she said. “We are Muslims and we can’t deny that. Similarly, we also can’t deny that we live in today’s world.”
She said she was completely at ease with “what we are” and did not see the need to “act out an alien culture.”
Women are always at ease with themselves. The problem is some men are not at ease at all when there are women around. Will they ever learn to accept women as they are?