"America again stabs Pakistan in the back."

Balochistan resolution in US Congress drives Pakistan crazy

A resolution moved by a group of US Congressmen calling for right to self-determination for the Baloch people has driven Pakistan to hysteria, with its leaders from the Prime Minister down questioning Washington's commitment to the country's sovereignty.

Following a Congressional hearing last week on the human rights situation in Balochistan, the Obama administration had assured Islamabad that it is committed to the country's unity and integrity, but suspicion runs deep in Pakistan that Washington is intent on fingering the country on account of its covert support for terrorists.

Some hardline American analysts have suggested that the Washington help the Baloch break away from the federation so that American and Nato forces can have unfettered access to landlocked Afghanistan, given how Pakistan has been holding the US to ransom.

While the hearing itself had caused much disquiet in Islamabad and pushed an angry Pakistan into lodging formal protests, the latest resolution has driven its establishment to hysteria and distraction. Pakistan's prime minister Yousef Raza Gilani condemned the resolution as a move to undermine the country's sovereignty, and the Pakistani foreign office and the embassy in Washington took exception to it, saying it was against the "very fundamentals of US-Pakistan relations."

Politics behind the resolution: Introduced by California Republican Dana Rohrabacher and co-sponsored by two other Republican Congressmen Louie Gohmert (Texas) and Steve King (Iowa), the House Concurrent Resolution says that the Baluchi nation has a "historic right to self-determination."

Stating that Baluchistan is currently divided between Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan with no sovereign rights of its own, the resolution explains that "in Pakistan especially, the Baluchi people are subjected to violence and extrajudicial killing," and therefore, the Baluchi people "have the right to self-determination and to their own sovereign country; and they should be afforded the opportunity to choose their own status."

"The Baluchi, like other nations of people, have an innate right to self-determination," Congressman Rohrabacher said in a statement. "The political and ethnic discrimination they suffer is tragic and made more so because America is financing and selling arms to their oppressors in Islamabad."

The statement explained that historically Baluchistan was an independently governed entity known as the Baluch Khanate of Kalat which came to an end after invasions from both British and Persian armies. An attempt to regain independence in 1947 was crushed by an invasion by Pakistan.


"Today the Baluchistan province of Pakistan is rich in natural resources but has been subjugated and exploited by Punjabi and Pashtun elites in Islamabad, leaving Baluchistan the country's poorest province," it said.

A maverick lawmaker from California, Rohrabacher is not new to such controversies, having variously dallied with Khalistani and Kashmiri separatists previously when was a fan of the Pakistan and US-sponsored mujahedin as they drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan. But their transformation into today's anti-US Taliban, and Pakistan's support for the most toxic terrorists emerging from that movement, has moved him from a pro-Islamabad position (he himself says he was Pakistan's "best friend") to an ardent India supporter. He now openly advocates Washington ditching Islamabad for New Delhi.

In fact, the scuttlebutt in town is that Rohrabacher wants to "stick it to the Pakistanis" for their support of terrorism, sheltering of Osama bin Laden, and harassment of US forces. Two days before the Balochistan resolution, the Congressman introduced a separate bill in the House seeking a US citizenship and a medal for Dr Shakeel Afridi, a Pakistani physician who helped the CIA nail Osama bin Laden.

"We are trying to honor him because he helped bring the man responsible for killing nearly 3,000 Americans to justice," Rohrabacher said. "He did so at a great personal risk. He deserves our deepest gratitude." Dr Afridi is being held by the ISI and Washington has officially demanded that he be freed.

The two developments, along with the growing presence of Baloch separatists and their lobbying efforts in Washington, has driven Pakistan, already paranoid about U.S intent, quite crazy. On Saturday, the Nation newspaper, the most virulent among the country's English dailies, carried a lead story under the headline "America again stabs Pakistan in the back."

"Crossing the limits that apply to the international relations barring all states from interfering in the internal matters of other sovereign states, the US once again stabbed its terror-war 'ally' in the back by introducing a resolution in Congress calling for 'independence' of Balochistan," the lead read, making no distinction between the US legislature and the administration.

U.S. move on Balochistan tendentious: Pakistan

Pakistan on Saturday reacted sharply to a resolution introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by three members asserting Balochistan's right to self-determination. Across the political spectrum, there was consensus that this amounted to an attack on Pakistan's sovereignty which could impact U.S.-Pakistan relations.

Interacting with mediapersons in Karachi, Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani described the resolution introduced by Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher as an attack on Pakistan's sovereignty. Earlier this week, Pakistan had reacted equally sharply over the exclusive hearing held by the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Sub-Committee on Oversight and Investigations on human rights violations in Balochistan. This sub-committee is also chaired by Mr. Rohrabacher.

In the official formulation of Pakistan's reaction — put out by the Foreign Office — Minister Hina Rabbani Khar took “strong exception'' and said it was against the very fundamentals of long-standing Pakistan-U.S. relations. Maintaining that it was an isolated move, she said the “draft resolution'' is contrary to the principles of the U.N. Charter and international law. Ms. Khar described the resolution as an unfriendly and irresponsible attempt by a few individuals to create distrust and hoped that this “latest tendentious move'' will not be allowed to sail through the House by a vast majority of U.S. Congressmen who continued to support friendly bilateral relations. Referring to the unanimous resolution adopted by the National Assembly this week condemning the Congressional hearing , she said that clearly represented the legitimate reaction of the Pakistani people.

Pakistan's embassy in Washington rejected “this ill-informed move and the Congressman's misplaced concern on Balochistan which is part of the Pakistani Federation''. Pointing out that the province has a directly elected provincial assembly of its own and has due representation in the National Assembly and Senate of Pakistan, the embassy said the resolution seeks to cast doubt on the territorial integrity of a member of the United Nations and a friend of the U.S., and is totally unacceptable.

“Balochistan's affairs and issues are an internal matter of Pakistan and it is for the people of Pakistan and our democratic institutions to address these. We would advise those behind this resolution to reserve their concern and solicitude for problems closer to home. Needless to say provocations such as these will seriously impact the Pakistan-US relations. We value this relationship, but not at the cost of our dignity, sovereignty and territorial integrity,'' said the statement even as the U.S. embassy in Islamabad distanced itself from the resolution saying the American administration had nothing to do with it.

Meanwhile, Mr. Rohrabacher was being hailed on social networking sites for raising the issue and “his incredible support'' for the Baloch nationalism. In turn, the Congressional hearing and resolution have generated considerable debate within Pakistan on Balochistan, an issue that is seldom discussed in the mainstream media.

We've seen the threats against Iran before

Here we go again with the Iran hysteria. It is tempting to think this time will be just like previous periods of sabre rattling against Iran. But there are significant new dangers. The Arab Spring, Israel's position, changes in the regional and global balance of forces, and national election campaigns, all point to this round of anti-Iranian hysteria posing potentially graver risks than five or six years ago.
We have seen all this before. The US ratchets up its rhetoric, Israel threatens a military attack, escalating sanctions bite harder on the Iranian people, Iran refuses to back down on uranium enrichment. But at the same time, top US military and intelligence officials actually admit Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, is not building a nuclear weapon, and has not decided whether to even begin a building process.

Then and now
All of that sounds very familiar right now. Military and intelligence leaders in Israel and the US once again admit that Iran does not have nukes. (Israel of course does, but no one talks about that.) Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta asked and answered his own Iran question: "Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No." Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper, Jr. admitted the US does not even know "if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons". The latest 2011 NIE makes clear there is no new evidence to challenge the 2007 conclusions; Iran still does not have a nuclear weapons programme in operation. According to the Independent, "almost the entire senior hierarchy of Israel's military and security establishment is worried about a premature attack on Iran and apprehensive about the possible repercussions." Former head of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said "it is quite clear that much if not all of the IDF leadership do not support military action at this point." But despite all the military and intelligence experts, the threat of war still looms.

Israel at the centre
One of the main differences from the propaganda run-up to the Iraq war is the consistent centrality of Israel and its supporters, particularly AIPAC in the US, in this push for war against Iran. Israel certainly jumped aboard the attack-Iraq bandwagon when it was clear that war was indeed inevitable, but US strategic concerns regarding oil and the expansion of US military power were first and primary. Even back then,Israel recognised Iran as a far greater threat than Iraq. And now, Israelis using that alleged threat to pressure US policymakers and shape US policy - in dangerous ways. During this campaign cycle, Obama is under the greatest pressure he has ever faced, and likely ever will face, to defend the Israeli position unequivocally, and to pledge US military support for any Israeli action, however illegal, dangerous, and threatening to US interests.

Iran simply is not, as former CIA analyst and presidential adviser Bruce Reidel makes clear, "an existential threat" to Israel. Even a theoretical future nuclear-armed Iran, if it ever chose that trajectory, would not be a threat to the existence of Israel, but would be a threat to Israel's longstanding nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. That is the real threat motivating Israel's attack-Iran-now campaign. Further, as long as top US political officials, from the White House to Congress, are competing to see who can be more supportive of Israel in its stand-off with Iran, no one in Washington will even consider pressure on Israel to end its violations of international law and human rights regarding its occupation and apartheid policies towards Palestinians. Israel gets a pass.
Israel is more isolated in the region than ever before. The US-backed neighbouring dictatorships Israel once counted on as allies are being challenged by the uprisings of the Arab Spring. Egypt's Mubarak was overthrown, the king of Jordan faces growing pressure at home, and the threats to Syria's regime mean that Israel could face massive instability on its northern border - something Bashar al-Assad and his father largely staved off since Israel occupied the Syrian Golan Heights in 1967.

Syria moves to the centre - two struggles in one
The calamity underway in Syria is also directly linked to the Iran crisis. There are two struggles going on in Syria - and unfortunately one may destroy the potential of the other. First was Syria's home-grown popular uprising against a brutal government, inspired by and organically tied to the other risings of the Arab Spring, and like them calling first for massive reform and soon for the overthrow of the regime. Syria is a relatively wealthy and diverse country, in which a large middle class, especially in Damascus and Aleppo, had prospered under the regime, despite its political repression. As a result, unlike some other regional uprisings,Syria's opposition was challenging a regime which still held some public support and legitimacy. The regime's drastic military assault on largely non-violent protests led some sectors of the opposition to take up arms, in tandem with growing numbers of military defectors, which of course meant waging their democratic struggle in the terrain in which the regime remains strongest: military force. The government's security forces killed thousands, injuring and arresting thousands more, and in recent weeks even the longstanding support for Assad in Damascus and Aleppo began to waver. Simultaneously, attacks against government forces increased, and the internal struggle has taken on more and more the character of a civil war.

The further complication in Syria, and its link to Iran, is that it has simultaneously become a regional and global struggle. Syria is Iran's most significant partner in the Middle East, so key countries that support Israel's anti-Iran mobilisation have turned against Syria, looking to weaken Iran by undermining its closest ally. (Perhaps because the Assad regimes have kept the occupied Golan Heights and the Israeli-Syrian border relatively quiet, Israel itself has not been the major public face in the regionalisation of the Syrian crisis.) But clearly Saudi Arabia is fighting with Iran in Syria for influence in the region. The Arab League, whose Syria decision-making remains dominated by the Saudis and their allied Gulf petro-states (such as Qatar and the UAE), is using the Syria crisis to challenge Iran's rising influence in Arab countries from Iraq to Lebanon. And of course the US, France and other Western powers have jumped on the very real human rights crisis in Syria to try to further weaken the regime there - in the interest again of undermining Iran's key ally far more than out of concern for the Syrian people.
(Anyone uncertain about the hypocrisy of Washington's claimed human rights concerns, as well as its willingness to embrace the Assad regime in the wake of 9/11, need only look to the case of Maher Arar. A Canadian engineer arrested at JFK airport, Arar was accused of "links to terrorism" and subjected to extraordinary rendition by US security agencies that sent him to Syria for almost a full year of interrogation and torture. A two-year Canadian investigation found him innocent of any terror links, and paid him $10 million in compensation for Canada's role; but for the US, Arar remains a suspect prohibited from entering the country.)
Diminishing US power
Facing economic crisis, military failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the loss or weakening of key client states in the Arab world, the US is weaker and less influential in the Middle East. But maintaining control of oil markets and US strategic capacity are still key regional goals for the US, which means that military power remains central. The nature of that military engagement is changing - away from large-scale deployments of ground troops in favour of rapidly expanding fleets of armed drones, Special Forces, and growing reliance on naval forces, navy bases and sea-based weapons. Thus the US backs Saudi intervention in Bahrain to insure the US Fifth Fleet maintains its Bahraini base; Washington's escalating sanctions give the West greater leverage in control of oil markets; the Iranian rhetorical threat to close the Strait of Hormuz (only in desperation since it would prevent Iran from exporting its own oil) is used to justify expansion of the US naval presence in the region. Along with the possibility of losing Syria as a major military purchaser and regional ally, concerns about those US strategic moves played a large part of Russia's veto of the UN resolution on Syria.

In Iran, the pressure is high and the sanctions are really starting to bite, with much greater impact felt by the Iranian population, rather than the regime in Tehran. The assassination of Iranian nuclear experts, particularly the most recent murder of a young scientist which was greeted by Israeli officials with undisguised glee and barely-disguised triumph, are more likely aimed at provoking an Iranian response than actually undermining Iran's nuclear capacity. So far, Iran has resisted the bait. But if Israel makes good on its threat of a military strike - despite the virtually unanimous opposition of its own military and intelligence leadership - there is little reason to imagine that Iran would respond only with words. The US and Israel are not the only countries whose national leaders face looming contests; Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and its president face huge political challenges as well.
The day after
The consequences of a strike against Iran would be grave - from attacks on Israeli and/or US military targets, to going after US forces in Iran's neighbours Afghanistan, Iraq, and Kuwait, to attacks on the Pentagon's Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, to mining the Strait of Hormuz ... and beyond. An attack by the US, a nuclear weapons state, on a non-nuclear weapons state such as Iran, would be a direct violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran might kick out the UN nuclear inspectors. The hardest of Iran's hard-line leaders would almost certainly consolidate ever greater power - both at home and in the Arab countries, and the calls to move towards greater nuclearisation, perhaps even to build a nuclear weapon, would rise inside Iran. Indeed, the Arab Spring's secular, citizenship-based mobilisations would likely lose further influence to Iran - threatening to turn that movement into something closer to an "Islamic Spring".

Negotiations and a nuclear weapons-free zone
At the end of the day the crisis can only be solved through negotiations, not threats and force. Immediately, that means demanding that the White House engage in serious, not deliberately time-constrained negotiations to end the current crisis - perhaps based on the successful Turkish-Brazilian initiative that the US scuttled last year. That means that Congress must reverse its current position to allow the White House to use diplomacy - rather than continuing to pass laws that strip the executive branch of its ability to put the carrot of ending sanctions on the table in any negotiations. And it means an Iran policy based on the real conclusions of US intelligence and military officials, that Iran does not have and is not building a nuclear weapon, rather than relying on lies about non-existent nuclear weapons, like the WMD lies that drove the US to war in Iraq.
In the medium and longer term, we must put the urgent need for a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East back on the table and on top of our agenda. Such a multi-country move would insure Iran would never build a nuclear weapon, that Israel would give up its existing 200 to 300 high-density nuclear bombs and the submarine-based nuclear weapons in its arsenal, and that the US would keep its nuclear weapons out of its Middle East bases and off its ships in the region's seas. Otherwise, we face the possibility of the current predicament repeating itself in an endless loop of Groundhog Day-style nuclear crises - each one more threatening than the last.

Phyllis Bennis is a Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies and the Transnational Institute in Amsterdam. Her books include Calling the Shots: How Washington Dominates Today's UN.

War On Terror Shifts To Pakistan

---

The death of bin Laden in Pakistan was a game-changer for U.S.-Pakistan relations

 

"We know that there are those who believe that in America's fight against Al-Qaeda we have imposed a war upon Pakistan. But violent extremists are a threat not just to the United States but to Pakistan as well, and indeed to the entire civilized world."

 

These comments by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, made during a visit to Islamabad in January, were intended to assuage concerns in Pakistan and to set the tone for further cooperation in stamping out extremism.

 

But by year's end, it became clear that 2011 was a year in which Pakistan transformed from being an key ally in the war on terror, to being the front line in the war on terror.

 

Death Of Osama Bin Laden

 

The death of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, announced to the world by U.S. President Barak Obama on May 2, was a game-changer.

 

The world's most wanted man was not supposed to be there at all -- Pakistan had long denied that bin Laden was on its soil. He certainly was not expected to turn up deep in Pakistan, living in a compound located only a stone's throw from Pakistan's most prestigious military training base.

 

That bin Laden was killed in a top-secret raid carried out by U.S. commandoes without Islamabad's knowledge added to the embarrassment, and fueled public anger over incursions of Pakistani territory.

 

Regionally, it was taken as proof that Pakistan was, indeed, a sanctuary to terrorists.

 

"The world must know as we have said repeatedly over the years, almost every day, that the war on terrorism should not be fought in the villages of Afghanistan," said Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

 

"The war against terrorism should not be fought in homes of oppressed Afghans and cannot be won by bombing innocent women and children of Afghanistan. The war on terror should be fought in the sanctuaries, the hubs, and the recruiting centers of terrorists."

 

Much the same opinion was expressed in India, Pakistan's neighbor to the east. And fears that Pakistan was an incubator for extremism that would spread to Central Asia could only rise.

 

The same month, Kazakhstan suffered a rare suicide bombing. It was carried out by a group linked to the Islamic Movement in Uzbekistan, which has ties to Al-Qaeda and is seen to be headquartered in Pakistan. And elsewhere in the region -- including Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan -- it did not go unnoticed that many of the militants killed or arrested on their territory had received training in Pakistan.

 

Spectacular attacks in Afghanistan were attributed to the Haqqani network, which is based in Pakistan. In comments made in September, top U.S. officer Admiral Michael Mullen told lawmakers that the network "acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan's [Inter-Services Intelligence] agency."

 

"In choosing to use violent extremism as an instrument of policy, the government of Pakistan -- and most especially the Pakistani army and ISI -- jeopardizes not only the prospect of our strategic partnership but Pakistan's opportunity to be a respected nation with legitimate regional influence," Mullen said.

 

Controversial Attack

 

Events pushed Islamabad toward a collision course with Washington, highlighted by a late November incident in which NATO helicopters fired on two border posts in northwest Pakistan, killing 24 government soldiers. 

 

Pakistan reacted furiously to the attack. The government cited the deadly incident as its reason for boycotting an important international conference on Afghanistan's future. Trucks filled with cargo headed to supply NATO forces in Afghanistan were halted at the border. The United States was ordered to evacuate an air base on Pakistani territory that was believed to be a possible launching point for highly unpopular drone strikes. 

 

Parliamentary committees looked into any secret agreements made with the United States, as the rift between Pakistan's powerful military and civilian government grew amid "memo-gate." The scandal, centered around allegations that members of the civilian government had sought Washington's help to stave off a possible military coup, added to the storm of anti-U.S. sentiment.

 

Addressing the country's foreign policy elite in December, Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani reiterated Pakistan's resolve to rethink its relations with the West.

 

"We have been compelled to take these steps to safeguard Pakistan's interests. As a responsible state, Pakistan will do whatever we can for stability and peace of our region. But we will never allow anyone to undermine our legitimate interests," Gilani said.

 

Continuing rumors of a possible soft coup, a dire economic crisis, and the possibility of parliamentary elections all add to the promise of domestic political turmoil, and help ensure that outsiders involved in the war on terror can be expected to keep their gaze locked on Pakistan.

Pakistan's U.S. Envoy Says Relationship 'Burdened' By Too Many Expectations

Pakistan's new ambassador to the United States says relations between Washington and Islamabad are "burdened by too many expectations" and have become overly emotional.

Sherry Rehman made the comments on February 15 at Washington's U.S. Institute of Peace in one of her first public appearances since arriving last month.

"The marriage metaphor, for instance, never seems to go away, with its implicit embrace of love and hate, life, death, and divorce, which we seek to assiduously avoid," Rehman said.

"Given the state of strategic flux our region faces, at a time of unprecedented challenges and the responsibilities such transitions bring with it, this is too important and too sensitive a relationship to carry this volume and scale of unregulated hyperbole."

Rehman took over the envoy post from former Ambassador Husain Haqqani, who resigned in November under pressure following reports that he had asked top U.S. officials for help against Pakistan's powerful military.

Her arrival in Washington comes at a low point in bilateral relations. U.S. lawmakers have increasingly questioned Islamabad's commitment to fighting extremism after U.S. forces killed former Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in his Pakistan compound last spring.

Washington has since slashed its military aid to the country. More recently, a classified NATO report leaked earlier this month said Pakistan's secret services are helping the Taliban attack foreign troops in Afghanistan.

And a Pakistani parliamentary committee will soon issue its recommendation for revised terms of cooperation with Washington in the wake of a border incident in November in which U.S. forces killed 24 Pakistani soldiers. Pakistan responded by closing critical NATO supply routes into Afghanistan.

'Debilitating Continuum'

Rehman said her country had "no shortage of commitment" to fighting militancy but its leaders and civil society "need time and capacity to turn back this tide."

She said militants, extremists, and terrorists existed in "one debilitating continuum" in the country, a dynamic she said "often dilutes the force of political as well as state responses."

The new ambassador denied, however, that the problems Pakistan faces in fighting extremism point to flaws in the government.

"This is not an existential or state identity crisis in my view, as it is often profiled in these terms when Pakistan is mentioned," she added. "Neither is this a permanent condition. No government or even military can take on such a toxic and lethal combination in one go."

Rehman said Islamabad was prepared to support an Afghan-led peace process in "real-time practice, not policy platitudes" and had the "highest stakes" in its neighbor's stability.

She described the deadly November border incident as "an end-of-the-line trigger that called for a fundamental reset" in bilateral relations.

"The good news is that many of us on both sides think it is time that this relationship matured into a more consistent, stable, and transparent equation with weight given to more respect," she said.

"But once again, that would be a subject best reserved right now for our parliament to decide."

Washington has expressed regret over the incident but has refrained from apologizing, citing inadequate coordination by both Pakistani and U.S. forces as the cause.

In Pakistan, rightwing alliance is revived

Bound together by hatred of the United States and support for insurgents fighting in Afghanistan, a revived coalition of supposedly banned extremists and rightwing political parties is drawing large crowds across Pakistan.

The emergence of the "Defence of Pakistan Council" movement has raised suspicions that the group has approval from elements in the powerful military and security establishment, aiming to bolster public support for a hardline position. The group's rise comes as the military is trying to assert its position in renegotiating its troubled relationship with the United States and as Pakistan prepares for elections likely to take place later this year.
Some of the leading lights in the Defence of Pakistan Council have traditionally been seen as close to the security establishment, which has a long history of propping up radicals to defend its domestic interests or fight in India and Afghanistan.

On Sunday, the group's bandwagon rolled into Karachi, the country's commercial heart. Between 20,000 and 30,000 men gathered close to the monument to Pakistan's founder, Muhammed Ali Jinnah, whose vision of a liberal, secular Pakistan is often contrasted to the rise of hardline, often violent groups in the country. The star of the gathering was Hafiz Saeed, the head of Jamaatud Dawa, a front group for Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, the terrorist group accused by India and the West of sending Pakistani terrorists by boat to Mumbai in 2008 where they killed 166 people in attacks on a hotel and other sites.

"We demand Pakistani rulers quit the alliance with America," said Saeed, who was placed under house arrest after the Mumbai attacks but has slowly re-emerged in public, without a response from authorities. "There can be no compromise on the freedom and sovereignty of the country." Members of Dawa patrolled the rally, some armed with automatic weapons, others on horseback.

Also represented on stage and in the crowd were Sipah-e-Sahaba, a feared extremist group that has carried out scores of attacks on minority Shias in recent years. Its members have reportedly formed alliances with al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan. A large banner that hung over the stage read "Wake up, countrymen, break the shackles of American slavery."

That anti-American message has been amplified by the Pakistani army since US air strikes along the Afghan border in late November killed 24 Pakistani soldiers. The Pakistani army accused the U S of deliberately targeting the outposts, rejecting American assertions it was mistake.

Pakistan retaliated by closing its western border to NATO and US military supplies into Afghanistan, a key supply line for the war. Saeed and other speakers threatened civil disobedience if Pakistan reopens it. Their stance could hamper American hopes that Islamabad will quietly reopen the route in the coming weeks. "We vow that the NATO supply will never be restored," he said.

The alliance groups many of the same parties and clerics that banded together after the September 11, 2001 attacks, capitalising on anti-American sentiment. It formed a political alliance that won 50 seats in elections that took place in 2002.

The current government, which is broadly pro-American and doesn't espouse political Islam, is under pressure from the courts and opposition parties. Elections are now seen as likely later this year, and the revival of the "Defend Pakistan" group appears to be a push by politicians grouped within it to win votes among the legions of Pakistanis who subscribe to Islamist views. It could also be attempt by the army to put pressure on the ruling Pakistan People's Party, which has repeatedly clashed with the generals since taking power in 2008 and has tried to get closer ties with India. The group has organised large rallies in several Pakistan cities; next week it plans a gathering in the capital, Islamabad.

Many of the speakers in Karachi rallied the crowds with warnings that Pakistan was under threat, and Islam its only defence. "Do you swear to fight back with Islamic spirit, honour and dignity if anyone, whether American, NATO, Israel or India attack Pakistan?" asked Maulana Samiul Haq, head of a hardline school that has sent thousands of people to fight in Afghanistan over the last 10 years.

"Jihad! Jihad!" the crowd roared.

Speaker after speaker also touted the army line on India, saying the neighbouring country represents an existential threat to Pakistan. This stance justifies the security state that has been established since the two nations broke apart from the British-ruled subcontinent in 1947. Liberals, democrats and peace activists have been trying for years to bring India and Pakistan closer together. But in the past, the army has funded and trained militant groups and their umbrella organisations to battle Indian forces in Held Kashmir.

"The security establishment of this country desires that ultra-radical parties should be brought into politics so that their doctrine against India, America or Israel could be infused to the masses," said Tauseef Ahmed, the head of the Mass Communication department at the Federal Urdu University. ap

Taliban says the U.S. to repeat Soviet defeat in Afghanistan

Wednesday, 15 February 2012

“Today's American occupying invaders and their coalition allies are facing the same future the Russian invaders faced in the past,” a Taliban statement read. (Reuters)

inShare

By AMIE FERRIS-ROTMAN
REUTERS KABUL

The Taliban used the 23rd anniversary of the humiliating Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan on Wednesday to taunt the United States that it would suffer the same fate as preparations to hand over security to a shaky government are underway.

“Selfish Americans must learn a lesson from ... the Russian defeat and no longer fight a meaningless battle with zealous Afghans and take their invading forces out as soon as possible,” the Afghan Taliban said in an e-mailed statement to media.

Forces from the former Soviet Union exited Afghanistan in 1989 after handing over security to a shaky government that was quickly beset by heavy fighting led by mujahideen groups, many of which were initially aided by the United States and Pakistan.

Now the United States and NATO are racing against the clock to train a 350,000-strong force of Afghan police and soldiers who will take over all security responsibilities before end-2014, though skepticism looms that the target can be met in an increasingly violent war.

“Today's American occupying invaders and their coalition allies are facing the same future the Russian invaders faced in the past,” the Taliban statement added, referring to the NATO-led war now dragging into its eleventh year.

Comparing the two wars is not limited to Taliban hype -- fears are surfacing amongst Afghans and analysts that a repeat of the aftermath could take place.

“When the Soviet troops left, it was both a military and economic withdrawal. And once Americans leave, everything else will go with them,” said Mir Ahmad Joenda, who was a member of the Afghan parliament during Communist times and now works at the country's Civil Society Forum.

“There is a definite possibility of a repeat of 1989 and its aftermath,” Joenda told Reuters.

Afghans -- even those of opposing political sides -- hold intense pride over the forced withdrawal of the former Soviet Union after a decade of war.

Afghan state TV showed rolling footage of Red Army troops atop armored vehicles crossing a bridge at the former Soviet northern border on Feb. 15 1989, an image that has become synonymous with the end of a war that still haunts Moscow and cost 15,000 Soviet lives fighting mujahideen insurgents.

After the dispirited Soviet exit, the Afghan communist government collapsed, leading to infighting between warlords and a vicious civil war that reduced much of Kabul to rubble and paved the way for the Taliban's rise to power in 1996.

“NATO leaving behind an impoverished country”

Washington has pledged military support and aid -- though at much reduced levels that the billions of dollars spent now -- well after its troops withdraw, much as the Soviets continued to prop up the Communist government of Mohammad Najibullah after their 1989 rush from the country.

But when the Soviet Union collapsed two years later, the aid vanished, Najibullah was ousted in 1992, and in the ensuing war two thirds of Kabul was razed and about 50,000 civilians died.

“Like the Soviets, NATO will be leaving behind an impoverished country crippled by corruption, a government whose writ doesn't extend to many places outside Kabul, and where insurgent fighters are presumably waiting out foreign forces to assert themselves,” said Gregory Feifer, author of The Great Gamble, which examines the Soviet war in Afghanistan.

But unlike the Soviet exit strategy, Afghan and U.S. officials are seeking peace negotiations with the Taliban as a means to ushering in some form of stability when foreign combat troops leave though the talks lay in a very fragile state.

Alexander Golts, a military analyst in Moscow, said there was “no doubt” the Taliban would regain a share of power following the NATO pullout, and predicted it would occur more quickly for the austere Islamist group the second time round.

“American and NATO forces will leave Afghanistan with limited success, which means we cannot be absolutely sure that in two, three or in five months' time, the Talibans will not return to power”.

Difa-e-Pakistan: Jihadis itch for resurgence

Add caption

Religious leaders, some from banned outfits, join hands to ‘save Pakistan’.

LAHORE: 

In December, Kashmiri hardliners, sectarianism-fanning extremists and Taliban-sympathisers were seen holding hands together on stage in Lahore under a banner decorated with images of arms, ammunition and a call for ‘Jihad’.

Since then, the Difa-e-Pakistan Council (Defence of Pakistan Council) movement has gained momentum across Pakistan and their leaders seem unperturbed by serious accusations against them. “Even if we were banned, we cannot just sit around and see this country go up in flames,” says Maulana Ahmed Ludhianvi, chief of banned religious group Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP), which now operates under a changed name, Ahl-e-Sunnat-Wal-Jamaat (ASWJ).

His group is not alone in urging Pakistanis to rise up. Under the auspices of Maulana Samiul Haq, chairman of Difa-e-Pakistan, over 40 different religious leaders, including those from ASWJ and Jamatud Dawa (JuD), held a meeting on October 12 last year in Lahore.

After this, Difa-e-Pakistan issued a statement saying that the President House is a hostage to the Americans, and appealed to the Supreme Court of Pakistan to force Parliament to abide by article 245 of the Constitution, which states that the country’s military be called in to defend Pakistan.

Party leaders say their agenda is to free Pakistan from American and Indian aggression by putting pressure on the current government. The group also released a 10-point agenda. One of the points is a warning sent to all “anti-Islamic, secular, liberal hypocrites inside Pakistan.” They also announced complete support for those fighting in ‘Occupied Kashmir’ as well as the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Difa-e-Pakistan may be a new name, but its roots lie in the movement started by its current chairman in the wake of attacks on Afghanistan by Western forces.

“At that time our brothers needed our support against the American crusade, so we took a stand for them,” says Maulana Samiul Haq, the 75-year-old former member of the National Assembly. The group he made at the time was known as the Pak-Afghan Council (PAC) but later, this group joined politics by merging into an Islamic alliance known as Mutahidda Majlis-e-Amal, which formed the government in the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa under the Musharraf regime.

Samiul Haq currently heads a religious political party, Jamiat Ulema-Islam-S (JUI-S), and also runs a madrassa in Akora Khattak, a religious seminary that was frequented by the Afghan Taliban before 2001, a claim he denies.

Besides him, other prominent members include Hafiz Saeed and Maulana Muhammad Ahmed Ludhianvi, both of whom have come under local and international scrutiny due to their perceived connections with terrorist activities.

Jamatwud Dawa, currently on the United Nations list of banned organisations, is accused of involvement in the Mumbai attacks in 2008 that killed at least 166 people. Its chief, Hafiz Saeed, changed the organisation’s name from Jamatud Dawa to Falaah-e-Insaaniyat, but after he was set free by courts due to lack of evidence, his organisation now operates under the JuD banner openly throughout Pakistan.

The group dates back to the early eighties and its spokesperson, Yahya Mujahid, was widely quoted in the press as the spokesperson for Lashkar-e-Taiba in the 1990s, which is a globally banned ‘jihadi’ organisation.

Then there is Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ), which, says an intelligence officer who does not wish to be named, was SSP’s militant wing before it broke away. Its head, Malik Ishaq, when released from prison last year, was received by the head of ASWJ, Ahmed Ludhianvi, who stated at that time that Ishaq will continue his struggle peacefully.

But the intelligence official does not believe this. “Different smaller groups linked with LeJ are still involved in sectarian violence across Pakistan,” he says. Ishaq who spent more than a decade in jail, after being accused of involvement in more than 70 killings, was present at the last gathering of Difa-e-Pakistan in Multan. Samiul Haq, though, acknowledges the implications of standing in the same row with those accused of international and local terrorism. “I will keep a check on them and make sure they don’t do anything wrong,” he states.

Iran's President Blames West For 'All' Region's Problems

Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad has lashed out against foreign interference in the region, saying outsiders are responsible for "all the problems" there.

He was speaking at a joint press conference in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, following summit talks on February 17 with his Pakistani and Afghan counterparts, Asif Ali Zardari and Hamid Karzai.

"There is no fundamental problem among countries of the region. All problems are coming from the outside," Ahmadinejad said.
"In order to promote their goals and ambitions, [the West] always seeks to promote division among all countries of the region."
Ahmadinejad said foreign powers "don't want to allow our nations to develop."

He didn't identify which outside powers he was referring to.

Ahmadinejad called for countries in the region to "stick together in order to advance and achieve our goals."

Karzai Calls For Action

Ahmadinejad's comments come with Afghan and Pakistani officials publicly calling for cooperation to help achieve a settlement with the Afghan Taliban and end the war in Afghanistan between Afghan and NATO-backed forces and the Islamic militia.

Karzai said that what he called "impediments" in relations between Kabul and Islamabad must sooner, rather than later, be removed so that progress can be made in peace talks to end the war, now in its 11th year.

Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, who has publicly backed making progress in Afghanistan peace efforts, on February 17 denied allegations that Pakistani armed forces were "directly or indirectly involved" in the conflict on the side of the Taliban.
The Afghan Taliban has rejected recent claims by Karzai that the U.S. and Afghan governments have begun talks with the militants about a settlement.
The Iranian president's remarks also come as Iran has been dealing with tightened international sanctions, including an oil embargo by the European Union that Western states and the United Nations Security Council have imposed over the Iranian nuclear program.
Despite such sanctions, Iran announced a series of advancements in its nuclear program on February 15.
Iran said it had used domestically made nuclear fuel in a research reactor in Tehran for the first time and also unveiled a "new generation" of faster, more efficient uranium-enrichment centrifuges at its Natanz facility in central Iran.

Meanwhile, in a letter dated February 14, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Said Jalili, told world powers that Tehran was ready to resume stalled nuclear talks at the "earliest" opportunity.

But the letter sent to European Union chief diplomat Catherine Ashton, who represents the United States, France, Britain, Germany, China, and Russia in the talks, was vague on whether Tehran was ready to address international concerns over its nuclear program.
Ashton in October said in a letter that the powers could meet with Iran if it was ready to tackle those concerns.

Western powers suspect that Iran is seeking to build a nuclear bomb, a charge Iran denies.

Trilateral summit in Islamabad from today

Pakistan to host Afghan, Iranian leaders

Pakistan on Thursday welcomes the leaders of Afghanistan and Iran for a regional summit at a key juncture in peace efforts with the Taliban and amid rising tensions between Tehran and Israel. 

Afghan President Hamid Karzai arrived in Islamabad mid-morning, the Pakistani foreign ministry confirmed, for a series of talks with government and opposition figures on his second visit to the country in nine months.

Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was expected to arrive in the afternoon before formal summit talks on Friday, followed by a news conference.

Pakistan, the historic ally of the Taliban, says it will do anything required by Kabul to support an Afghan-led peace process, but there is a wide degree of skepticism in Afghanistan and the United States about its sincerity.

Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar visited Kabul this month on a fence-mending visit amid reports that Kabul and Islamabad felt isolated by contacts between the United States and the Taliban in the Gulf state of Qatar.

But in an interview published in the Wall Street Journal on Thursday, Karzai said the Afghan government was part of three-way peace efforts.

The Taliban have refused to talk to Karzai’s U.S.-backed government.

“There have been contacts between the U.S. government and the Taliban, there have been contacts between the Afghan government and the Taliban, and there have been some contacts that we have made, all of us together, including the Taliban,” Karzai was quoted as saying.

He did not mention any Pakistani involvement, but said cooperation from Islamabad “would make the whole matter easier”.

Pakistan says the trilateral summit will focus on cooperation on counter-terrorism and transnational organized crime including drug and human trafficking, border management and trade issues.

Islamabad is moving towards a detente in its own relations with Washington, which took a drastic turn for the worse over last year’s covert American raid that killed Osama bin Laden and air strikes that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers.

But despite strong U.S. objections, Pakistan says it is pressing ahead with a multi-billion-dollar project to build a gas pipeline to import fuel from Iran.

“There is no change or shift regarding the gas pipeline project and it is scheduled to be completed by 2014,” said the official.

Israel this week accused Iran of targeting its diplomats in Georgia, India and Thailand, against a backdrop of speculation that the Jewish state or the United States could be months from launching military strikes against Iran.

On Wednesday, Ahmadinejad unveiled new strides in Tehran’s nuclear program in a defiant blow to U.S. and EU sanctions designed to rein in its atomic activities.

“I don’t think so,” a senior Pakistani government official told AFP when asked if mounting tensions between Iran and Israel, and the showdown over Iran’s nuclear program, would dominate the summit.