Let’s think about creating a Balochistan in southern part of Pakistan, said Congress republican Louie Gohmert, who completely backed the idea of independant Balochistan. Many people in Pakistan at present are not aware of the fact that Balochistan was invaded and forcibly annexed on March 27, 1948 (Seven and a half months after the creation of Pakistan), against the wishes of Baloch people and the two houses of Baloch parliaments who voted unanimously against the accession with Pakistan. That very day is mourned and marked as “Black day” in the land of miseries (Balochistan)

After nearly six and a half decades of annexation and prolonged journey of injustice, of discrimination, death and hopelessness, Today Baloch voice was heard in the fortress of United States, in a congressional hearing convened by the congress republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, focusing Balochistan, which was attended and rejoiced by the Baloch diaspora and pro-Balochistan activists. The Committee’s unprecedented hearing on Balochistan is the witness of of ongoing uncared-for Balochistan crisis. Rohrabacher has previously stated in one of his articles “Perhaps we should even consider support for a Balochistan carved out of Pakistan to diminish radical power there (in Pakistan)” where as the US house committee hearing has definately annoyed Pakistan’s government considering it an internal matter, and some years ago Pakistan government had refused to allow the US to open a consulate in Balochistan.

The hearing held in Rayburn House Office Building February 8, 2012 in Washington DC USA, chaired by Dana Rohrabacher. Key witnesses to speak in the hearing were C. Christine Fair (Ph.D. Assistant Professor Georgetown University), Mr. Ralph Peters (Military Analyst and Author), Mr. T. Kumar Director (International Advocacy Amnesty International USA), M. Hossein Bor (Ph.D. Counsel Entwistle & Cappucci, LLP), Mr. Ali Dayan Hasan (Pakistan Director, Asia Division Human Rights Watch)

Full scale Baloch genocide far exceeding to what Selig. S. Harrison said about a slow motion genocide two years ago, and the indigenous people’s deprivation of right to self-determination were the most significant points of discussion which were also agreed upon by all the key witnesses in the hearing. There is substantial evidence the fact that the people of Balochistan are deprived of their right to self-determination, they are being tortured forefully abducted and dumped in remote areas, over the past years there has been a gruesome increase in these human rights abuses, also highlighted by various human rights organizations (Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Asian Human Rights Commission)

Ironically out of all the witnesses Mr M. Hossein Bor was the only Baloch representative present in the hearing reflecting the true picture of the Balochistan Crisis. Mr Hossein highlighted the forceful annexation of the Balochistan province calling it an occupied territory, with his astute observation Mr Hossein reported the actual number of extra-judicial killings and fored abductions by the state sponsored institutions, he said “Extra-judical killings include 23 bullet-riddled bodies found in the first month of this year (2012), from 2001 till date around 4000 baloch have been disappeared” to which Chairman Rohrabachr expressed astonishment, in 5 minutes allowed by the chairman Mr Hossein discussed a brief but and articulated history of Balochistan highlighting the historic Durand line and Goldsmith line of 18th century, he also mentioned the Baloch insurgencies and uprisings of 1948, 1958, 1973, & 2005 till date, these insurgencies have been dealt with force and brutal military operations in which thousands of Baloch were killed. In the recent past, in 2011 alone atleast 300 bullet riddled bodies (on an average one each-day) were found, Mr Hossein also argued that the Humanright abuses were the main impediment in the process of dialogue in the province.

Christine Fair, a fairly controversial representative and an intense supporter of Pakistan with anti-India stance was also amongst the speakers. Just a week before the hearing she tweeted that “The ethnic Baloch are a minority in Balochistan” she also accused Dr Ralph peters a fellow witness of being a “nut”. Dr Ralph Peters is also known as the “Map re-drawing man” who In a June 2006 article titled “Blood borders: How a better Middle East would look“, conducted a thought experiment by changing the borders in the Middle East, wherein Balochistan was shown as an independant territory covering Baloch population of Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan, which are the historic borders of greater Balochistan.
Christince Fair in her five mintues talk voiced against extra-judicial executions and various human rights abuses, she also refuted her tweet regarding her question of Baloch majority in the province saying “Baloch are the largest ethnic group in the province” She also highlighted the target killings of Shia muslims in the province by extremist millitant groups, there is enough evidence of millitant groups (Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Sipah-e-Sahaba) backed by Pakistan millitary and Intelligence agencies perpetrating against the ethnich shia minority in Balochistan.

The only representative from Pakistan Mr Ali Dayan hassan who is also the Pakistan director of Human Rights Watch, was also provided an opportunity to speak at the US house committe hearing, he clearly stated that he being HRW representative takes no position on the Independance of Balochistan, he further added that there is not just one but multiple actors including state and non-state actors perpetrating in Balochistan involved in human rights abuses, he also said “At-least 40% of the population of Balochistan are non-Baloch” .
It is widely known that Baloch because of their small population are a minority in Pakistan, being 4% but claiming nearly half of the country’s geographic land. In Balochistan, the ethnic Baloch are atleast 75% of the total population, the southern part being a Pashtun majority, a part of British Balochistan to which Balochistan and the ethnic-Baloch historically does not have any claim, other minority ethnic groups based in Balochistan include Pashtuns, Hazaras, Urdu-speaking, Punjabi, and Sindhis. The province is sub-divided in 30 districts out of which only 9 disctricts (Ziarat, Zhob, Pashin, Quetta, Chaman, Mosakhel, Qila abdulah & Qila saifullah, Loralai) are of Pashtun majority and the remaining 21 being Baloch populated areas.
Mr Dayan’s testimony submitted to the US house committee chairman also stated ” Militancy in Balochistan has been fueled by ethnic Baloch anger over the Pakistani government’s efforts to harness local mineral and fossil fuel resources, maintain large numbers of troops in the province, and construct the Gwadar deep-sea port at the mouth of the Persian Gulf with non-Baloch workers”. If we go back half a decade we actually find out that the current insurgency was never against ” government’s efforts to harness local mineral, or against construction of the Gawadar-port”, the region is currently going through its fifth insurgency, which was ignited after the brutal assassination of Baloch leader Nawab Akbar Bugti in 2006 by General Musharraf in his dictatorial regime who before the brutal assassination openly said ” “We (millitary) will hit them (Baloch) in such a way they wouldn’t even know what hit them” The aftermath of General sahab’s millitary operation executing Nawab Bugti and state’s conolization policies which can be seen without manifestation are reasons that transformed a rights movement into a freedom movement, harnessing the resources of Balochistan, maintaining large number of troops and construction of Gawadar port are secondary issues.

Before the hearing was aired live, Pakistani embassy in Washington held that it has taken strong notice of the scheduled meeting and Pakistani officials claimed that some foreign hands are involved in fanning the violence in the province along the Afghan border. Instead of inventing another conspiracy theory out of the legitimate hearing, Pakistan government and officials should rather reconsider their colonial policies lodged against the Baloch, If Balochistan had any hopes from the state, ‘independant’ judiciary, or media, this issue would not have been picked up by the Republicans who may aswell regain power in forthcomming elections. The ordinary people of Balochistan have been tolerant for six prolonged decades, witnessing horrific executions, endless stories of deception, and shallow promises, but this day in history will be marked as a new begining of diplomacy voicing the Baloch rights, new era of  endurance and expectations. The Baloch might have to pay a high price for being heard but will hope that justice will be ‘served’ than ‘denied’

He placed his own life in danger to save millions of innocent lives from a most wanted terrorist.

The Pashtun land on both sides of the Durand Line has been devastated by Jihadi-sectarian militants including foreign terrorists like Osama Bin Laden, in collusion with Pakistani military establishment.

Dr. Shakeel Afridi did a great service to the world in general, and the Pashtun people in particular, by helping the US eliminate the Saudi Jihadi-sectarian terrorist Osama Bin Laden.

By ridding Pakistan of the most dangerous Jihadi-sectarian beast, Dr. Afridi has in fact served, not hurt the interests of the people of Pakistan. He deserves to be awarded with a civil gallantry award in recognition of his services in locating world’s most dangerous terrorist who killed thousands of Sunni and Shia Muslims, Christians, Pashtoons, Hazaras, Tajiks and other peoples of diverse religious and ethnic backgrounds.

Despite pressure by Pakistan’s military establishment, Government of Pakistan must never try Dr. Afridi for treason. He did a great service to people of Pakistan by eliminating a top leader of the terrorists who have committed crimes of terrorism against people of Pakistan from all religions and ethnicities.

All peace loving around the world who disagree with Al-Qaida ideology must do whatever they can to support the doctor and have him released by the custody of the Pakistani (military) authorities.

We support the following petition for release of the doctor and request our readers to sign it.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/drop-treason-charges-against-shakeel-afridi/

The Jan 10 strike — and its follow-up two days later — were joint operations, a Pakistani security source based in the tribal areas told Reuters.

They made use of Pakistani “spotters” on the ground and demonstrated a level of coordination that both sides have sought to downplay since tensions erupted in January 2011 with the killing of two Pakistanis by a CIA contractor in Lahore.

“Our working relationship is a bit different from our political relationship,” the source told Reuters, requesting anonymity. “It’s more productive.”

U.S. and Pakistani sources told Reuters that the target of the Jan 10 attack was Aslam Awan, a Pakistani national from Abbottabad, the town where Osama bin Laden was killed last May by a U.S. commando team.

They said he was targeted in a strike by a U.S.-operated drone directed at what news reports said was a compound near the town of Miranshah in the border province of North Waziristan.

That strike broke an undeclared eight-week hiatus in attacks by the armed, unmanned drones that patrol the tribal areas and are a key weapon in U.S. President Barack Obama’s counter-terrorism strategy.

The sources described Awan, also known by the nom-de-guerre Abdullah Khorasani, as a significant figure in the remaining core leadership of al Qaeda, which U.S. officials say has been sharply reduced by the drone campaign. Most of the drone attacks are conducted as part of a clandestine CIA operation.

The Pakistani source, who helped target Awan, could not confirm that he was killed, but the U.S. official said he was. European officials said Awan had spent time in London and had ties to British extremists before returning to Pakistan.

The source, who says he runs a network of spotters primarily in North and South Waziristan, described for the first time how U.S.-Pakistani cooperation on strikes works, with his Pakistani agents keeping close tabs on suspected militants and building a pattern of their movements and associations.

“We run a network of human intelligence sources,” he said. “Separately, we monitor their cell and satellite phones.

“Thirdly, we run joint monitoring operations with our U.S. and UK friends,” he added, noting that cooperation with British intelligence was also extensive.

Pakistani and U.S. intelligence officers, using their own sources, hash out a joint “priority of targets lists” in regular face-to-face meetings, he said.

“Al Qaeda is our top priority,” he said.

He declined to say where the meetings take place.

Once a target is identified and “marked,” his network coordinates with drone operators on the U.S. side. He said the United States bases drones outside Kabul, likely at Bagram airfield about 25 miles north of the capital.

From spotting to firing a missile “hardly takes about two to three hours,” he said.

DRONE STRIKES A SORE POINT WITH PAKISTAN

It was impossible to verify the source’s claims and American experts, who decline to discuss the drone program, say the Pakistanis’ cooperation has been less helpful in the past.

U.S. officials have complained that when information on drone strikes was shared with the Pakistanis beforehand, the targets were often tipped off, allowing them to escape.

Drone strikes have been a sore point with the public and Pakistani politicians, who describe them as violations of sovereignty that produce unacceptable civilian casualties.

The last strike before January had been on Nov 16, 10 days before 24 Pakistani soldiers were killed in what NATO says was an inadvertent cross-border attack on a Pakistani border post.

That incident sent U.S.-Pakistan relations into the deepest crisis since Islamabad joined the U.S.-led war on militancy following the Sept 11, 2001 attacks. On Thursday, Pakistani foreign minister Hina Rabbani Khar said ties were “on hold” while Pakistan completes a review of the alliance.

The United States sees Pakistan as critical to its efforts to wind down the war in Afghanistan, where U.S.-led NATO forces are battling a Taliban insurgency.

Some U.S. and Pakistani officials say that both sides are trying to improve ties. As part of this process, a U.S. official said, it is possible that some permanent changes could be made in the drone program which could slow the pace of attacks.

The security source said very few innocent people had been killed in the strikes. When a militant takes shelter in a house or compound which is then bombed, “the ones who are harboring him, they are equally responsible,” he said.

“When they stay at a host house, they (the hosts) obviously have sympathies for these guys.”

He denied that Pakistan helped target civilians.

“If … others say innocents have been targeted, it’s not true,” he said. “We never target civilians or innocents.”

The New America Foundation policy institute says that of 283 reported strikes from 2004 to Nov 16, 2011, between 1,717 and 2,680 people were killed. Between 293 and 471 were thought to be civilians — approximately 17 percent of those killed.

The Brookings Institution, however, says civilian deaths are high, reporting in 2009 that “for every militant killed, 10 or more civilians also died.” Pakistan’s interior minister, Rehman Malik, also said in April 2011 that “the majority of victims are innocent civilians.”

Still, despite its public stance, Pakistan has quietly supported the drone program since Obama ramped up air strikes when he took office in 2009 and even asked for more flights.

According to a U.S. State Department cable published by anti-secrecy organization WikiLeaks, Pakistan’s chief of army staff General Ashfaq Kayani in February 2008 asked Admiral William J. Fallon, then-commander of U.S. Central Command, for increased surveillance and round-the-clock drone coverage over North and South Waziristan.

The security source said Pakistan’s powerful spy agency, the Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence, also was supportive of the strikes, albeit privately.

Source: Reuters

اگر ایسا ہو جائے ۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔ توپاکستان کا مورال ڈاون ہو سکتا ہے

تحریر: امام بخش

آج میں بڑا خوش ہوں کیونکہ کل رات میں نے ایک خواب دیکھا ہے۔اور اسی جھوٹے خواب کے خمار میں صبح سے خوامخواہ سینہ پھلائے پھر رہا ہوں کیونکہ اس خواب کے مطابق اب انوویشنز کے مامووں سمیت پوری دنیا پاکستان کی نقالی کرتے ہوئے ترقی کی منزلیں طے کرے گی۔

خواب کے پہلے سین میں کیا دیکھتا ہوں کہ افغانستان میں انٹرنیشنل سیکورٹی اسسٹینس فورس کے ) سابق) کمانڈر جنرل اسٹینلے میک کرسٹل جلوہ افروز ہیں اور وہ رولنگ سٹون میگزین کو انٹرویو دے رہے ہیں اور باراک اوبامہ کو ان کی شخصیت اور ان کی افغانستان میں جنگی پالیسیوں پر سخت سست کہ رہے ہیں۔

خواب کے دوسرے سین میں جنرل کرسٹل کے رولنگ سٹون کے انٹرویو پر صدر باراک کے ایکشن لینے پر جنرل کرسٹل اپنے انٹرویو پر شرمندگی کا اظہار کر رہے ہیں اور معافی کے طلب گار ہیں۔

خواب کے تیسرے سین میں امریکی صدر باراک اوبامہ پورے کے اعتماد کے ساتھ کھڑے ہوکر تقریر کر رہے ہیں اور کہ رہے ہیں کہ آج میں نے جنرل کرسٹل کو افغانستان سے فوری طور پر واپس بلا کر اس سےاستعفی لے لیا ہے. کیا ہوا کہ اگر عراق اور افغانستان میں ۸۰ فیصد کامیابیوں میں جنرل کرسٹل کا ہاتھ ہے۔ مگر ہماری جمہوریت افراد کی بجائے اداروں کی مضبوطی پر منحصر ہے. اس میں ملٹری چین آف کمانڈ کا سویلین کنٹرول کے نیچے احکامات کی سختی سے تکمیل اور احترام بھی شامل ہے۔ میں چیف کمانڈر کے طور پر پورے یقین سے یہ سمجھتا ہوں کہ ہماری جمہوریت کی بقا صرف ملٹری پر سویلین کنٹرول میں ہے۔

جنرل کرسٹل مستفی ہونے کے بعد کہ رہے ہیں کہ میں اپنے کیے پر شرمںدہ ہوں۔ میرے دل میں صدر اوباما اور ان کی قومی سلامتی کے ٹیم کے لئے بہت بڑا احترام اور تعریف ہے۔

خواب کے اگلے مرحلے پر میں چونک اٹھا ،کیا دیکھتا ہوں کہ باراک اوبامہ بے چارہ امریکی چیف آف آرمی سٹاف جنرل ریمنڈ کے قدموں میں پڑا گڑگڑا رہا ہے۔ جنرل صاحب کو بہت زیادہ غصہ ہے۔ اور وہ پوری قوت سے امریکی صدر پر مسلسل چلا رہے ہیں۔ اور کہ رہے ہیں کہ تم نے چار ستارہ جنرل اسٹینلے میک کرسٹل سے کاغذی قانون کی جھوٹی طاقت کے ساتھ استعفی لے کر ملکی سلامتی کے ساتھ کھلواڑ کھیلا ہے ۔ جنرل کرسٹل نے ”ممتاز دفاع سروس میڈل” کے سا تھ لا تعداد تمغے لیے ہوئے ہیں۔ تم یقینا بہت بڑی غداری کے مرتکب ہوئے ہو۔ تمہیں ہرگز معلوم نہیں ہے کہ تم نے فوجی قیادت پر سنگین الزامات لگائے ہیں جس کے سنگین نتائج ہو سکتے ہیں۔

اوبامہ تم مجھے یہ بتاو کہ دنیا بھر کے ملکوں میں بارود کی بو جھاڑ میں در بدر ہم بھٹکیں اور تم صرف اور صرف ووٹ لے کر اور اوپر سے ایک غیر ملکی حبشی کے بیٹے ہوتے ہوئے دنیا کی سب سے بڑی مسلح فوج کے کمانڈر ان چیف بن بیٹھے ہو۔ تمھاری یہ مجال کہ ہمیں آئین یاد دلاو۔ آئین کی کیا وقعت ہے۔ وقعت صرف مسلح فورس کی موثر طاقت میں ہے۔ اور آئین ایک کتابچے کے سوا ہے ہی کیا جس کو جہاں سے چاہیں پھاڑ کر پھینک سکتے ہیں۔

بیوقوف اور ملک دشمن تم نے دفاہی بجٹ میں ہماری خواہش کے مطابق خاطر خواہ اضافہ نہیں کیا۔ اگر آپ نے ہماری تنخواہوں میں کئ گنا اضافہ کر بھی دیا ہے تو کیا ہوا۔ کیوںکہ ان بلڈی سولینز کے لیے یعنی بنیادی ڈھانچے، تحقیق، اور روزگار کے مواقع پیدا کرنے پر خرچ کرنے کی بجائے زیادہ سے زیادہ آرمی پر ہی خرچ کرو۔ کیونکہ ان سولینز کی بجائے فقط آرمی ہی محب وطن ہوتی ہے۔

دیکھو اوبامہ اب ”پی سی او” اور ”ایل ایف او” کا نسخہ ہائے کیمیا ہمارے ہاتھ لگ چکا ہے۔ ہم کسی وقت بھی ایل ایف او کا ہتھوڑا مارکر اس چڑی نما آئین کا بھرکس نکال سکتے ہیں۔ ججز تو ہمارے ڈنڈے کے ڈر سے پی سی او کے تحت حلف اٹھانے کے بعد نظریہ ضرورت کے تحت ہمیں تحفظ دے سکتے ہیں۔ اور تو اور وہ مجھے فرد واحد کو تین سال کے لیے اس دو ٹکے کے آئینی کتابچے کو کہیں سے بھی تبدیل کرنے کی اجازت دینے کے لیے بخوشی تیار ہیں۔

اوبامہ کان کھول کر سن لو کہ آج کے بعد کوئی ملکی خفیہ ایجنسی آپ کو رپورٹ نہیں کرے گی۔ بلکہ وہ صرف آپ اور آپ کے وزیروں کی ہر حرکت پر نظر رکھے گی۔ سی آئی اے اور ایف بی آئی کے چیفس کہیں بھی جائیں اور جو بھی کریں۔ آپ سے اجازت لینے کوئی ضرورت نہیں ہو گی۔ اور کبھی من موجی ہوکر چائے کی پیالی میں طوفان کھڑا کرنا چاہیں۔ تو ان کو پوری اجازت ہو گی اور اس پر بھی تم جوابدہ ہوگے۔

۔ اب ہیلری کلنٹن کو بتا دو کہ وزارت خارجہ ہم چلائیں گے۔

۔ لیون پنیٹا کو بھی خبر کر دو کہ آج کے بعد وزارت دفاع کے سارے معاملات ہم دیکھیں گے۔ اور اس کا کردار صرف نمائشی ہوگا۔

۔ آئندہ کوئی بھی غیر ملکی آفیشئیل امریکہ آئے گا تو وہ کسی اور سے ملے نا ملےمگرآرمی چیف سے ضرورملے گا۔ اور ان سے کوئی بھی معاہدہ ہماری ہی مرضی سے ہو گا۔

۔ آئندہ آرمی آپ سے پوچھے بغیر کوئی بھی آپریشن شروع یا ختم کر سکتی ہے۔

۔ ہم کسی بھی پارلیمنٹ کے قانون کو بلاک کر سکتے ہیں۔

۔ اورآج کے بعد امریکن آرمی کا آڈٹ بند۔

پھر خواب کا منظر بدلتا ہے اورمیں دیکھتا ہوں کہ چھوٹی موٹی اپوزیشن پارٹیوں کے ساتھ ساتھ ریپبلکن پارٹی کے جان مکین بھی پارلیمنٹ میں کردار کرنے کی بجائے جنرل ریمنڈ کی چاپلوسی میں کوئی کسر نہیں چھوڑ رہا ہے۔ اور وہ چوکڑی مار کر بیٹھا ہوا جنرل صاحب کے پورے ذوق وشوق سے بوٹ پالش کرنے میں مشغول ہے۔

اگلے سین میں جان مکین اور امریکہ کی سپریم کورٹ کے چیف جسٹس الینا کاگن ایک دوسرے کو بھرپور تعاون کی یقین دھانی کروا رہے ہیں۔

خواب کے اگلے سین میں دیکھتا ہوں کہ چیف جسٹس الینا کاگن دھڑادھڑ سوموٹوایکشنز لے رہے ہیں اوراصل مقدموں کو چھوڑ کرحکومتی اقدامات کو معطل کر کے ملک کا خوب ”فائدہ” کر رہے ہیں۔ اس سے پہلے سونے پر سہاگہ چیف جسٹس صاحب نے اپنے یار لوگوں کے بتیجھوں، دامادوں اور لاء چیمبرز سے ہی ملکی عدالتوں کو ججز نوازے ہیں۔

چیف جسٹس الیناکہہ رہیں ہیں کہ آئین کے خالق پارلیمنٹیرینز آئین کی تشریح کیا جانیں۔ آئین کی تشریح (من پسند) بھی صرف ہمارا کام ہے۔ عوام کے منتخب نمائدوں کی بجائے حکومتی کاروبار چلانا بھی ہمارا صوابدیدی اختیار ہے۔ انصاف ہو تا ہوا نظر آئے نا آئے مگر ہمارا ”انصاف” سب کو ماننا پڑے گا۔ آج کل ہم توہین عدالت کے قانون کی تلوار کو ”اندھے انصاف” کی طرح خوب چلا رہے ہیں۔ اس تلوار کی دھار بہت تیز ہے کیونکہ دھار لوہار کی بھٹی اور مسلح کاریگروں کی لیبارٹری کا شہکار نمونہ ہے۔

خواب کے آخری منظر میں امریکن ٹی وی چینلز پر ”شیخ الحدیث” رونق افروز ہیں۔ اخباروں میں ”منصوروں” کے تجزیوں کی بھرمار ہے۔ میڈیا ”ریٹنگ” کے چکرمیں ملکی مفاد کی خوب ”آبیاری” کر رہا ہے۔ اس آبیاری کو مزید ترقی دینےاور ٹاک شوز کی مقبولیت بڑھانے کے لیے پاکستانی سیاستدانوں کو امریکی سیاستدانوں کے لیے ٹریننگ ورکشاپز منعقد کرنے کے دعوت نامے موصول ہونا شروع ہو گے ہیں۔ ہمارے روئیداد خان اور شیخ رشید تو پوری آب وتاب سے اپنے ”غیرتمند جگرے” کےساتھ امریکی میڈیا پر وہاں کے سیاستدانوں کو اپنے زریں خیالات سے براہ راست نواز رہے ہیں۔

خواب سے جاگنے کے بعد خوش ہونے کے ساتھ ساتھ میں اس سوچ میں بھی گم ہوں کہ اگر ایسا ہو جائے اورامریکہ کے بعد پاکستان کے مقابلے میں دوسرے ”غیرترقی یافتہ” ملک یعنی فرانس، انگلینڈ، جرمنی، کینیڈا، چین، ڈنمارک، ناروے، آسٹریلیا، ہالینڈ، سویڈن، سوئٹزر لینڈ وغیرہ وغیرہ پاکستان کی نقالی کرتے ہوئے پاکستان سے زیادہ ترقی کی منزلیں طے کریں گے تو ہمارا ”مورال” کافی گر سکتا ہے۔ اور اس خصوصی ”ترقی” پر ہماری اجارہ داری ختم ہو سکتی ہے۔

State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland addressed the issue in a “twitter-briefing”.—Reuters photo

Editor’s note: While we are cross-posting this article, right now there is an unannounced military operation currently taking place in Kohlu, Balochistan against Baloch insurgents. According to Baloch social media activists, bomber jets have been used today (16 Jan 2012) to attack Baloch insurgents in Khujal area of Kohlu district in Balochistan killing at least 13 Balochs. There has been a complete blackout in Pakistan’s electronic and print media about the aerial bombing. English press, Pakistan’s so called liberal media, has in fact published a pro-army version of the story which can be read here (10 militants killed in Chamalang area). We condemn Pakistan army’s continued target killing of the Balochs and also condemn Pakistan’s mainstream media and bloggers on their continued silence on or misrepresentation of the Baloch genocide. It’s only yesterday that Pakistan army backed Jihadi-sectarian monsters killed 20 Shia Muslims in Khanpur (Punjab) and today we are mourning 13 more of our own (Balochs)! Is there an end to this madness in sight? (End note)

************

US urges Pakistan to hold dialogue on Balochistan -by Anwar Iqbal

WASHINGTON: The US has urged Pakistan to “really lead and conduct a dialogue that takes the Balochistan issue forward”, says the US State Department.

State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland addressed the issue in a “twitter-briefing” that the department holds every Friday, allowing people from around the world to tweet their questions to her.

“This was a very popular question on our feed, so we wanted to make sure that we answered it today,” said Ms Nuland who focused on the violence plaguing Balochistan instead of tackling political issues raised in most of the tweets.

“The United States is deeply concerned about the ongoing violence in Balochistan, especially targeted killings, disappearances and other human rights abuses,” she said.

“This is a complex issue. We strongly believe that the best way forward is for all the parties to resolve their differences through peaceful dialogue.”

The State Department official noted that the US took the allegations of human rights abuses very seriously and had discussed these issues with Pakistani officials. “And we also urged them to really lead and conduct a dialogue that takes this issue forward,” she concluded.

While her answer may not satisfy Baloch nationalists who had sent most of the questions, it would still irk Pakistani authorities who do not want the Balochistan issue to be discussed at international forums.

Washington-based Baloch nationalists are hoping that Ms Nuland’s response would set an example and encourage other governments and international organisations, such as the United Nations, to address the issue.

The question that Ms Nuland responded to came from Pakistan from a person who identified himself only as “Cadet 1081” and asked: “Pakistan is committing genocide of the Baloch nation, why does the US not intervene in Balochistan and make us get our freedom?”

While Ms Nuland confined herself to addressing the issue of human rights violations, other respondents did not. “Pakistan is not killing Baloch people. Only the followers of Balach and Hyrbyar want freedom,” wrote Mr Spirit 110.

“Pakistan is killing innocent Baloch people and the world is blind. It is our right to be free,” wrote Behuman.

Source: DAWN

Pakistan’s civilian government, led by the Pakistan People’s Party, has long been an irritant to the country’s generals. President Asif Ali Zardari runs a corrupt and inept administration and has been far too willing to cozy up to Washington. Husain Haqqani, until November 2011, was Pakistan’s controversial envoy to the United States. He has been a thorn in the side of General Headquarters since publishing his book Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military in 2005 while at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. However, the Pakistani Army swallowed its contempt for the government and such representatives as Haqqani because the generals had very little choice in the matter — at least, that is, until now.

One reason is that, after nearly a decade of living under Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Pakistanis are wary of military rule. The Army, too, has suffered a series of beatings to its reputation after nearly a decade of unpopular military cooperation with the United States and even more unpopular operations on Pakistan’s soil. The Army knows that another military government would be a tough sell.

Another reason is that, while the Army made much of the sanguinary NATO strike that killed 24 soldiers in November, both it and the ISI — Pakistan’s most notorious intelligence agency — are still smoldering over the humiliating facts that Osama Bin Laden enjoyed sanctuary in a cantonment town a short distance from the premier Pakistan Military Academy and that the United States could conduct a unilateral raid to kill and extract him before the Army even had a clue. Thus, the Army has been forced to work behind the scenes and through other institutions, such as the judiciary, to keep this government on his heels.

Third, no matter how detestable Zardari, Inc. may be to the men in khaki, they have had no real alternative until now. The primary rival to Zardari and his PPP is former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his political fiefdom, the Pakistan Muslim League. The Army is scarcely more able to stomach a Sharif return to power after he sacked one Army chief (Gen. Jehangir Karamat) and tried to sack another (Musharraf). Karamat, a true democrat, retired without resistance; however, when Sharif tried to oust Musharraf, the Army rolled in and toppled his government.

But the Army’s luck is changing along with that of Imran Khan, whose political fortunes have shifted in recent months. For years, the lothario cricket star turned politician could barely win his own seat. However, with what Pakistanis suspect is support from the military and ISI, Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party has successfully wooed numerous turncoat politicians and their swollen vote banks. Khan has asked politicians who are now joining PTI to vacate their current elected seats in the parliament both as a means of ensuring that they do not reverse course but also as a ploy to bring about fresh elections earlier than 2013, when general polls are to be held. So far, PTI does not have the numbers needed to bring down the government, but politics in Pakistan is about coalitions and vote banks. This is a long shot, but not impossible with ever more self-interested politicians from other parties flocking his way.

Khan holds views that align well with those of the Army. He has roused the sentiments of Pakistan’s masses by calling for a restructuring — if not outright cessation — of military cooperation with Washington. He supports the Afghan Taliban, believes that Pakistan’s armed forces should not be operating against Pakistani militants, and espouses a strong — if absurdly pandering and unrealistic — position on corruption. His views on sharia and blasphemy are chameleon-like. He is anything to anyone.

Not only does the Army have a palatable political alternative to either the PPP or PML-N — it now has a mechanism to bring about the downfall of this government: Pakistan’s interventionist Supreme Court. The current chief justice, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, has long loathed Zardari because the latter opposed his reinstatement following his dismissal by then President Musharraf. The Supreme Court also rubbished a constitutional amendment — the “National Reconciliation Ordinance” (NRO) — that dropped various criminal charges against Zardari and his wife, Benazir Bhutto, along with other PPP members.

This legislation, which was brokered along with Musharraf and the U.S. government, paved the way for Bhutto’s return in the fall of 2007. Washington understood the NRO to be the only way to salvage Musharraf’s battered legitimacy by allowing him to remain as president while also paving the way for Bhutto to become prime minister following elections scheduled for late 2007. Her assassination changed everyone’s fortunes.

In 2009, the Supreme Court ruled that the NRO was unconstitutional, with obvious implications for the various PPP officials who benefited from it, including Zardari. The Supreme Court has demanded to know why the government has failed to implement its 2009 vacation of the NRO by reinstating all criminal cases. The Supreme Court has also informed Zardari that he does not enjoy automatic immunity from prosecution for his alleged crimes.

The Army also now has a newer hook to hang proceedings against this government: the “Memogate” scandal. In the aftermath of the bin Laden raid, a mysterious memo was delivered to Adm. Mike Mullen, then chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, . The memo asked for U.S. assistance to stave off a coup and in return offered to reverse Pakistan’s decades-long policy of jihad under an expanding nuclear umbrella. Mullen admits he received the document, but quickly concluded that it was not credible. The memo riles Pakistan’s military and intelligence officials because it sought to put them in their proper place: under civilian control. This was the last straw for Pakistan’s security complex, which for years has objected to this government’s efforts to enlist U.S. assistance in curbing its power and influence.

At the vortex of Memogate is Haqqani, now back in Pakistan and subject to a travel ban, and Mansoor Ijaz, a wealthy Pakistani-American well-known for shady dealings. For outside observers, the proceedings are bizarre. On Nov. 23, former Prime Minister Sharif filed a petition to the Supreme Court demanding a probe into the scandal under Article 184(3) of Pakistan’s Constitution. With no charges filed and without any reference from a lower court, Pakistan’s highest court of appeal has ordered a judicial commission to determine the authenticity and providence of the memo within four weeks. (This is possible because this provision of Pakistan’s Constitution permits the court to directly hear a matter that is of public importance relating to the enforcement of fundamental rights.)

Whether or not Haqqani drafted or dictated the memo in question is difficult to discern, as there is no direct evidence linking him to it other than Ijaz’s assertions and a series of cryptic BlackBerry messages. Ijaz claims Haqqani dictated the memo to him over the phone, and thus far Ijaz has not claimed to have recordings of those conversations. Few analysts are foolhardy enough to vigorously defend either man, as both have long-established records of duplicity and double-dealing.

The stakes are high for Haqqani. He believes that his life is in danger because he has been widely depicted in Pakistan’s jingoistic press as having sold out Pakistan’s sovereignty to the Americans. That he has been an extremely effective ambassador and ably buffeted Pakistan from various U.S. fits of outrage is immaterial: Haqqani has been presumed to be guilty, has not been afforded the opportunity to present his version of events to counter those of Ijaz, has been denied freedom of movement without any charges being filed against him, and lives as a virtual prisoner within the prime minister’s house.

Leaving aside the particular fate of Haqqani, it’s important to understand this bizarre fiasco as a new sort of coup. In the old days, Pakistani generals sent tanks to oust a government. Now they plant stories in the press and manipulate the legal system.

First, if, for the sake of argument, one assumes that Haqqani is the author of the memo and indeed requested U.S. assistance in maintaining and expanding civilian control over the government and national security policy, the request is hardly treasonous. After all, the political disposition articulated in the memo is exactly what is called for in Pakistan’s Constitution — civilian control of the military.

Second, Haqqani is hardly the first to request U.S. involvement in Pakistan’s national security affairs. In 1950, Pakistan’s first premier, Liaqat Ali Khan, told an American journalist that should the United States “guarantee our territorial integrity, I will not keep any Army at all.” Instead, Khan’s visit ushered in the deep military cooperation with Pakistan that has enabled the Army to strongly root itself as the dominant institution in the country. But no one even intimated that such statements were treasonous.

Third, if Ijaz is to be believed, we must also consider his claim that Pakistan’s spy chief, Lt. Gen. Ahmad Shuja Pasha, traveled to the Gulf to secure permission to sack Zardari. Surely, if these claims have any credence, such action is clearly an extraconstitutional step to undermine the government, if not high treason under Article 6 of Pakistan’s battered 1973 Constitution.

Watchers of Pakistan’s sordid history of military intrusion into civilian affairs understand the rich irony of this current saga. Not one of the generals who have overthrown varied governments has ever been charged with treason. Not one of the varied Supreme Court justices who violated their oaths to protect the Constitution by providing judicial sanction to Pakistan’s varied military coups has ever been punished.

So let’s call the devil by his name: Memogate should be understood as a sophisticated attempt by the Army and intelligence agency to use the court to bring down this government, not just a titillating imbroglio involving Husain Haqqani.

But is there anything Washington can do about it? While the current Pakistani government is certainly abysmal, what’s also true is that the only way Pakistani democracy can solidify is through consecutive constitutional changes of power through elections. If the United States and its partners genuinely support Pakistan’s fragile democracy as the only means to achieve a more stable Pakistan in the long run, then they should act now to preempt the coup that, ironically, the suspect memo was supposedly written to prevent in the first place.

Source: Foreign Policy

US Ambassador Ryan C Crocker, Gen Jahangir Karamat, US Defence Attaché Col Gene McConville and Najam Sethi at the latter’s residence. (2007)

There are many points of merit in Mr. Najam Sethi’s editorial for The Friday Times (TFT, 6-12 Jan 2012).

While there are some crucial omissions, one must give Mr. Sethi credit for stating a few bold things. The problem is Mr. Sethi himself fails on many of these counts.

In the last year, he has:

1. Stated the following in his September 23rd editorial: “there is only one institutional force that can establish the writ of the state and restore law and order. That is the Pakistan Army.”

2. Promoted the works of a controversial Indian author who has sought to dilute the role of the Pakistan Army in the 1971 genocide in East Pakistan

3. Been a part of the “elite” panel of “journalists/analysts/ex-military bureaucrats that have argued for supporting the Taliban as an instrument of Pakistan’s (read military establishment’s) policy in Afghanistan

4. Shifted the blame for Pakistan’s military’s actions on to the elected government.

So it is heartening to see that Mr. Sethi has laid down a criteria that exposes himself; even if that criteria has omitted some crucial points.

For starters, when talking about the danger to journalists, Mr. Sethi has highlighted the name of a Punjabi victim of the ISI and not a Baloch or Pashtun victim! His discourse is typically Punjabi-urban centric and unfortunately often laden with contempt for the PPP which derives its electoral strenght from Sindh, Southern Punjab and many areas of FATA, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Balochistan, Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan.

Mr. Sethi has also conveniently omitted how the media along with the judiciary has played a crucial role in slandering all those journalists who have taken a line that differs from that of the establishment. It is the Punjabi-Jamaat-e-Islami dominated media that has reinforced the grotesque criteria used to malign journalists with a differing viewpoint.

The most troubling element in Mr. Sethi’s simplistic definitional article is the implicit false liberal-conservative binary and selective posturing. The false binary that comes across is that those who don’t brazenly reinforce the jingoism of the Urdu press are the victims, the CIA agents. Nothing could be further from the truth.

For starters, the psuedo liberal or life style liberal journalists who are being lionised in this false binary of being CIA agents are far more subtle and insidious in their support for the military establishment. Like Najam Sethi, they will continue to selectively undermine the elected PPP government, heap mostly unsubstantiated abuse on its leaders and like Sethi, occassionly offer token, diluted and vague criticism of the military establishment.

Hence the false binary that journalists like Najam Sethi are CIA agents is ludicrous on many levels. For one, calling someone a CIA agent is reflective of a conspiracy theory laden and xenophobic mindset and hence does not constitute a credible argument against the inconsistencies and pro-army scholarship of Mr. Sethi. Secondly, when viewed in the context of his career, Mr. Sethi comes across as a journalist who has preferred military dictators to elected governments.

Furthermore, the selective posturing is limited to highighting the threats on Mr. Husain Haqqani’s life. There is little if any mention of the ongoing army-backed judicial coup and how the media and judiciary are cohesively undermining the PPP government.

Creating false binaries and selective posturing makes some of us skeptical of Mr. Sethi’s claims. However, unlike his insensitivity to elected PPP leaders, one should take him at his word and wish him the full security that is the right of every Pakistani. It pains many when Najam Sethi, Ejaz Haider and Hamid Mir engage in such acts being apologists for genocidal anti-Ahmadi, anti-Shia Lashkar-e-Jhangvi. It disappoints us when they line up with the military establishment to heap slander on the PPP government. It is a matter of concern for us when in their intellectual dishonesty, they distort and omit crucial facts to shift the blame of the wrongs of the military on to elected governments.

Their blaming-the-victim tactics are a disgrace to journalism as is their participation in caretaker governments that followed the coups undertaken against the 1996 PPP government. However criticism against these characters must be based on principles and not silly slander (CIA agent allegations) and threats. We condemn both.

Adding to the miseries of Hazara Shias, who are already living under the severe kind of persecution and violence in Pakistani provincial capital Quetta at the hands of radical Shia haters i.e. likes of Malik Ishaq who had been released earlier this year as a result of so called peace deal between Pakistani security establishment and the banned outfits to placate the sectarian organization, Obama administration is all set to hand over another notorious Shia killer Mullah Mohammed Fazl to Afghanistan as part of a long-shot bid to improve prospects of peace deal in Afghanistan. Mullah Mohammed Fazl is a high risk detainee held at Guantanamo Bay military prison since earlier 2002. Mullah was held responsible by the UN for the massacre of thousands of Hazara Shias in Bamian and Yakaolang between 1998 and 2001 during the Taliban rule in Afghanistan.

WASHINGTON, Dec 29 (Reuters) - The Obama administration is considering transferring to Afghan custody a senior Taliban official suspected of major human rights abuses as part of a long-shot bid to improve the prospects of a peace deal in Afghanistan, Reuters has learned.

The potential hand-over of Mohammed Fazl, a ‘high-risk detainee’ held at the Guantanamo Bay military prison since early 2002, has set off alarms on Capitol Hill and among some U.S. intelligence officials.

As a senior commander of the Taliban army, Fazl is alleged to be responsible for the killing of thousands of Afghanistan’s minority Shi’ite Muslims between 1998 and 2001.

According to U.S. military documents made public by WikiLeaks, he was also on the scene of a Nov. 2001 prison riot that killed CIA operative Johnny Micheal Spann, the first American who died in combat in the Afghan war. There is no evidence, however, that Fazl played any direct role in Spann’s death.

Senior U.S. officials have said their 10-month-long effort to set up substantive negotiations between the weak government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the Taliban has reached a make-or-break moment. Reuters reported earlier this month that they are proposing an exchange of “confidence-building measures,” including the transfer of five detainees from Guantanamo and the establishment of a Taliban office outside of Afghanistan.

Now Reuters has learned from U.S. government sources the identity of one of the five detainees in question.

The detainees, the officials emphasized, would not be set free, but remain in some sort of further custody. It is unclear precisely what conditions they would be held under.

In response to inquiries by Reuters, a senior administration official said that the release of Fazl and four other Taliban members had been requested by the Afghan government and Taliban representatives as far back as 2005.

The debate surrounding the White House’s consideration of high-profile prisoners such as Fazl illustrates the delicate course it must tread both at home and abroad as it seeks to move the nascent peace process ahead.

One U.S. intelligence official said there had been intense bipartisan opposition in Congress to the proposed transfer.

“I can tell you that the hair on the back of my neck went up when they walked in with this a month ago, and there’s been very, very strong letters fired off to the administration,” the official said on condition of anonymity.

The senior administration official confirmed that the White House has received letters from lawmakers on the issue. “We will not characterize classified Congressional correspondence, but what is clear is the President’s order to us to continue to discuss these important matters with Congress,” the official said.

Even supporters of a controversial deal with the Taliban – a fundamentalist group that refers to Americans as infidels and which is still killing U.S., NATO and Afghan soldiers on the battlefield – say the odds of striking an accord are slim.

Critics of Obama’s peace initiative remain deeply skeptical of the Taliban’s willingness to negotiate, given that the West’s intent to pull out most troops after 2014 could give insurgents a chance to reclaim lost territory or push the weak Kabul government toward collapse.

The politically charged nature of the initiative was on display this month when the Karzai government angrily recalled its ambassador from Doha and complained Kabul was being cut out of U.S.-led efforts to establish a Taliban office in Qatar.

U.S. officials appear to have smoothed things over with Karzai since then. Karzai’s High Peace Council is signaling it would accept a liaison office for the Taliban office in Qatar – but also warning foreign powers that they cannot keep the Afghan government on the margins.

The detainee transfer may be even more politically explosive for the White House. In discussing the proposal, U.S. officials have stressed the move would be a ‘national decision’ made in consultation with the U.S. Congress.

Obama is expected to soon sign into law a defense authorization bill whose provisions would broaden the military’s power over terrorist detainees and require the Pentagon to certify in most cases that certain security conditions will be met before Guantanamo prisoners can be sent home.

The mere idea of such a transfer is already raising hackles on Capitol Hill, where one key senator last week cautioned the administration against negotiating with “terrorists.”

Senator Saxby Chambliss, the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said such detainees would “likely continue to pose a threat to the United States” even once they were transferred.

POTENTIAL MAELSTROM

In February, the Afghan High Peace Council named a half-dozen it wanted released as a goodwill gesture. The list included Fazl; senior Taliban military commander Noorullah Noori; former deputy intelligence minister Abdul Haq Wasiq; and Khairullah Khairkhwa, a former interior minister.

All but Khairkhwa were sent to Guantanamo on January 11, 2002, according to the military documents, meaning they were among the first prisoners sent there.

Bruce Riedel, a former CIA and White House official, said Fazl was alleged to have been involved in ‘very ugly’ violence against Shi’ites, including members of the Hazara ethnic minority, beginning in the late 1990s, and the deaths of Iranian diplomats and journalists at the Iranian consulate in the northern Afghan city of Mazar-i-Sharif in 1998.

Michael Semple, a former UN official with more than two decades of experience in Afghanistan, said Fazl commanded thousands of Taliban soldiers at a time when its army carried out massacres of Shi’ites. “If you’re head of an army that carries out a massacre, even if you’re not actually there, you are implicated by virtue of command and control responsibility,” he said.

He added: “However it does not serve the interests of justice selectively to hold Taliban to account, while so many other figures accused of past crimes are happily reintegrated in Kabul.”

Some U.S. military documents – select documents have been released, others were leaked – indicate that Fazl denied being a senior Taliban official and says he only commanded 50 or 60 men. But the overall picture of his role is unclear from the documents which have become public.

Richard Kammen is an Indiana lawyer who has nominally represented Fazl; the detainee did not want an attorney.

“Based upon the public information with which I’m familiar, it would appear his role in things back in 2001 has been significantly exaggerated by the government,” Kammen said.

According to the documents, Fazl and Noori surrendered to Abdul Rashid Dostum, now Afghanistan’s army chief of staff but at the time a powerful warlord battling against the Taliban, in northern Afghanistan in November 2001.

While the men were being held at the historic Qala-i-Jani fortress in Mazar-i-Sharif, Taliban prisoners revolted against their captors from the Northern Alliance, the anti-Taliban coalition.

“Dostum brought (Fazl and Noori) to the bunker to ask the prisoners to surrender; detainee and (Noori) refused,” the detainee assessment from a 2008 document read.

Spann, a one-time Marine captain who was sent to Afghanistan as a CIA operative in the fall of 2001, was trying to locate al Qaeda operatives at the Mazar fortress among a large group of Taliban soldiers who had surrendered, according to the CIA and media reports at the time. When the Taliban prisoners began to riot – many of them were apparently armed – Spann was surrounded and killed. After a bloody, multi-day battle his body was later found booby-trapped.

Even a loose association between Fazl and Spann’s death – despite the fact there is nothing to suggest he was directly involved – is likely to increase the temperature of the debate in Washington.

What could be problematic for some Afghans is Fazl’s identification with the killing of civilians in central and northern Afghanistan.

“The composition and timing of any release has got to pay attention to Northern Alliance concerns,” Semple said.

Buy-in from supporters of that alliance – and from those wary of a resurgent Taliban – will be key in making a peace deal stick, if one can be had.

Despite the congressional concerns that released Taliban will return to the battlefield, Semple said it was unlikely even prisoners like Fazl – who truly was a significant military figure for the Taliban – would alter that equation.

“These people are not going to make a real contribution to the Taliban war effort even if they are able to go over to Quetta and rejoin the fight. It’s not risky in battlefield terms; it’s only risky in U.S. political terms.” (Additional reporting by Tabassum Zakaria, Patrick Worsnip and Jane Sutton; editing by Claudia Parsons)

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/30/mohammed-fazl-hand-over-considered_n_1175333.html

According to the Wikileaks cable (http://wikileaks.ch/gitmo/pdf/af/us9af-000007dp.pdf) released earlier this year, the detainee (Mullah Mohammed Fazl’s) file tells that:

“Detainee was the Taliban Deputy Minister of Defense during Operation Enduring Freedom and is an admitted senior commander who served as Chief of Staff of the Taliban Army and as a commander of the 22nd Division. Detainee is wanted by the UN for possible war crimes including the murder of thousands of Shiites. Detainee was associated with terrorist groups currently opposing US and Coalition forces.”  

“Detainee and his mother moved from Uruzgan Province to Afghan refugee camps in Pakistan (PK) during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (1979-1989). In Pakistan, detainee received six years of religious training at the Rabinyah Madrassa in Quetta, PK”. 

“Detainee is an admitted senior official of the Taliban government and army and was last assigned to the position of Deputy Minister of Defense. Detainee also served as Chief of Staff of the Taliban Army and a commander of the 22nd Division. Detainee is wanted by the UN for possible war crimes including the murder of thousands of Shiites.”

“Detainee was implicated in the murder of thousands of Shiites in northern Afghanistan during the Taliban reign. When asked about the murders, detainee and AF-006 did not express any regret and stated they did what they needed to do in their struggle to establish their ideal state.” 

“Shortly after detainee’s surrender to Northern Alliance forces, Northern Alliance commanders discussed giving detainee amnesty. However, some Northern Alliance commanders strongly opposed amnesty for detainee, because he and Dadullah Lang were allegedly responsible for massacres at Yakawlang, Bamyan Province, AF, in which several hundred civilians were killed.” 

The longstanding conflict of Pakistani security establishment, The Taliban and Al-Qaeda, and the Americans in Afghanistan is thriving now at the expense of innocent Shias living under fear of death on both sides of Afpak border. Recent killing of around one hundred innocent Shias in Afghanistan on the occasion of Ashura, perpetrated by the LeJ-Alaalmi,  seems to be the tip of the iceberg that points out to the state of Shias getting wretched in coming days once the US troops leave Afghan land. To hand over the notorious convicts of Shia massacre in Afghanistan like Mullah Mohammed Fazl may end up in spate of sectarian violence in Afghanistan where Shias already are living as oppressed and persecuted community vis-à-vis in Pakistan where so-called peace deals with blood-thirsty monsters have brought a new wave of sectarian violence against Shias.

Video: Oppression of Hazara in Afghanistan

The is a great victory news for the Saudi-Wahhabi-Ikhwan lobby in Washington, D.C. as well as for Pakistan’s pro-Taliban ISI. It is a sad moment for Afghanistan’s women, peaceful Pashtuns, ethnic minority groups (Tajik, Hazara, Uzbek etc) and religious minority groups (Shia Muslims, Ahmadi Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Christians).

The Taliban are not an enemy of the U.S. and should not be talked about in such terms, Joe Biden has claimed. The vice-president said the militant Islamist group only represents an inherent threat if it allows Al-Qaeda to strike at the U.S.

In an interview with Newsweek, Mr Biden warned against labelling the Taliban as an enemy. He said: ‘That’s critical. There is not a single statement that the president has ever made in any of our policy assertions that the Taliban is our enemy because it threatens U.S. interests.’

Mr Biden’s comments come as senior U.S. officials prepare to negotiate a peace deal with Taliban militants. Even after a surge in U.S. troops in Afghanistan has pushed the Taliban out of much of their southern stronghold, the group’s intentions regarding peace talks remain unclear.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2076564/Taliban-enemy-says-Joe-Biden-US-negotiate-deal-end-Afghanistan-war.html

But a key Republican senator yesterday warned against negotiations with the Taliban.

Senator Saxby Chambliss, senior Republican on the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee, said: ‘It sounds as if the administration has decided to negotiate with terrorists, something the United States does not do. ‘Handing over detainees, who likely continue to pose a threat to the United States, should not be the first step in building confidence.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2076564/Taliban-enemy-says-Joe-Biden-US-negotiate-deal-end-Afghanistan-war.html#ixzz1hAjGS6wQ

According to John Bolton: “So the George Aiken strategy: We’ll declare victory and get out — that is what the administration is going to do in the war on terror. Having redefined who the terrorists are and having said the Taliban is not our enemy, they’re going to say we have won and the war is over.

“They are horrible to anybody who [does not] conform to their particular ideology. Let’s be clear: When we went into Afghanistan after 9/11, it was because we had gone to Mullah Omar and the Taliban and said give us al-Qaida — and if you don’t you’ll suffer the consequences,” he said. “They refused to do it. And under the theory that I think is still correct that if you aid terrorists you are just as guilty as terrorists, we took the Taliban government down. They had allowed al-Qaida to embed throughout their administration — they were just as guilty. If they got back in power they would be base of operations for other terrorists in the future.”

http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/terror-taliban-bolton/2011/12/21/id/421680

Vice President Joe Biden’s comment in a Newsweek interview that “the Taliban is not the enemy per se” has ignited a firestorm. Retired firefighter Lee Ielpi, who arrived at the World Trade Center within a half hour of the second collapse on September 11, and whose son, Jonathan, also a firefighter, died in the South Tower, is among those incensed.

Lee Ielpi, a retired New York firefighter who lost his son, Jonathan, in the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center, had this to say about Biden’s remark, made in the Newsweek interview with Leslie Gelb.

I find it troubling that the vice president would make such a statement. I think that if we were to ask the many thousands of families who have lost their loved ones fighting this war in Afghanistan, I don’t think they would be pleased either. The people we’re fighting in Afghanistan are the Taliban. They supported al Qaeda. I don’t know how we can make a statement that they aren’t our enemy. They’ve killed thousands of our soldiers. Ask the families of the thousands of soldiers who have been killed and wounded whether the Taliban are our enemy.

I had the opportunity to meet well over 1,800 wounded vets who are 18, 19, 20, 21 year old, who have come back from fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. I understand there are two issues as far as al Qaeda and the Taliban go, but I feel strongly that they’re one and the same. Their hatred for the West is quite obvious. I find it difficult to understand any difference between the two. And I’m quite confident that if we ask our wounded vets and the families of those wonderful vets who gave their lives that they would say the same, that they’re one and the same.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/20/biden-taliban-remark-draws-heat-from-9-11-rescuer-whose-son-died-in-wtc.html

This rhetorical dance is true so far as it goes, but the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force defines the enemy as “those nations, organizations or persons [the president] determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations.” The Taliban were given an opportunity to hand over the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks but refused. That’s the simple fact of why America overthrew the regime, and that’s the root of the current spat with Taliban leader Mullah Omar.

This highlights the irreconcilable differences that properly define the Taliban as an enemy. Mr. Biden said if “the Taliban is able to collapse the existing government, which is cooperating with us in keeping the bad guys from being able to do damage to us, then that becomes a problem for us.” However, collapsing the existing government and re-creating the barbaric “Islamic emirate” are the only goals the Taliban have in this war. Mr. Biden cannot separate this objective from Mullah Omar’s followers by referring to them as the “Taliban per se” as though they represent an abstract philosophy or alternate-lifestyle concept. The Taliban are committed, ideologically motivated insurgents seeking to eliminate the current Afghan government and seize absolute power. Any approach to negotiating with them that doesn’t recognize that fact is doomed to fail.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/20/bidens-taliban-buddies/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

As the United States and coalition forces begin to draw down troops from Afghanistan, few people would deny that a meaningful peace agreement between the Taliban and the government of President Hamid Karzai would give the world a greater peace of mind.

But the word “meaningful” is loaded with implications. Unfortunately, the already announced troop withdrawals make it much more difficult to achieve such a deal. Taliban leaders, chafing at their loss of power in Afghanistan, know they simply have to wait a bit for their chance to regain leadership.

One of the worst kept secrets in Washington these days is that the Obama administration is engaging in secret talks with Taliban leaders in hopes of laying the groundwork for peace talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government. Those preliminary negotiations were said to be at a crucial stage earlier this week, according to senior U.S. officials who spoke to Reuters. Reportedly, the United States was considering releasing some detainees from Guantanamo Bay in exchange for a similar show of good faith from the Taliban, such as a denunciation of terrorism. The administration seemed to be laying the groundwork for such a move when Vice President Joe Biden this week told Newsweek the Taliban is not an enemy.

Biden’s point was that the United States went to war in Afghanistan against al-Qaida. If the United States could ensure a stable Afghanistan after its departure — one that would not harbor terrorists the way the Taliban did when it ran the country — this would be in the nation’s best interests.

There are a number of problems with this reasoning, however. The Taliban harbored al-Qaida because of its sympathetic ideological bent. When it ruled Afghanistan, the Taliban imposed stern moral codes that denied women basic human rights and punished men for such crimes as shaving facial hair. The Taliban may be persuaded to sever its affiliation with al-Qaida, but there is little reason to believe it would renounce its repressive core beliefs. A negotiated peace may jeopardize the hard-won progress toward some form of gender equality in Afghanistan.

A meaningful peace accord would have to include assurances from the Taliban that it would not only participate in, but respect the democratic process. This means not trying to manipulate elections and accepting results even if it loses. Such a pact would have to include an agreement to respect basic human rights for both men and women and to subordinate the Taliban’s own interpretations of Islamic law. The Afghan government would have to agree to allow Taliban representation and to include Taliban members in police and military forces.

If this sounds wildly improbable, it is. Even if such agreements were signed, trust would be a major problem. Taliban leaders may not have the ability to rein in their more radical adherents. On the other hand, it is clear that U.S. forces have no intention any longer of trying to win an unconditional surrender from its enemies in the region.

The worry is not so much that the administration is seeking to negotiate with the Taliban. It is that it might accept something less than meaningful as a victory. Sticking to an announced withdrawal timetable doesn’t help.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700208797/In-our-opinion-Taliban-negotiations.html

Saudi-Wahhabis and their affiliates are the single major source of Islamist terrorism across the world.

Kind reader, would you conduct business with a country where Human Rights Watch confirms the following as common? “Oppression of women, persecution of religious minorities, unfair trials, detention of children, oppression of foreign laborers,” a country that is not an ‘open culture,’ in fact, a culture of hiding. Were you, the reader,  aware that moral charges should be brought against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) if for no other reason than the reality that thirteen year old children are sentenced to death in that country.  Women are subject to the control of male guardians- even for everyday activities, and can be restricted in employment and education. Trials go forward with guilt and no evidence, physical abuse while incarcerated, and 9 million foreign workers remain unpaid with physical and sexual abuse is commonplace. Geopolitics can be Machiavellian, I am no stranger to Reapolitik, but shouldn’t there be a limit to how far we allow our allies to go? The Wahhabi–agenda favors a bigoted interpretation and practice of Islamic Sharia Law, gender segregation, and jihadist view, the majority of opposition to liberal democracy, and pluralism.

Here are just two recent examples of Saudi Arabian abuses:

“Saudi woman executed for witchcraft and sorcery.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16150381

Four men killed as Shia protests against the state intensify

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-four-men-killed-as-shia-protests-against-the-state-intensify-6267704.html

Americans like myself hate to have to contend with the term hurled at us from foreign nations, “hypocrisy,” (there is plenty to go around in the world as it is), and yet our indulgence of Saudi Arabia confirms at least one example. While we invaded Iraq, the Saudis harbored and funded jihadists, and trained them in Wahhabi-Deobandi Madrassas. Faced with the absence of WMD in Iraq, we consoled ourselves with the ridding of a tyrant Saddam Hussein, and yet there remains the stubborn fact that thirteen newly U.S. trained pilots of 9/11 were not only from Saudi-Wahhabis but also funded by Saudi Princes.

American and British official sources confirmed, Prince Naif, the interior minister and Prince Sultan, possibly more, on behalf of the Saudi Kingdom, had been paying protection money, hundreds of millions of dollars to bin Laden since 1995. Former counter-terrorism coordinator, Richard Clarke, wrote of regret in giving the go-ahead to fly prominent Saudis home after 9/11; (Source:  See August 2011, page 88, “The Kingdom  and the Towers.”-Agaainst All Enemies, Clake, 2004). It seems that the terrorist-sympathizers, the Saudi-Wahhabis, are hiding in plain sight with the U.S. again duped by a dubious ally.

If selling your soul to the devil is about petrodollars, then perhaps we can avoid perdition by drilling for our own oil; but this is just the beginning of the story if a nation is to claim to have principles.  If our foreign policy strategy hinges on trusting the Saudi-Wahhabis, there remains no coherent foreign policy in which to deal with Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Bahrain, Libya, Egypt, or the Palestinian Authority that might be based on human rights, or the “with us,” or  against us” concept in the backing of terrorism, and the stated U.S. policy of helping nations to achieve democracy . The blatant Saudi bank-rolling of radical Wahhabis, the marginalizing of Shiites and other minorities, degrading of women, rejection of democracy and the principles of liberty, and exploiting the one Super Power with oil is an example of a nation we deem an ally and is indeed hypocrisy.

The blatant Saudi bank-rolling of radical Wahhabis (and Wahhabi-ised Deobandis in Pakistan, India and Afghanistan), the marginalizing of Shiites and other minorities, degrading of women, rejection of democracy and the principles of liberty, and exploiting the one Super Power with oil is an example of a nation we deem an ally and is indeed hypocrisy.

Ali al Ahmad, the director of the Gulf Institute in Washington, argued in testimony and briefings that “the Wahhabi  regime is the root cause of  the expansion of Islamist and jihadist ideologies not only in the country but throughout the region.” The tensions in the Shia areas of Saudi Arabia (and neighbouring Bahrain, Yemen and Kuwait) are the result of an ongoing persecution, discrimination and incitements. Ali Al Yammi, a hard-core liberal, the director of the Washington-based Saudi Human Rights Council, stated in a congressional briefing July 2010, that the Saudi regime, “keeps the Shia population in a state of economic underdevelopment for the purpose of weakening their political participation in the system.” Further, he noted that The extreme Salafists (Wahhabis) fear a revolution is brewing. Al Yammi, was cited by Walid Phares, advisor to the House of Representatives on Counter Terrorism, that “Arab Shia in Saudi Arabia have a cause of their own, they don’t need the Iran’s mullah’s.” (Phares, 2010, p314). The point: All Shiites are not aligned with a nuclear-threatening Iran.

Is it that compartmentalize? We reject Taliban misogyny that we abhor, but  accept Saudi misogyny that we are able to  ignore? The Saudi as a petro-power should not get an oil-soaked pass. To rail against terrorist suicide bombers, but not connect them often enough in the foreign press or American press to Saudi-Wahhabis, will allow this subterfuge to continue. We must understand the networking involved and condemn them and insist that  Saudi-funded Wahhabi-Deobandi Madrassas (in Pakistasn, Afghanistan, India, Turkey, Sudan, Egypt, UK, USA, elsewhere) are shut down. To remain the status quo is to be either wilfully blind, or ignorant, which we can no longer afford to be in the dangerous, fragile global economy and proliferation of nuclear nations aligned with terrorists.

Why do we, the United States, deal with the duplicitous and oppressive Saudi Arabia? Oil? Is it to have a trusted strategic ally in the region?  A Super Power should be above such a dubious reliance. We choose to ignore egregious harm from the past and emerging designs of the future. It runs the gamut from  1973, when Saudis bit the hand that fed them, with an oil embargo after we had protected them against Soviet attacks, to their terrorist-funding, to human rights abuses today we insist are below our standards. “Every modern president has had to walk a tightrope [regards Saudi Arabia] negotiated by Nixon and Kissinger in 1973, and it remains our principle, unsteady avenue into the Middle East. “ (Quicksand, Wawro, p.600.)

The major US and the Western media do on a rare occasion (CNN, Fox News, Wall Street Journal, Economist) give air-play and thus, educate the American people in the Saudi-Wahhabi terrorist networks that run blatantly through Afghanistan, across the Durand Line, and in such places as Yemen, Somalia, et. al, but the US and the West must also educate the American people about Muslims that are the freedom fighters waging a war against Saudi-Wahabi fanatics and terrorists, a struggle we rarely hear about: the ones on our side, one might say, the “Good Muslims” – the Sufi Muslims (also known as Barelvi Muslims in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh).

The world might need a paradigm shift, but we must think about constructive ways to engage with majority Sufi Muslims that are building a positive narrative of freedom and democracy and pluralism. They are called Barelvis in Pakistan and India.  For the most part I have found that these Sufi Muslims in Pakistan have no enmity towards India, for example (except a few who have been successfully brainwashed by the Saudi-ISI propaganda). This war we fight against Wahhabi jihadists we are joined also with minority Islamic sects, for example, the Shias, Ahmadis, Alawites , and others. These are our allies against the war on terrorism – more than we have been educated to realize. Almost all of the terrorist attacks against the USA and the West have been carried out by groups and individuals affiliated with Wahhabi or Deobandi Muslims (by this term I do not mean traditional Sunnis, but rather rogue militants, “muharibun,” radical Salafists/Wahhabis and Deobandis who misinterpret the Quran to promote their violent, intolerant agenda). These are the brainwashed members of the Saudi-Wahhabi network of which I speak.

There has been a powerful Saudi-Wahhabi lobby operating and spreading misinformation about Islam since mid twentieth century. The lobby became much more influential during the early Bush administration who at the time unwittingly was looking for understandable guidance. Saudi funds poured into Washington and universities and along with it, a radical group to misrepresent Islam, and instead present Islamist views. This is no conspiracy theory. In part, the key reason for failure of the Clinton and Bush architects in the war of ideas was their narrow experience in Islamist politics, in Arab affairs. Most of the think tanks formed after 9/11 to push for democracy focused on the theology of Islam, or the abstract notion of freedoms and liberties in the US.

The problem that arose is that no Muslim reformers were invited to the White House, while the Islamists-American lobbies – backed by Saudi Wahhabi funds- such as CAIR, were received as the representatives of Middle East and South Asia. There were no Shia scholars, no Sufi Muslims, no Iranian or Syrian reformers or, for that matter, Darfur activists, included in policy meetings. The Academic elite, especially a majority of the Middle Eastern Studies experts of the Ivy League establishment, blasted the Bush administration for speaking of democracies in Middle East. The members of that group were well funded by Wahhabi and other authoritarian money, and were not going to turn against their Saudi donors. Islamist petrodollars had penetrated early on in the aftermath by 2003 and still today their insistent presence and persuasive oil-money works within the university system and government lobbyists. ( pp.100-101 Walid Phares, The Coming Revolution).

The fate of the 2004 U.S. backed Arabic station to promote freedom and democracy was no different. By 2007 there was a take-over, that resulted in spewing  the Wahhabi agenda on U.S. station, eventually pulled off the air when discovered. The Wahhabi agenda favors narrowly misinterpreted Sharia  Law, gender segregation, and jihadist view, violent views against Christians, Jews, Shia Muslims, Sufi Muslims, along with the majority of opposition to liberal democracy and pluralism.

There remains currently, a powerful Saudi-Wahhabi lobby operating to influence the U.S. public opinion as well as the U.S. Department of State in order to indirectly promote the global Saudi-Wahhabi strategic interests.

While  U.S. foreign strategists understandably focus on a nuclear Iran, Israel/Palestine, draw-down of involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan; hash out its relations with Pakistan, sort out its role in Libya-type NATO efforts, it cannot afford to ignore the developments of Wahhabi-Saudi and its connections. If KSA is absent in the strategic calculus of regional power-players, long-term efforts for stability, regional power-vacuums, and surreptitious Saudi-Wahhabi funding of terrorists, there could be catastrophic destabilizing consequences that could reach and tear into the fabric of world peace, as well homeland security within the United States. Largely ignored, Saudi-funded Salafists (Wahhabiss) already impact Pakistan and other countries in the region.

This effort has consequences that if not understood and addressed has damaging implications that could reach and tear into the fabric of world peace, as well homeland security within the United States, as it already impacts Pakistan and other countries in the region.

In terms of global geopolitics, one of the most potent threats to world peace is the Saudi-Wahhabi lobby and its global tentacles. These tentacles are present in the White House and in the US State department.  They have subtly influenced US foreign policy, such as cleaning out ex-allies that have become redundant and replacing them with virulent Muslim brotherhood (Ikhwan) in Egypt and its off spring (a refined version of Al Qaeda) in Libya.  Meanwhile they have suppressed genuine pro-democracy movements in Bahrain and Yemen; movements that could encourage Saudi Arabia’s majority non-Wahhabi population to strive for democratic reforms.

In this regard, the hardline clerics of Iran have ensured that the United States continues to miscalculate the situation in Muslim majority countries.  They have done this by continuously deflecting the blame of Saudi-Wahhabi violence on the United States and Israel.  This is best encapsulated in the following historical account presented by Pakistani political analyst Nadeem F. Paracha:

“According to Yaroslav Trofimov in ‘The Siege of Mecca,’ the Iranians were well aware of the reality behind the takeover of the mosque by Saudi fanatics, but used the opportunity to embarrass both Americans and the Saudis by claiming that it was a part of an Israeli/US plot to ‘occupy’ Makkah. In Pakistan, though the state-controlled media kept rather mum about the event and only asked the people to ‘mourn the takeover’; the Zia regime advised PTV and Radio Pakistan not to let out any details of the occupation.”

While even top strategists and U.S. commanders admit that the United States has made its share of missteps in foreign policy in the Middle East and South Asia, it remains a ready ally to join against terrorist forces and join forces that permit freedom and liberties. Sometimes this takes additional strong cases being made to Washington officials. The myopic alliance with Saudi Arabia is in need of serious re-evaluation based on the arguments above, as the U.S. looks forward to new election in 2012. Whether it is a new administration, or the same, policies must include deeper assessment and alignment of allies. The United States credibility is once again on the line. As American people we feel we support democracy around the world. But, in fact, this historically falls short of our beliefs. Platitudes that are directed at the Middle East, with no real support for burgeoning democracies is simply pathless wandering through the region. We must abandon childish beliefs that we can support democracy and still ally with oppressive nations such as KSA. Otherwise questions of whether the U.S. can be trusted as an ally will continue to be asked. If the US were oil independent, a course that could have been developed after the 1970s oil crisis, the evil of oil alliances could be corrected, replacing the insistence on human rights before business, and facing the real Saudi agenda, and Saudi-Wahhabi funding of Jihadists with the proper opposition.

The Saudi-Wahhabis have a record of killing and oppressing the Muslims of the World and also within the very Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), due to well placed money, this fatal problem is often overlooked. In the overwhelming instances of Islamist terrorism, it is Salafi-Wahabi terrorists who have wreaked havoc not just in the West but have killed tens of thousands of Muslims in the last few decades.

Starting with the Jamaat-e-Islami who collaborated with the Pakistan army in conducting a genocide in Bangladesh to the Al Qaeda affiliated Sipah-e-Sahaba/Lashkar-e-Jhangvi who massacred 60 Shia Muslims in Afghanistan this Ashura, the Saudi-Wahhabi lobby is at center of the nexus that threatens the world.  Their most faithful partners in crime are the Pakistan army which is why most acts of terrorism are traced back to those areas of Pakistan where the army has willingly ceded national sovereignty to its Jihadi assets.

Refer to Bruce Reidel’s latest article where the Pakistan army is ready to supply nukes to KSA to bomb Iran.  After all this, do we still want to ally ourselves with those who have brought nothing but misery on the US, the West and the largely non-radical Muslim world. Please pay particular attention to the Enter the Bomb sub-section in Riedel’s article to understand the potential nuclear proliferation between Pakistan army and Saudi Arabia.

The US should be insightful enough to realize that aside from some maniac hardliners in Iran, the Green Revolution had many supporters, and the overall society still values its ancient Persian culture and its religion is steeped in local culture.  While some Ayatullahs are in favor of abusing Iran and trying to develop their own version of Wahhabi-lite, the bulk of the population and even many Ayatullahs are not in favor of having a permanent cold war with the United States.

In this nuclear world, it is no exaggeration that for the sake of civilization, the United States needs to reassess its alliance with Saudi Arabia, develop its own oil resources, of which there are plenty, and face facts about the Wahhabi machinery in KSA-combining this calculus into world geopolitical strategies. Furthermore, the mullahs running Iran need to understand that their confrontation with the U.S. is not necessarily supported by the Shiite community in other regions (e.g. Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen etc), and it is transparently recognized that the Iran-US confrontation would not only endanger Muslims as well as the West but would also serve to reinforce the Saudi-Wahhabi apparatus, the single major source of Islamist terrorism, the world over.

The U.S., the West and the non-radical Muslims need to join hands to fight the Saudi-Wahhabi menace. Together we can make this world a better, peaceful place!

About the author: Rusty Walker is an Independent Political Analyst, educator, author, Vietnam veteran-era U.S. Air Force, from a military family, retired college professor, former Provost (Collins College, U.S.A.), artist, musician and family man. Mr. Walker is an ardent supporter of Pakistan. Here is a link to Mr. Walker’s other articles published on LUBP: http://criticalppp.com/archives/tag/rusty-walker