Saturday, April 11, 2009

Mrs. Zalmay Khalilzad, David, And I



Early last week I had a brief interaction with Mrs. Zalmay Khalilzad. Her name is Cheryl Benard, originally a Swiss citizen and currently an analyst for Rand Corporation, the think tank famous for its close association with CIA in the 1980s. I was on Aljazeera’s Inside Story hosted by Mr. David Foster, apparently a well known British TV host that few might know outside Britain. All I can say is that I wasn’t disappointed after hearing the views of Mrs. Khalilzad. Every bit a Pakistan-hater like her husband. The thing that struck me is her arrogance that reflects the arrogance of those who share her views on Pakistan in Washington DC. In every word she uttered, you could see how she saw herself as a better judge of Pakistan and what Pakistan should or shouldn’t do, as if the rest of us Pakistanis here are a bunch of imbeciles destined to look up to sheer talent in U.S. think tanks to run our country. Mrs. Khalilzad saw nothing wrong in America inviting India to Afghanistan. India is involved in terrorism against Pakistan and we’re concerned about Indian actions on Afghan soil. Even American commentators are beginning to concede this point. And American needs to listen to us if it is a real ally and not simply deceiving us and buying time for India. God forbid if Pakistan has some genuine security concerns. No sMrs. Khalilzad won’t have any of it. America should go on achieving its objectives in Afghanistan and screw up everything while Pakistan should shut up and play the role of a slave. That’s why I had a good time dealing with this arrogance in my own way. We Pakistanis have our own interests in the region and we will pursue them to our satisfaction. Click here to watch the video. But my surprise came from Mr. Foster, the British host who was extremely biased against Pakistan and personally took sides in the debate instead of open-mindedly moderate the views of all parties on such a sensitive issue. It was an apt reminder that it is the British and American media that is playing the dirtiest role in demonizing Pakistan. No other country or media is doing it. The big surprise was that after the show, a senior official from Aljazeera English called my cell phone and apologized for the behavior of Mr. Foster. To put this on record, I sent this email to Aljazeera English:

MR. NAZAR DAW
Senior Editor
Al Jazeera English
Doha, QATAR.

Dear Mr. Daw,

I am writing to you to bring to your kind attention something that immensely disturbed me during the recording of Inside Story on Sunday, 29 March 2009.

I was the guest from Islamabad, Pakistan, joining Mrs. Zalmay Khalilzad (Cheryl Benard) from Vienna and an Afghan speaker from Kabul.

Your host, one Mr. David Foster, the host, indulged in an overtly biased hosting. The subject was U.S. President’s new policy speech on Afghanistan. The host, Mr. Foster, was openly undignified toward the speaker from Pakistan and brazenly sided with the likeminded two guests representing U.S. and Afghanistan. Mr. Foster's objective was more Pakistan-bashing than to have an open minded discussion.

I have no problem with Mr. Foster’s personal views and sympathies. But I protest what happened next.


I was trying to represent a studied and reasoned critique of the U.S. President’s speech and policy, which I am sure is no crime. However, Mr. Foster, who has spent time in Kabul and is apparently openly sympathetic to the positions of U.S. and U.K., would have none of it. When the other two guests made outrageously inaccurate remarks about my country, Pakistan, Mr. Foster saw it fit not only to stop me from responding for the remainder of the show to the accusations made by the two guests back to back, but he also refused to allow me to respond to his own condescending rant when he joined the two guests in what appeared to be a gang-up.

This should have been an enlightened and open minded discussion. I am quite sure that in the midst of the constant one-sided Anglo-American propaganda on Afghanistan, your viewers would have appreciated to hear a refreshingly new take on the issue from a Pakistani speaker.

In the end, Mr. Foster had ample time to exchange niceties with Mrs. Khalilzad (“Could you be Afghanistan’s next First Lady” and “Will you go to Kabul to twist the arm of your husband”) but he could not spare 20 seconds for me to quickly respond to factually erroneous allegations against Pakistan made by the two guests and joined by the host himself as the third party.

I am left wondering why you invited a speaker from Pakistan if the purpose of the show was to praise Mr. Obama’s speech and suppress any opposite views.

Mr. Foster could have hidden behind an excuse such as time constraints, but he didn’t. When I protested in the end saying this wasn’t fair, his rude and quick answer was, ‘this is television.’ There was a hint of racism in Mr. Foster's concluding remarks when he joined his only European guest in dismissing the two other speakers from Afghanistan and Pakistan by saying 'they will keep fighting'. The tone and tenor of Mr. Foster was demeaning, as you can see if you review the tape. I could be wrong on this last point and my judgment might be impaired on this point because of my disappointment at the generally biased and rude attitude of your host.

I have little interest in Mr. Foster’s political sympathies with the U.S. and British occupation armies in Afghanistan and for their puppet government in Kabul. My concern is that for an organization as great as Al Jazeera, I as a viewer would expect your hosts to be open minded, learned and considerate. With due respect, no one knows who David Foster is in this part of the world, but everyone knows Al Jazeera.

Best regards.

Ahmed Quraishi

15 comments:

  1. Well, Ahmed this is why i think people like you must be on TV screens more than our media's "Truth Guardians" like Shahid Masood and Hamid Mir.
    As far as Mrs. Zalmey is concerned well i don't think there is anything wrong with her as this is not a personal thing it is a whole philosophy to bash Pakistan if anything goes wrong in West or at any place where West and US have their interests.AFGHANISTAN is biggest example. I think it is time to go for SCO and say goodbye to so called MNNA (Major Non NATO ally) status. Only problem is lack of leadership in Pakistan. But i am an optimist and feel k once army take a firm stand no political party can force them to fight with tribal.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ahmed, I really appreciate you for you taking valid and strong stance for Pakistan and then the way you followed up with Aljazeera. I wish the journalists try to be patriotic the way they should be. Just take an example of the following Hamid Mir interview, how pathetic he looks:
    http://fora.tv/2009/04/01/Resurgence_of_the_Taliban_in_Pakistan_Hamid_Mir#chapter_01

    ReplyDelete
  3. How come you get invited by Al-Jazeera, while the local media keeps ignoring you?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ahmed, i appreciate the role you tried to play in the above video. It is in vogue to believe that the only legitimate interests in Afghanistan are of the Americans, or the Indian, who are playing out the 'humanitarian role' in rebuilding Afghanistan.

    But at the same time i disagree with you regarding your views about the Obama policy. I concur that this new policy will bring the war into Pakistan for all the wrong reasons, but i may add that bringing India in the contact group will actually help to address the concerns of Pakistan with regard to the Indian role in Afghanistan; it will only work if America really wants pakistan to concentrate on its western border. For this Obama will have to spell out the 'K' (Kashmir) word. For me the regional solution for Afghanistan is the best option as Henry Kissinger proposed,somewhat on the line of Treaty of London 1839 which guaranteed the neutrality of Belgium. Here are the few points of what Kissinger proposed:


    Kissinger proposed that a working group of Afghanistan’s neighbors, India and the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council be established to begin this process. This is an appropriate grouping, with the addition of Afghanistan, and it should be convened under the auspices of the U.N. secretary general.

    The goal would be a multilateral accord that establishes principles and guarantees for Afghanistan’s long-term status, to include agreements:

    - by all the parties to declare Afghanistan a permanently neutral country;

    - by Afghanistan not to permit its territory to again become a haven for terrorist activities or to be used against the interests of any of its neighbors;

    - by Afghanistan’s neighbors and near-neighbors not to interfere in Afghanistan’s internal affairs or to allow their territory to be used against Afghanistan;

    - by Afghanistan and Pakistan to recognize their common border (the Durand Line of 1893 is still in dispute);

    - by all other parties to guarantee that border, including by a U.N.-sponsored monitoring mission, if requested by the Afghan government;

    - by all parties to establish a comprehensive international regime to remove obstacles to the flow of trade across Afghanistan, and

    - by the United States and its NATO allies to withdraw all forces from Afghanistan once these other provisions had been implemented.

    Such a package would give all the participants something of value. Pakistan would secure Afghan recognition of its border and assurances that India would not be allowed to use Afghan territory to pressure or destabilize Pakistan’s volatile border regions.

    India would be free to pursue normal relations with Kabul, including direct trade and commercial ties.

    Iran would receive assurances that the international community recognizes its legitimate interests in Afghanistan and that the U.S. military presence on its eastern border is not permanent.

    The United States and its allies would be able to depart, leaving behind a society at peace with itself and its neighbors.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Afghanistan can only be peaceful if there is a multilateral accord guaranteeing non-interference in the issues of Afghanistan and India is party in it. Period.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Insouciant

    "by all parties to establish a comprehensive international regime to remove obstacles to the flow of trade across Afghanistan, and"

    Any idea how Mr. Kissinger thinks that he will achieve that? What will be composition of this "comprehensive international regime"

    Increasing number of stakeholders in Afghanistan will only increase divide already their due to interests of each party involved in Afghanistan be it Pakistan or India for that matter.

    In 1980s Ronald Ragon made a blunder to globalize regional conflict by using name og Jihad which brought Takfeeri ideology of Al-Qaeda to this region from Africa only God knows what Indian will bring here if they their assets remain there for too long on Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Also it is very hard to believe that US will ever accept or will listen to anything coming from UN.

    ReplyDelete
  7. May Allah help and bless people like you, Ahmed Quraishi sahab! Masha Allah, you are Pakistan's honour. I am so very humbled by your sincere efforts to clarify the Pakistani position. May our government also follow your path.

    I have become a big fan of yours after going through your many articles. I m currently in Canada pursuing my undergraduate degree. I wish to meet you and Zaid Hamid very soon, InshaAllah. I just want to do something for Pakistan.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I never really knew Al jazeera was biased, because I have seen there coverage during the Gaza conflict and they covered the Israeli side(Hamas rocket attacks) as well the Gaza side. I missed the episode of Inside story you appeared on definitely shocked to read that the host was taking sides.

    Good that you voiced your opinion regarding David Foster, I hope they teach the guy some manners!

    ReplyDelete
  9. P.S: Just mailed them asking them to invite you again! Everyone mail them here is the contact link -
    http://english.aljazeera.net/aboutus/2006/11/2008525184028476209.html

    ReplyDelete
  10. Great response

    Overall I think Al jazeera coverage on pakistan has been ok their piece on bajur victory of the pak army was really good showing how hard the battle is and their report on how taliban control land less than 60km away from kabul was rather good

    ReplyDelete
  11. @Insouciant: I like Mr. Kissinger's idea but it is unworkable. Remember, Afghanistan is under the control of one key party: The United States. For the plan to work, the U.S. will have to cede influence and control in Afghanistan. Who will ensure that Washington will do this? Second, Pakistan agreed to join the U.S. after 9/11 in Afghanistan. This means the U.S. needs to pursue its interests ALONG WITH, and not to the exclusion of, the interests of its allies, which includes Pakistan. For Washington to deliberately turn Afghanistan into a base for anti-Pakistan operations, where Indians and others are also involved, shows a high degree of ill intent on the part of the Americans. We need to confront the Americans about this. I am glad that this frank talk was done by the Pakistani side quite clearly last week with Mullen and Holbrooke.

    ReplyDelete
  12. @Syed: I agree with you that Aljazeera's coverage of Pakistan has been quite fair compared to CNN and BBC. I especially highlighted this in my letter to the Aljazeera official and made a distinction between Aljazeera and the position of this one host, Mr. Foster.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This proves that how hostile is the whole world towards Pakistan...

    & there are 2 reasons to it...before reasons let me tell u that whtever they know abt Pakistan is from what disinformation campaign is done against Pakistan & Islam from anglo-american-indian media (AAI)....like in this video when AQ said some truth how all of them went to defend their vested interests...yes Pakistanis/Muslims have never defended themselves since 9/11 so end result is that the world now believes that Muslims are wrong...

    so the 1st reason is we donot defend...2nd is we are ignorant towards this thing....we have to take this seriously & talk to the west/india...we have to do more panel discussions like this one from every channel....

    so both things are important...we have to bring every famous anchor/journalist on Pakistan on board...make him patriot & ask him to defend against this psy-war...

    If we don't do this then in the next few years Pakistan would be the same as Alqaeda/Osama were after 9/11....

    ReplyDelete
  14. Problem- am typing for the third time and the contents in between disappear from the screen has happenned thrice before and I get tired.
    Any way the urgency of the situation demanded that I approach You straight away. Last night at about 0200/pst/19th April 2009-mr fareed zakaria after taking the interview of karzai- asked for the opinion of the US public i.e words to the affect that" The Pakistan is about to collapse/disintegrate and talebans will control the country then should we not physicall interfere before talebanss control Islamabad. This appears famous Iraq style invasion programme. Before anything pl. recheck if possible the exact words - we have to now act fast to ensure that our country is not harmed by the zion consipracy

    ReplyDelete
  15. Pakistan’s economy has so far suffered irreparable loss of $68 billion directly and indirectly due to turmoil in Afghanistan.
    http://teabreak.pk/economy-suffered-68bn-loss-due-to-afghan-turmoil-200/17887/

    Pakistan needs world's help & support to fight extremist b/c before helping USA in their fight against terrorism Pakistan never had such problems of talibans & Al-Qaida, Pak. never had a single suicide bombing before 2001, so specially USA and other countries should also help Pakistan.

    ReplyDelete

Your comments are welcome. Please do observe common courtesy rules. This blog is linked to PakNationalists.com and follows the same comment guidelines. The purpose of this blog is to promote the views of PakNationalists on Pakistan's domestic and foreign policy interests.