Its high time we stopped compromising on our sovereignty and declared US a hostile state. Shut down the US Embassy and consulates, order all US diplomatic staff to leave the country with immediate effect, shut down NATO and US supply routes and respond in kind with a threat to launch a full-scale military offensive on US bases in Afghanistan if Pakistani Airspace is breached.
The United States is threatening to launch airstrikes on Mullah Omar and the Taliban leadership in Quetta as frustration mounts about the ease with which they find sanctuary across the border from Afghanistan, according to a The Sunday Times report. The threat comes amid growing divisions in Washington about whether to deal with the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan by sending more troops or by reducing them and targeting the terrorists. This weekend the US military was expected to send a request to Defence Secretary Robert Gates for more troops, as urged by Gen Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan. In a leaked strategic assessment of the war, Gen McChrystal warned that he needed extra reinforcements within a year to avert the risk of failure. Although no figure was given, he is believed to be seeking up to 40,000 troops to add to the 68,000 who will be in Afghanistan by the end of this year. US Vice-President Joe Biden has suggested reducing the number of troops in Afghanistan and focusing on the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Pakistan. Last week Gen McChrystal denied any rift with the administration, saying, “a policy debate is warranted.”
So sensitive is the subject that when US President Barack Obama addressed the UN summit in New York, he barely mentioned Afghanistan.
The Times reports the unspoken problem is that if the priority is to destroy Al-Qaeda and reduce the global terrorist threat, western troops might be fighting on the wrong side of the border.
The Biden camp argues that attacks by unmanned drones on Pakistan’s tribal areas, where Al-Qaeda’s leaders are hiding, have been successful. Sending more troops to Afghanistan has only inflamed tensions.
“Pakistan is the nuclear elephant in the room,” said a western diplomat.
It is a view echoed by Richard Barrett, head of the UN Commission on Monitoring Taliban and Al-Qaeda, who believes the presence of foreign troops has increased militant activity and made it easier for the Taliban to recruit.
“If Obama sends more troops, it would better be clear what they are to do,” he said.
“A few thousand more boots on the ground may not make much difference except push the fight into areas which are currently quiet because no one is there to challenge the Taliban. I cannot see any number of troops eliminating the Taliban. Obama has a really difficult decision to make.”
http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/28-Sep-2009/US-to-attack-Quetta
Monday, September 28, 2009
Friday, September 18, 2009
Jinnah: Secular Or Islamist?
By TALHA MUJADDIDI
Interview with Saleena Karim, author of a most important book on Quaid-e-Azam, “Secular Jinnah: Munir’s Big Hoax Exposed”. Saleena Karim is also the founder and director of Jinnah Archive, world’s first comprehensive digital library on Quaid-e-Azam. This is a must read interview.
Book Review at Amazon.com
Product Description
One of the most famous books in Pakistan, the late Chief Justice Muhammad Munir's From Jinnah to Zia (1979) has finally received the ultimate rebuttal from a British-born Asian - using only one piece of evidence. Saleena Karim tells the story of how a point of curiosity - based on little more than an issue of grammar - led her to the startling discovery that a quote used by Munir and attributed to Jinnah is in fact a fake. Furthermore this quote has also been used by a number of Pakistani professional writers and scholars, none of whom have thought to check the original transcript of the interview Munir supposedly quoted from.
Over twenty-five years after the release of From Jinnah to Zia, the author shows us how much damage the 'Munir quote' has done - not only in terms of twisting the facts of history, but now in exposing the intellectual dishonesty of Pakistani scholarship. Saleena Karim names those who have quoted Munir, as well as discussing the other myths about the founder of Pakistan, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, and sets the record straight.
“The new state would be a modern democratic state with sovereignty resting in the people and the members of the new nation having equal rights of citizenship regardless of religion, caste or creed.” Mr. Munir claims that these are the words of the Quaid from an interview to Reuters’ Doon Campbell. In reality these words appear nowhere in that particular interview, and in fact they appear nowhere at all (I spent years checking)”
Q) Please tell us briefly about yourself, your education and background.
A) I am a writer born and brought up in the UK. Almost as soon I learned to read, I wanted to write. When I went to Loughborough University I wanted to take a degree in publishing, but for reasons that are not worth mentioning here, I ended up studying Human Biology and obtained a BSc. I had no interest in pursuing a career in my subject area, so I followed my instinct and began writing part-time. At first I was mostly translating short articles mostly on Islam (Urdu-English), and also started a work of fiction, but I became a full-time writer after I wrote Secular Jinnah: Munir’s Big Hoax Exposed in 2005. As a child I was brought up with religious values and always considered myself a spiritual individual. As I grew older I began to question some of our traditional religious teachings and began to study Quranic principles in depth. I became very interested in Islamic philosophy and in particular, ethics, and this study helped me in ways I cannot even begin to describe.
Q) How did you get interested in the life of Quaid-e-Azam, and what inspired you?
A) Until a few years ago I knew relatively little about the Quaid-i-Azam but accepted he was a hero of Islamic history by default. My father got me interested in his life originally, but I only learned about him in detail after I began work on Secular Jinnah. I was inspired in the first instance by Mr. Jinnah’s speeches, which I later referred to as a first-hand resource on his thinking.
Q) The readers want to know what is it that Justice Munir has said in his book that is either wrong or controversial about Quaid-e-Azam?
A) In short, there is a statement that the late Chief Justice Munir quoted in his book From Jinnah to Zia. It reads:
“The new state would be a modern democratic state with sovereignty resting in the people and the members of the new nation having equal rights of citizenship regardless of religion, caste or creed.” Mr. Munir claims that these are the words of the Quaid from an interview to Reuters’ Doon Campbell. In reality these words appear nowhere in that particular interview, and in fact they appear nowhere at all (I spent years checking). In the first edition of my book I explained that since 1979 (when Mr. Munir’s book was released) right up until the present no one had spotted that the quote was a fake. Since then I have learned that the quote has its origins not in 1979, but in the famous Munir Report of 1953. That’s the short story, but in my book I went into much more detail about how this quote has became the favourite amongst even the best-known commentators on Mr. Jinnah to try and undermine his stated cause.
Q) What inspired you to write a rebuttal to Munir’s book?
A) It may sound trivial to go after just one fake quote, but I was inspired to write my rebuttal because of it. When I first encountered the Munir quote in From Jinnah to Zia, I did for a short time wonder whether the Quaid was a true secularist after all. I pursued the original source of the Munir quote purely to find out the truth. But this was before I obtained the original transcript of the interview. If the Munir quote had turned out to be real, I would definitely have accepted and argued that Mr. Jinnah was a secularist – but that would still have had no bearing on my personal thoughts regarding the Pakistan idea. In the beginning I intended to write just a short article detailing the finding, but my research soon showed that Mr. Munir’s quote (which I now call the ‘Munir quote’) has had an astonishing impact on scholarship. Admittedly, I myself found it difficult to believe at first, but I knew I had to write a book.
Q) Tell us about your book. How come it got such high praise from various sections of the readers’ community?
A) Other than exposing the damage done by the Munir quote, my book argued in favour of a ‘Muslim’ rather than a ‘secular’ Jinnah. I have put quotes around these words because I’m aware that they tend to mean different things to different people. The biggest problem in fact, is the meaning and use of words like ‘secularism’, ‘Islam’, ‘sovereignty’, ‘ideology’, etc. But insofar as there are two broad camps arguing over Mr. Jinnah, my research convinced me to side with the much-misunderstood ‘Muslim Jinnah’ camp. To my mind Quaid-i-Azam does not fit into the ‘secular’ category, and I explained why in the first book. I also discussed some of the myths surrounding Mr. Jinnah. The number of people actively backing the ‘Muslim Jinnah’ argument is currently dwindling. This I suspect is part of the reason that my book was well-received by the readership, who probably felt that a new entry from this side was long overdue.
Q) Did Quaid-e-Azam want to create a secular Pakistan or a Pakistan based on Islamic principles?
A) This is the big question. Mr. Jinnah certainly did not tire of talking about Islamic democracy and Islamic socialism. In my book I showed that there are literally hundreds of references to Islamic terminology and principles in Mr. Jinnah’s speeches. Additionally, whilst he stressed the absolute equality of non-Muslim citizens in Pakistan, he never once used the word ‘secular’ to describe the country. There is also some evidence lying around which shows that there were non-Muslims who properly understood Mr. Jinnah’s view of Islam, if you know where to look. These facts should really speak for themselves. People arguing for ‘secular Jinnah’ tend to get upset by this argument because they assume that I, or whoever else, is trying to imply that the Quaid was pro-theocracy. They think for instance that we support a class distinction between religious minorities and majorities, or that we advocate the idea of legislation either being written or authorised by ulema. Yet, as every sensible Muslim and especially Pakistani Muslim knows, a state truly guided by Islamic principles is as far removed from theocracy as is an ideal secular state (I might add that there is not one example of either of these states in existence today). The Quaid himself made this point about theocracy versus Islam, which again I showed in my book. The few people who do support such ideas – taken, unfortunately, from fundamentalist literature, rather than the Quran – usually belong to parties that historically were opposed to Partition and Pakistan. So why give their views special attention, and why assume that every ‘non-secularist’ agrees with them?
Q) How would you describe Quaid-e-Azam’s Pakistan? How far are we today as a nation from Quaid’s Pakistan?
A) ‘Quaid-i-Azam’s Pakistan’ as such never had a chance to establish itself. At any rate, it is not right to speak of ‘Quaid’s Pakistan’ when Mr. Jinnah said that it was up to the people and the Constituent Assembly to decide the form of their constitution. But we can safely say that the main difference between Mr. Jinnah’s time and now is that back then, a majority of people truly believed that they would rise out of poverty, be given the chance to educate themselves and then make a positive contribution to the international community, in the name of Islam. Pakistan appeared on the map at a time when the Muslim world was facing a political identity crisis, following the abolition of the Caliphate in Turkey. The end of the Caliphate was necessary, but this left the Muslim world in a void. Many people saw the creation of this new Muslim country as a laboratory where Islam would be established afresh, so to speak, taking account of contemporary political and sociological conditions. For this reason Islam in Pakistan was described as the ‘third way’, representing neither capitalism nor communism, but a form of socialist democracy conforming to Islamic (and thus universal) principles of liberty and justice. There was no question therefore, of recreating an early form of Islamic state which may have had merits in its time but could not be made to work in the twentieth century. Again, exactly how this would work was left up to the people and the Constituent Assembly. The Quaid’s sheer integrity and strength of personality was enough to keep the early leaders of Pakistan together – just. Within a few years of his death however, personal rivalries and a lack of intellectual unity between these same politicians came out into the open, marking the end of ‘Quaid’s Pakistan’ practically before it had begun. Today we see nepotism, despotism, jobbery, and discrimination running rampant in Pakistan – all qualities of the worst type of secular state (not to mention the worst of a theocracy). To even begin to undo all of this, will require first and foremost that the people look within themselves and make a concerted demand that they want things to change. Unity must come first.
Q) What do you think about the new book on Jinnah that Jaswant Singh has just written? Have you read that?
A) I have not read the book, but I have seen the interview in which Mr. Singh described its contents. From what he said there seems to be nothing remarkable or new that hasn’t been said by someone else already. There was an interesting article on this subject by Dr. Waheed Ahmad in Pakistan’s News International recently. He suggests on the one hand that Mr. Singh had courage for challenging the wisdom of certain Congress leaders before Partition. On the other, he mentions that some cynics might question the motives of the author, who is after all a veteran member of a far-right political party. Whom does it suit to be told that Mr. Jinnah never really wanted Partition? Is it not suggestive of a wish to see the two countries reunited as one India? I admit to being one of the cynics.
Q) What is the Jinnah Archive? Is it just a website or some project?
A) The idea behind the Jinnah Archive is to make the speeches of the Quaid-i-Azam easily available online. Most collections of speeches have short print runs and they end up in a few university libraries in random places across the globe. My own difficulty in obtaining collections of speeches when researching Secular Jinnah gave me the idea to try and create a searchable database on the Net. Thereafter I began tracking down and purchasing all the printed collections that I could find, and then I built the website. Some distinguished academics kindly helped by giving permission to make full use of their collections. The whole project is privately funded, is non-profit, and is entirely free to the public. Unfortunately it has been neglected of late because I was working almost completely on my own from the beginning, and other unrelated projects have taken up my time in between. This is however, something I will rectify in the very near future.
Q) How do you want to contribute to Jinnah’s Pakistan?
A) That’s an interesting question. We all should utilise our individual talents to the best of our ability. Mine is writing. I hope that my use of the pen will at least get people to think about the Pakistan idea, and not to give up on it.
Q) How would you describe Jinnah?
A) How does anyone describe an awesome personality such as Mr. Jinnah? He was evidently a man of unswerving integrity, high intelligence, pride, conviction, strength, and with more than a smidgen of dry humour. A true example of a Muslim leader, certainly one of the finest of the twentieth century, if not the finest.
Q) When is the second edition of your book coming out?
A) Soon, though I can’t promise a particular date. It’s close to completion and has already been picked up by a publisher. Unlike the first edition, this one should be made available in Pakistan as well as internationally, in both Urdu and in English languages. It contains much more on the story of Mr. Munir’s literary legacy, and in it I reveal one or two other surprises as well. But I can say no more for now.
This interview is originally posted at PakistanKaKhudaHafiz.com
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Hussain Haqqani Paving Way for Black Water ( XE)
Pakistan’s Ambassador to the US Husain Haqqani has written to the foreign secretary and ISI Cheif, warning them that harassing Americans or denying them visas hurts the country’s image and can have severe consequences, CNN-IBN reported on Saturday.
According to the channel, Haqqani’s letter, dated July 28, 2009, reveals that Pakistan has a blacklist of US journalists and non-government organisations (NGO) that are critical of Islamabad. The ambassador has warned that Pakistan risked hearings in the US Congress and potential restrictions on aid and military sales if US citizens were harassed or intimidated. The letter mentioned instances where US institutions or journalists were denied visas, harassed or put under surveillance. Haqqani has demanded explanations for these actions and a copy of the blacklist.
Mr. Haqqani’s plea to the Pakistani Intelligence agencies comes at a time when there is effectively a quiet occupation of Pakistan taking place by Americans arriving in one form or the other. There have been confirmed reports of over 200 houses being rented and barricaded all over Islamabad, 300 plus ‘military trainers’ setting up shop in Tarbela, new facilities being granted to the notorious ‘Blackwater’ – now with a new name, Xe Worldwide – in parts of Sindh, and the rather obvious CIA front, Create Associates International Inc (CAII) operating not only in Peshawar but also in Islamabad.
This is what renowned Scholar and Defence Analyst Dr. Shireen Mazari revealed a few days back:
“Ordinary officials at Pakistani airports have also been muttering their concerns over chartered flights flying in Americans whose entry is not recorded – even the flight crews are not checked for visas and so there is now no record-keeping of exactly how many Americans are coming into or going out of Pakistan. Incidentally the CAII’s (CIA/Blackwater) Craig Davis who was deported has now returned to Peshawar! And let us not be fooled by the cry that numbers reflect friendship since we know what numbers meant to Soviet satellites.”
Since these reports first surfaced last month, the chartered flights have stopped and a number of suspected CIA and Xe employees – posing as ‘journalists’, aid workers and employees of certain NGOs – have been denied visas and entry into Pakistan. Existing US consulate personnel and employees of CAII as well as a number of other US citizens have been put under surveillance for suspected involvement in anti-state activity.
It is the duty of Inter-Services Intelligence to defend Pakistan’s borders and block any covert attempts to trample Pakistan’s sovereignty. Mr. Haqqani’s assertion that ejecting Americans found involved in suspicious activity and denying them entry is hurting Pakistan’s image, is idiotic at best and treason at worst.
PKKH requests the Pakistan Army and the Inter-Services Intelligence to take note of Mr. Haqqani’s attempt to undermine Pakistan’s national security – and at the very least, immediately put him under surveillance if not on a lamp-post in Islamabad.
According to the channel, Haqqani’s letter, dated July 28, 2009, reveals that Pakistan has a blacklist of US journalists and non-government organisations (NGO) that are critical of Islamabad. The ambassador has warned that Pakistan risked hearings in the US Congress and potential restrictions on aid and military sales if US citizens were harassed or intimidated. The letter mentioned instances where US institutions or journalists were denied visas, harassed or put under surveillance. Haqqani has demanded explanations for these actions and a copy of the blacklist.
Mr. Haqqani’s plea to the Pakistani Intelligence agencies comes at a time when there is effectively a quiet occupation of Pakistan taking place by Americans arriving in one form or the other. There have been confirmed reports of over 200 houses being rented and barricaded all over Islamabad, 300 plus ‘military trainers’ setting up shop in Tarbela, new facilities being granted to the notorious ‘Blackwater’ – now with a new name, Xe Worldwide – in parts of Sindh, and the rather obvious CIA front, Create Associates International Inc (CAII) operating not only in Peshawar but also in Islamabad.
This is what renowned Scholar and Defence Analyst Dr. Shireen Mazari revealed a few days back:
“Ordinary officials at Pakistani airports have also been muttering their concerns over chartered flights flying in Americans whose entry is not recorded – even the flight crews are not checked for visas and so there is now no record-keeping of exactly how many Americans are coming into or going out of Pakistan. Incidentally the CAII’s (CIA/Blackwater) Craig Davis who was deported has now returned to Peshawar! And let us not be fooled by the cry that numbers reflect friendship since we know what numbers meant to Soviet satellites.”
Since these reports first surfaced last month, the chartered flights have stopped and a number of suspected CIA and Xe employees – posing as ‘journalists’, aid workers and employees of certain NGOs – have been denied visas and entry into Pakistan. Existing US consulate personnel and employees of CAII as well as a number of other US citizens have been put under surveillance for suspected involvement in anti-state activity.
It is the duty of Inter-Services Intelligence to defend Pakistan’s borders and block any covert attempts to trample Pakistan’s sovereignty. Mr. Haqqani’s assertion that ejecting Americans found involved in suspicious activity and denying them entry is hurting Pakistan’s image, is idiotic at best and treason at worst.
PKKH requests the Pakistan Army and the Inter-Services Intelligence to take note of Mr. Haqqani’s attempt to undermine Pakistan’s national security – and at the very least, immediately put him under surveillance if not on a lamp-post in Islamabad.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Mazari vs. Patterson: Clarifications By Jang Group, Shireen Mazari & PakNationalists
A AHMEDQURAISHI.COM Report
Edited by Khalid Ashraf
Monday, 7 September 2009.
WWW.AHMEDQURAISHI.COM
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—The Editorial Board of the Jang Group issued a clarification published today, Sept. 7, reacting to a written complaint by US Ambassador to Pakistan Anne W. Patterson that resulted in knocking Dr. Mazari's regular column off the pages of the newspaper for one day last Wednesday, Sept. 3.
The newspaper published the regular column a day later, on Thursday Sept. 4, after back and forth with Dr. Mazari.
The clarification in The News also indirectly referred to a report published at PakNationalists/AhmedQuraishi.com and carried by several websites where the US ambassador's letter to the newspaper was described as 'private'. The paper says it was not 'private'.
It is unfortunate that a letter by the US ambassador, which was not printed or made public and as such can be legitimately misconstrued as an attempt at undue pressure by an envoy of a foreign government, has resulted in a misunderstanding between the esteemed columnist and the respected newspaper, ending a long relationship that goes back almost a decade.
The two- The News International and Dr. Mazari – are especially remembered for the bold decision taken last year by The News, one of Pakistan's largest English-language newspapers, to publish an exclusive report, written by Dr. Mazari, which prevented the Bush administration from quietly appointing an anti-Pakistan US army general as a defense attaché in Islamabad.
The ending of this relationship [Dr. Mazari joins The Nation as editor, columnist and television host as of tonight] must have engendered many smiles at the US embassy in Islamabad. There is a history between Dr. Mazari, a renowned defense expert, and the US mission here. In 2006, the US ambassador at the time reportedly approached Pakistan's Foreign Secretary to request that Dr. Mazari, who was heading a think tank financed by the Pakistan Foreign Office, be asked to stop writing columns critical of US policy in Afghanistan. Mr. Khokhar, according to Dr. Mazari, resisted the pressure. But last year, Dr. Mazari was unceremoniously removed from her post in one of the first few decisions taken by the new elected government. Mr. Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's envoy to Washington and one of America's most vocal Pakistani apologists, personally supervised the move.
The following is the clarification as published in The News International today, followed by the reply sent by Dr. Mazari to the newspaper [also received by us], and then a reply from PakNationalists, written by Ahmed Quraishi.
Clarification by The News
A press conference of Dr. Shireen Mazari was reported in the newspapers of Thursday (September 3) in which it was indicated that The News International had been pressurised by the US Embassy into dropping her article, although it appeared in the same day’s issue. Some websites have also alleged that the US ambassador has written a ‘private’ letter to the Jang Group pressuring that Dr. Mazari’s article be dropped. We are surprised that someone as familiar with the Jang Group’s editorial policy as Dr. Mazari — an official turned politician and Information Secretary/ Spokesperson of the Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf — should level such unfounded allegations. The facts of the matter are as follows: * The US ambassador had sent a letter to the Jang Group complaining that in her article published in The News the week before, Dr. Shireen Mazari had levelled certain incorrect allegations that had endangered the life of a US citizen. * In accordance with our policy, and accepted international norms, we referred the complaint to Dr. Shireen Mazari — for her feedback and comments. * While this complaint was being investigated, Dr. Mazari sent another article on Tuesday (September 1), which was to be published the next day — that is on Wednesday. In this article she had again levelled certain allegations, which were also without attribution. Since certain contentions in the previous article had been refuted and were under investigation and she had not produced any evidence or reliable reference to prove the same (nor has she been able to do so till date), we reverted to Dr. Mazari and asked if she could substantiate these allegations. The concerned editor also informed her that her article had been referred to the concerned department to make sure that it was not libellous. As it happens, on receiving supporting comments from her, as well as advice from the concerned editor, the article was published the very next day — that is on Thursday. * It is normal for embassies, political parties and other affected people and institutions to complain against perceived bias and the letter from the US ambassador was in the same vein. She neither asked us in the above letter nor any time in the past to drop articles by Dr. Mazari or by any other contributor holding similar views and writing for many years in The News. The ambassador also did not desire that the letter be kept confidential. While we take all complaints seriously, we allow them to exert no pressure on us or influence editorial policy or decisions. Therefore, at no point did anyone from the management or editorial staff of The News suggest to Dr. Mazari that this, or future, articles by her would not be published. * We not only publish articles by some of the most respected columnists in the country, but as a matter of policy, give space to people holding strong and diverse opinions. Since years some of the fiercest criticism of US policies has been voiced on the pages of The News. We are sorry that she chose to go public with accusations that have no basis in fact. — Editorial Board.
Dr. Mazari's Response
This is the response sent by Dr. Mazari to The News in response to the clarification [as received by us]:
With reference to my press conference on Wednesday, 2 September, I was clearly premature in assuming the newspaper would succumb to US pressure given its past stance on such occasions. So on that count I stand corrected by the paper’s clarification published on 7th September and appreciate the fact that I have not been victimised for my critical stance on US policies.
However, the thrust of my press conference was on multiple efforts by the US embassy to intervene in the media and I had cited my own earlier cases. Now The News has substantiated my position on this issue.
I am glad that The News has referred to US ambassador’s letter in which certain objections were made to one of my columns. My point is that she levelled a serious allegation against me – that of endangering the life of an American citizen. What proof does she have of that from my columns? Did I incite anyone to kill an American? Did I print pictures of the citizen in question? On what grounds did she come to this conclusion? Did The News editorial team ask her for substantiation of what is a serious charge? After all I was asked for so many “proofs”! Here was a foreign emissary levelling a serious allegation against a Pakistani citizen and where was the proof? My columns discuss issues and do not include any form of incitement.
The normal practice that one has seen in newspapers is for embassies to have their objections published which then allows the writer to respond to the allegations. It is strange that the US ambassador chose not to have her objections to my column published so that I could have directly responded to these.
Finally, I simply want to correct one error in The News’s clarification – I was never an “official” – otherwise I would not have been able to write a regular column. I was an academic for 16 years before I headed a research think tank as a researcher/technocrat.
I am presuming again that The News will, in its policy of fair play and equal access to all, publish this response and my appreciation once again of the paper’s ability to withstand all manner of pressures.
Shireen M. Mazari
PakNationalists Comment
Ahmed Quraishi comments:
1. The issue in question is not The News. The issue in question is a letter sent by US ambassador Anne Patterson to a Pakistani newspaper accusing a Pakistani columnist of endangering the life of a US citizen. Since Ms. Patterson provides no proof and does not seek to publish her letter, as is the custom when you dispute a published report, there is a possibility she is intimidating a known critic of US policy into submission.
2. The accepted practice is for politicians or ambassadors to send a letter that is published and then the concerned writer gets a chance to respond or apologize if he or she is wrong. This never happened. Dr. Mazari never saw a copy of the ambassador's letter or was provided proof from her writings that she was endangering the life of a US citizen.
3. US ambassador's serious accusation to Dr. Mazari of threatening a US citizen's life was taken at face value, without supporting evidence, and Dr. Mazari was asked to provide evidence for her opinions that she shapes based on circumstantial and/or factual evidence, which is what all established analysts do.
4. Nowhere in her articles did Dr. Mazari call for violence against any US citizen.
5. The US citizen in question was mentioned in several news mediums before Dr. Mazari referred to him. The US embassy never reacted in public or private to those stories, which were both in print and on television. This is why it is inexplicable why Dr. Mazari was singled out by the US ambassador, beyond the fact that Dr. Mazari is a fierce critic of US policy.
6. Several newspapers published the statements of a retired Pakistani intelligence officer accusing United States of engineering the assassination of Gen. Zia ul Haq. Did any newspaper ask him for evidence before publishing the story, which, according to the US ambassador's logic, endangers the lives of all US diplomats here since it implicates them in the murder of a former Pakistani president and almost the entire leadership of the Pakistan armed forces? It is strange, then, for the US ambassador to demand that Dr. Mazari provide evidence for her opinions and analysis.
7. The US media outlets have spread false alarm worldwide over the past two years by saying Pakistan's nuclear weapons risked falling in wrong hands. Did any one of these US news organizations provide evidence?
8. Dr. Mazari went public on the undue pressure by the US ambassador. She did not accuse the newspaper of anything, nor would it have been appropriate to do so in the first place. If anyone should be issuing clarifications, it is the US embassy because the US ambassador has failed to justify how Dr. Mazari endangered the life of a US citizen.
9. The core question here is this: Why should the US ambassador in Pakistan get away with accusing a Pakistani columnist of endangering the lives of Americans and the columnist gets a rough treatment where she is asked to produce evidence for her analysis? How do we know that Dr. Mazari is not being attacked by the US ambassador for her opinions critical of US policy?
There is no question that The News did not succumb to any pressure. The biggest evidence on this is Mr. Holbrooke's undiplomatic statement against the Geo television in June [See here].
But it is also true that the US ambassador did inadvertently get a special treatment when she got to accuse Dr. Mazari without evidence and without having her letter published for Pakistanis to see and question the veracity of her position and the position of the accused journalist, as is the custom when someone disputes a newspaper article.
In a country reeling under excessive US meddling in domestic affairs, we certainly did not need this reminder of where things stand.
Edited by Khalid Ashraf
Monday, 7 September 2009.
WWW.AHMEDQURAISHI.COM
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—The Editorial Board of the Jang Group issued a clarification published today, Sept. 7, reacting to a written complaint by US Ambassador to Pakistan Anne W. Patterson that resulted in knocking Dr. Mazari's regular column off the pages of the newspaper for one day last Wednesday, Sept. 3.
The newspaper published the regular column a day later, on Thursday Sept. 4, after back and forth with Dr. Mazari.
The clarification in The News also indirectly referred to a report published at PakNationalists/AhmedQuraishi.com and carried by several websites where the US ambassador's letter to the newspaper was described as 'private'. The paper says it was not 'private'.
It is unfortunate that a letter by the US ambassador, which was not printed or made public and as such can be legitimately misconstrued as an attempt at undue pressure by an envoy of a foreign government, has resulted in a misunderstanding between the esteemed columnist and the respected newspaper, ending a long relationship that goes back almost a decade.
The two- The News International and Dr. Mazari – are especially remembered for the bold decision taken last year by The News, one of Pakistan's largest English-language newspapers, to publish an exclusive report, written by Dr. Mazari, which prevented the Bush administration from quietly appointing an anti-Pakistan US army general as a defense attaché in Islamabad.
The ending of this relationship [Dr. Mazari joins The Nation as editor, columnist and television host as of tonight] must have engendered many smiles at the US embassy in Islamabad. There is a history between Dr. Mazari, a renowned defense expert, and the US mission here. In 2006, the US ambassador at the time reportedly approached Pakistan's Foreign Secretary to request that Dr. Mazari, who was heading a think tank financed by the Pakistan Foreign Office, be asked to stop writing columns critical of US policy in Afghanistan. Mr. Khokhar, according to Dr. Mazari, resisted the pressure. But last year, Dr. Mazari was unceremoniously removed from her post in one of the first few decisions taken by the new elected government. Mr. Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's envoy to Washington and one of America's most vocal Pakistani apologists, personally supervised the move.
The following is the clarification as published in The News International today, followed by the reply sent by Dr. Mazari to the newspaper [also received by us], and then a reply from PakNationalists, written by Ahmed Quraishi.
Clarification by The News
A press conference of Dr. Shireen Mazari was reported in the newspapers of Thursday (September 3) in which it was indicated that The News International had been pressurised by the US Embassy into dropping her article, although it appeared in the same day’s issue. Some websites have also alleged that the US ambassador has written a ‘private’ letter to the Jang Group pressuring that Dr. Mazari’s article be dropped. We are surprised that someone as familiar with the Jang Group’s editorial policy as Dr. Mazari — an official turned politician and Information Secretary/ Spokesperson of the Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf — should level such unfounded allegations. The facts of the matter are as follows: * The US ambassador had sent a letter to the Jang Group complaining that in her article published in The News the week before, Dr. Shireen Mazari had levelled certain incorrect allegations that had endangered the life of a US citizen. * In accordance with our policy, and accepted international norms, we referred the complaint to Dr. Shireen Mazari — for her feedback and comments. * While this complaint was being investigated, Dr. Mazari sent another article on Tuesday (September 1), which was to be published the next day — that is on Wednesday. In this article she had again levelled certain allegations, which were also without attribution. Since certain contentions in the previous article had been refuted and were under investigation and she had not produced any evidence or reliable reference to prove the same (nor has she been able to do so till date), we reverted to Dr. Mazari and asked if she could substantiate these allegations. The concerned editor also informed her that her article had been referred to the concerned department to make sure that it was not libellous. As it happens, on receiving supporting comments from her, as well as advice from the concerned editor, the article was published the very next day — that is on Thursday. * It is normal for embassies, political parties and other affected people and institutions to complain against perceived bias and the letter from the US ambassador was in the same vein. She neither asked us in the above letter nor any time in the past to drop articles by Dr. Mazari or by any other contributor holding similar views and writing for many years in The News. The ambassador also did not desire that the letter be kept confidential. While we take all complaints seriously, we allow them to exert no pressure on us or influence editorial policy or decisions. Therefore, at no point did anyone from the management or editorial staff of The News suggest to Dr. Mazari that this, or future, articles by her would not be published. * We not only publish articles by some of the most respected columnists in the country, but as a matter of policy, give space to people holding strong and diverse opinions. Since years some of the fiercest criticism of US policies has been voiced on the pages of The News. We are sorry that she chose to go public with accusations that have no basis in fact. — Editorial Board.
Dr. Mazari's Response
This is the response sent by Dr. Mazari to The News in response to the clarification [as received by us]:
With reference to my press conference on Wednesday, 2 September, I was clearly premature in assuming the newspaper would succumb to US pressure given its past stance on such occasions. So on that count I stand corrected by the paper’s clarification published on 7th September and appreciate the fact that I have not been victimised for my critical stance on US policies.
However, the thrust of my press conference was on multiple efforts by the US embassy to intervene in the media and I had cited my own earlier cases. Now The News has substantiated my position on this issue.
I am glad that The News has referred to US ambassador’s letter in which certain objections were made to one of my columns. My point is that she levelled a serious allegation against me – that of endangering the life of an American citizen. What proof does she have of that from my columns? Did I incite anyone to kill an American? Did I print pictures of the citizen in question? On what grounds did she come to this conclusion? Did The News editorial team ask her for substantiation of what is a serious charge? After all I was asked for so many “proofs”! Here was a foreign emissary levelling a serious allegation against a Pakistani citizen and where was the proof? My columns discuss issues and do not include any form of incitement.
The normal practice that one has seen in newspapers is for embassies to have their objections published which then allows the writer to respond to the allegations. It is strange that the US ambassador chose not to have her objections to my column published so that I could have directly responded to these.
Finally, I simply want to correct one error in The News’s clarification – I was never an “official” – otherwise I would not have been able to write a regular column. I was an academic for 16 years before I headed a research think tank as a researcher/technocrat.
I am presuming again that The News will, in its policy of fair play and equal access to all, publish this response and my appreciation once again of the paper’s ability to withstand all manner of pressures.
Shireen M. Mazari
PakNationalists Comment
Ahmed Quraishi comments:
1. The issue in question is not The News. The issue in question is a letter sent by US ambassador Anne Patterson to a Pakistani newspaper accusing a Pakistani columnist of endangering the life of a US citizen. Since Ms. Patterson provides no proof and does not seek to publish her letter, as is the custom when you dispute a published report, there is a possibility she is intimidating a known critic of US policy into submission.
2. The accepted practice is for politicians or ambassadors to send a letter that is published and then the concerned writer gets a chance to respond or apologize if he or she is wrong. This never happened. Dr. Mazari never saw a copy of the ambassador's letter or was provided proof from her writings that she was endangering the life of a US citizen.
3. US ambassador's serious accusation to Dr. Mazari of threatening a US citizen's life was taken at face value, without supporting evidence, and Dr. Mazari was asked to provide evidence for her opinions that she shapes based on circumstantial and/or factual evidence, which is what all established analysts do.
4. Nowhere in her articles did Dr. Mazari call for violence against any US citizen.
5. The US citizen in question was mentioned in several news mediums before Dr. Mazari referred to him. The US embassy never reacted in public or private to those stories, which were both in print and on television. This is why it is inexplicable why Dr. Mazari was singled out by the US ambassador, beyond the fact that Dr. Mazari is a fierce critic of US policy.
6. Several newspapers published the statements of a retired Pakistani intelligence officer accusing United States of engineering the assassination of Gen. Zia ul Haq. Did any newspaper ask him for evidence before publishing the story, which, according to the US ambassador's logic, endangers the lives of all US diplomats here since it implicates them in the murder of a former Pakistani president and almost the entire leadership of the Pakistan armed forces? It is strange, then, for the US ambassador to demand that Dr. Mazari provide evidence for her opinions and analysis.
7. The US media outlets have spread false alarm worldwide over the past two years by saying Pakistan's nuclear weapons risked falling in wrong hands. Did any one of these US news organizations provide evidence?
8. Dr. Mazari went public on the undue pressure by the US ambassador. She did not accuse the newspaper of anything, nor would it have been appropriate to do so in the first place. If anyone should be issuing clarifications, it is the US embassy because the US ambassador has failed to justify how Dr. Mazari endangered the life of a US citizen.
9. The core question here is this: Why should the US ambassador in Pakistan get away with accusing a Pakistani columnist of endangering the lives of Americans and the columnist gets a rough treatment where she is asked to produce evidence for her analysis? How do we know that Dr. Mazari is not being attacked by the US ambassador for her opinions critical of US policy?
There is no question that The News did not succumb to any pressure. The biggest evidence on this is Mr. Holbrooke's undiplomatic statement against the Geo television in June [See here].
But it is also true that the US ambassador did inadvertently get a special treatment when she got to accuse Dr. Mazari without evidence and without having her letter published for Pakistanis to see and question the veracity of her position and the position of the accused journalist, as is the custom when someone disputes a newspaper article.
In a country reeling under excessive US meddling in domestic affairs, we certainly did not need this reminder of where things stand.
The Harpoons And Pakistan's American Mess
By Ahmed Quraishi
Wednesday, 2 September 2009.
WWW.AHMEDQURAISHI.COM
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—The Americans are back to their favorite arm-twisting practice: Diplomacy through calculated media leaks. The New York Times story on alleged Pakistani modifications to old-tech US missiles is a reminder that American interests do not overlap with those of Pakistan's despite the best efforts of the pro-American lobby within the Pakistani government. This lobby has been quite active recently – through a PR campaign – in defending US position and counseling fellow citizens to stop opposing Washington because Pakistan needs American aid.
What will America's Pakistani apologists say after this indirect salvo, threatening Pakistan of scuttling the five-year, $ 7.5 billion Kerry-Lugar aid bill because Pakistan continues to develop strategic missiles and refuses to turn its army into a police force at the beck and call of Uncle Sam's bungled freedom mission in Afghanistan?
Maybe this is the reason why our usually boisterous ambassador in Washington was circumspect yesterday, saying little except that there appears to be a misunderstanding. But it is not a misunderstanding. The report – where no US official appears by name – is tailored to create panic in Islamabad and exert pressure without the need for Mr. Holbrooke's personal skills. Pakistani policymakers would do well to read between the lines.
Two things stand out: unwarranted US spying on Pakistan's strategic weaponization programs and – more importantly – the preposterous US accusation that Pakistan's defensive capability risks attracting an arms race with India.
There is only one explanation for the mounting American frustration: Despite seven years of intense pressures on Pakistan, Washington is nowhere close to putting a leash on the Pakistani military and its intelligence agencies. It does not know yet the exact location of Pakistan's nuclear bombs and warheads. It is no closer to neutralizing Pakistan's nuclear button despite the wild campaign to convince the world that Pakistan was incapable of protecting its weapons. Pakistan managed to deflect pressures and refused to turn itself into a walkway for American and Indian boots.
The credit for this goes solely to the Pakistani military and people. Our politicians, in government and opposition, remain hugely impressed with American influence and ready to work with it to counterbalance a powerful Pakistani military. The latest episode in our political soap opera, where retired intelligence officers have been used to divulge old secrets, is designed to discredit the military.
While they distract the nation with their nonissues, there is no one to question the rulers why they approved the construction of the world's largest US embassy in Islamabad when the American aid bill has not even passed US Congress? There are signs that the politicians are quietly allowing unprecedented US military and covert presence in and around the Pakistani capital in order to change the balance of power inside Pakistan in a permanent way. There are reports now that US military presence is being formalized in both Sindh and Balochistan. The frequency and detail of these reports means they cannot be discounted as hearsay.
Two Pakistani political parties, Mr. Zardari's PPP and Mr. Sharif's PMLN, both ironically created during the reigns of two different military rulers, are taking the nation for a ride in the name of democracy. Thanks to their nonperformance in the past nineteen months, Pakistan is staring at a huge national failure, from foreign policy to Gwadar. Terrorism and target killings in Balochistan are being ignored by all politicians in the name of sympathizing with a politician-turned-terrorist who secretly received weapons from abroad and who permitted his grandson to join enemies of the homeland.
Lost in this circus is any talk about health care, education, highways or infrastructure. It is a national decline.
The worst part about our politicians is not their glaring ineptitude. It is the fact that their parties are so stifled there is no hope the ruling elite will expand its limited pool of talent to include a nation brimming with initiative and yearning for change.
Wednesday, 2 September 2009.
WWW.AHMEDQURAISHI.COM
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—The Americans are back to their favorite arm-twisting practice: Diplomacy through calculated media leaks. The New York Times story on alleged Pakistani modifications to old-tech US missiles is a reminder that American interests do not overlap with those of Pakistan's despite the best efforts of the pro-American lobby within the Pakistani government. This lobby has been quite active recently – through a PR campaign – in defending US position and counseling fellow citizens to stop opposing Washington because Pakistan needs American aid.
What will America's Pakistani apologists say after this indirect salvo, threatening Pakistan of scuttling the five-year, $ 7.5 billion Kerry-Lugar aid bill because Pakistan continues to develop strategic missiles and refuses to turn its army into a police force at the beck and call of Uncle Sam's bungled freedom mission in Afghanistan?
Maybe this is the reason why our usually boisterous ambassador in Washington was circumspect yesterday, saying little except that there appears to be a misunderstanding. But it is not a misunderstanding. The report – where no US official appears by name – is tailored to create panic in Islamabad and exert pressure without the need for Mr. Holbrooke's personal skills. Pakistani policymakers would do well to read between the lines.
Two things stand out: unwarranted US spying on Pakistan's strategic weaponization programs and – more importantly – the preposterous US accusation that Pakistan's defensive capability risks attracting an arms race with India.
There is only one explanation for the mounting American frustration: Despite seven years of intense pressures on Pakistan, Washington is nowhere close to putting a leash on the Pakistani military and its intelligence agencies. It does not know yet the exact location of Pakistan's nuclear bombs and warheads. It is no closer to neutralizing Pakistan's nuclear button despite the wild campaign to convince the world that Pakistan was incapable of protecting its weapons. Pakistan managed to deflect pressures and refused to turn itself into a walkway for American and Indian boots.
The credit for this goes solely to the Pakistani military and people. Our politicians, in government and opposition, remain hugely impressed with American influence and ready to work with it to counterbalance a powerful Pakistani military. The latest episode in our political soap opera, where retired intelligence officers have been used to divulge old secrets, is designed to discredit the military.
While they distract the nation with their nonissues, there is no one to question the rulers why they approved the construction of the world's largest US embassy in Islamabad when the American aid bill has not even passed US Congress? There are signs that the politicians are quietly allowing unprecedented US military and covert presence in and around the Pakistani capital in order to change the balance of power inside Pakistan in a permanent way. There are reports now that US military presence is being formalized in both Sindh and Balochistan. The frequency and detail of these reports means they cannot be discounted as hearsay.
Two Pakistani political parties, Mr. Zardari's PPP and Mr. Sharif's PMLN, both ironically created during the reigns of two different military rulers, are taking the nation for a ride in the name of democracy. Thanks to their nonperformance in the past nineteen months, Pakistan is staring at a huge national failure, from foreign policy to Gwadar. Terrorism and target killings in Balochistan are being ignored by all politicians in the name of sympathizing with a politician-turned-terrorist who secretly received weapons from abroad and who permitted his grandson to join enemies of the homeland.
Lost in this circus is any talk about health care, education, highways or infrastructure. It is a national decline.
The worst part about our politicians is not their glaring ineptitude. It is the fact that their parties are so stifled there is no hope the ruling elite will expand its limited pool of talent to include a nation brimming with initiative and yearning for change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
