This drama quietly unfolded over the weekend.
Early Sunday, a Pakistani newspaper editor receives a text message from a source in New York warning that Zardari govt. is pushing Pak foreign minister to stand for a photo-op with his Indian counterpart in NYC on the sidelines of a UN meeting. Indians were desperate for the photo to demoralize Kashmiris & show them that Pakistan is on board.
The editor called a Pakistani TV news channel and offered to break the story. By midday the story was on the air. By Monday, the Indians , the Americans and their Pakistani stooges waited with baited breath for a meeting that never happened. By evening, Pak foreign minister gave a shocking statement: He won't meet Indians for a photo-op unless they discuss their occupation of Kashmir.
A warm thank you to the timely alert from the New York source.
Click here to read the full story.
Showing posts with label shah mehmood qureshi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label shah mehmood qureshi. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Friday, July 23, 2010
Who pulled Krishna's leg?
Click here to read more.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Want To Meet Hillary? Don't Criticize United States!
Click here to see more pictures of Hillary In Lahore
courtesy of Laura Rosen of Politico.com
Obviously the US Embassy in Pakistan and the doormat Pakistani officials did an excellent job of 'vetting' the Pakistani invitees to Mrs. Clinton's PR events in Pakistan, the same ones that she has described back in the US as having been 'positively received' by Pakistanis. The truth is that every effort was made to shield her from hearing the real grievances on the Pakistani street, grievances that both US Ambassador Anne W. Patterson in Islamabad and Husain Haqqani in Washington are misleading the US public opinion about. Read how this young Pakistani lawyer, who often writes criticizing the US mess in Afghanistan, was 'hidden' from Hillary in Lahore.
Click here for the full article.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
How Qureshi's Son Was Appointed In Kerry's Office
Let's just hope that he lost Pakistan's case on the Kerry-Lugar bill because of personal lack of conviction than a soft corner for Mr. Kerry who gave his son a job in a powerful place.
Normally, it would be great to have a Pakistani citizen join the staff of a powerful US legislator like John Kerry, the former presidential candidate, chairman of the US senate foreign relations committee and the man who was being considered for Obama's secretary of state before Hillary got the job.
It is another thing, however, if this Pakistani turns out to be the son of a serving Foreign Pakistani Minister working in the office of Mr. Kerry, the sponsor of the Kerry-Lugar bill with which most Pakistanis have a problem.
There is a strong hint here of impropriety and conflict of interest.
The problem can be summed up in this question: Mr. Qureshi is supposed to be protecting Pakistani interest at a time when the US-Pakistani ties are going through a rough patch. Does having his son work for Mr. Kerry create a conflict of interest for Foreign Minister Qureshi?
If you are a father, you develop a soft corner for the powerful man who has given your son an entry job in a powerful place.
Did this natural gratitude affect Foreign Minister's judgment as he tried to manage the controversy over Kerry-Lugar bill?
Most observers agree that Foreign Minister Qureshi's performance in the Kerry-Lugar bill fiasco was weak, to put it mildly. He refused to acknowledge Pakistani concerns and showered grandiose praise on the bill. When he returned to Pakistan and was told of the reservations, he chose to go back to the United States supposedly to press for Pakistan's rights. Only that he was sidelined in no time and forced to accept an 'explanatory' note instead. And again he showered exaggerated praise on the note, calling it 'historic'.
Some in Pakistan rightly suspect he did not even press Mr. Kerry on Pakistan's reservations mainly because his government in Islamabad couldn't care less. It was the Pakistani military, opposition parties and the public opinion's demand and Mr. Qureshi's government was alone in accepting the anti-military US conditions.
Did Mr. Qureshi not fight Pakistan's case as strongly as he could because he was not convinced or because Mr. Kerry gave his son a big break?
Others have also noticed this.
Longtime journalist Anjum Niaz, in her column The Boston Brahmin published in today's The News, wrote the following:
After a number of phone calls to Senator Kerry's office, I finally found out from one of Kerry's male staffers that ZHQ did indeed work for Kerry but had now left. Why has ZHQ gone into hiding? Did he do something wrong? Yes. And the Foreign Office finds itself between a rock and a hard place. How can it condone its boss's act of getting his son a job with Kerry when the KLB talks were at a critical stage? Even if fate smiles upon ZHQ because he's the favoured son of our foreign minister and the doors of the high and mighty in Washington open up for him, we have the right to know whenever the son's job compromises his dad's position. More importantly if it is in direct conflict with Pakistan's interests. Would you not call this a conflict of interest? Should the foreign minister resign? And if Zardari cannot afford to let him go, then the FM must seek a public apology […] Would he have given ZHQ the time of the day had the young man not been the son of Pakistan's foreign minister?"
The impression that something is not right in Mr. Qureshi being Pakistan's foreign minister while his son works for Sen. Kerry is also underlined by how Mr. Qureshi's brother has reacted to the story. An Urdu-language daily newspaper, the Express, quoted the brother as saying that members of his feudal land-owning family 'does not seek employment' anywhere. He said this while denying his nephew was 'employed' by Sen. Kerry.
There is also an interesting background to how Qureshi Jr. got the job on Capitol Hill.
This version of the story is not verified but comes from a knowledgeable source at the Pakistani Foreign Office:
"Shah Mahmood Qureshi's relations with Haqqani had become very tense in the early part of this year. During Zardari's for AFPAK consultations, Qureshi and Haqqani had a shouting match because the ambassador had sent something to the president without going through the foreign minister. Haqqani had direct line to Zardari, and he had some of Qureshi's decisions reversed. After the Long March when Zardari became a little weaker and Yousaf Raza Gilani a bit stronger, Haqqani decided to patch up with Qureshi. What did Haqqani do: He used his contacts with Kerry and had Qureshi's son appointed as his intern. With that favour, Qureshi has no more complaints against Haqqani. So powerful is Haqqani that he has never allowed Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir to set foot in Washington.
Whatever the truth, two points are clear:
One, Foreign Minister Qureshi should have had the courage to refuse to fly back to Washington to renegotiate the controversial anti-Pakistan clauses if he was not personally convinced. That he did so merely to placate the powerful Pakistani military reflects poorly on his record.
Second, his son's internship in Sen. Kerry's office raises a legitimate question of a conflict of interest. Mr. Qureshi should have seen this one coming since he is known to be an upright politician by the standards of politicians in this country.
Let's just hope that he lost Pakistan's case on the Kerry-Lugar bill because of personal lack of conviction than a soft corner for Mr. Kerry.
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium
without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
SEE THIS
In Serving US Interest, This Pakistani Govt. Is In A Class Of Its Own
American Lecture In Pakistan Parliament
If Fired, Haqqani Threatens To Reveal 'Reams' of Pakistani Secrets
Kerry's ‘Explanatory Statement’ Does Not Solve Our Problem: Marvi Memon
Saturday, October 17, 2009
American Lecture In Pakistan Parliament
Something stunning happened today in the fake US-imposed Pakistani democracy.
The Foreign Minister flies to Washington. US tells him the world is red, and he flies back, enters his country's parliament, and gives an hour-long boring lecture where he tries to tell them that the world is indeed red and proudly quotes American statements supporting this. And then his government shuts down the proceedings and stops the reperesentatives of the Pakistani nation from voting on whether they believe the Foreign Minister's assertion that the world is red.
This is ironic because this is, in essence, a US-imposed democracy, a democracy with American liking. If you want a democracy that is not American, then look at Turkey, Iran, and Hamas. Those elections weren't American-imposed.
In Pakistan we have a government tailored in Washington DC, where US officials struck a 'deal' with former ally Musharraf to ease the current Pakistani rulers into power so that they could continue Musharraf's misguided pro-US policies.
Is this what our American friends call democracy?
Consider the following:
A majority in the parliament, media and the public opinion is disturbed at the offensive language in some clauses of a US aid bill, the Kerry-Lugar bill, which ordinary Pakistanis call the ' Kill Bill' in their cell phone text messages.
The Parliament runs a heated three-day debate over the issue.
Today, Friday, a resolution was supposed to be passed concluding the debate and giving the parliament's take on the American aid bill. The US-imposed 'democractic' government stopped this because it didn't suit the Americans.
The foreign minister should be ashamed of himself. If he really believed the Kerry-Lugar bill is the best thing to happen to Pakistan after Independence, then he should have stuck to what he said in the press conference with Hillary Clinton. He should have declined when President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani asked him to go back to Washington with reservations on the bill. But since he did go back, he should have done justice to those reservations and not accept an 'explanatory' lollypop given to him by Kerry and Berman.
Does Foreign Minister Qureshi have a mind of his own or is he used to people slapping him around and walking all over him? What was the need for an hourlong emotional speech in Parliament in defense of senators Kerry and Berman?
This Pakistani ruling class has put down the heads of all Pakistanis in shame. Without drastic steps, this leadership will give Pakistanis a lot of pain in the days to come.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
An 'Explanatory' Note From Washington To Pakistan
Genuine Pakistani concerns about the Kerry-Lugar bill have been summarily dismissed thanks to arrogant US congressmen, a politicized Pakistani ambassador in Washington, and an inept pro-US elected government in Islamabad that has lost the trust of a majority of Pakistanis. US Vice President Joe Biden should seriously look into who turned his brilliant idea into a huge blunder.
By Ahmed Quraishi
Thursday, 15 October 2009.
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—When the Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi stood in Washington last night to say, 'This is a historic document' and tried to act excited, a distinct look of confusion was visible on the faces of the two Americans standing to his right and left: Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Congressman Howard Berman, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
For a second it seemed as if both Mr. Kerry and Mr. Berman were looking at Mr. Qureshi and saying to themselves, 'Is this guy for real?'
There is a reason why the two seemed distrustful of the minister.
Only a few hours earlier the Pakistani Foreign Minister addressed a press conference with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton where Mr. Qureshi appeared far more excited about the Kerry-Lugar aid bill than his host. [Ms. Clinton had to point out a couple of times she couldn't be more 'eloquent' than the Pakistani minister in describing the aid bill.] At one point, Mr. Qureshi rebuffed a Pakistani journalist who said Pakistanis back home were concerned about offensive language in some clauses.
"I'm very glad that they [Americans] have no intentions of micromanaging Pakistan, nor will Pakistan permit micromanagement," Qureshi said. "Never will we allow any compromise on Pakistan's sovereignty."
"I'm very glad that they [Americans] have no intentions of micromanaging Pakistan, nor will Pakistan permit micromanagement," Qureshi said. "Never will we allow any compromise on Pakistan's sovereignty."
But no sooner he returned to Islamabad than he was back on the plane to Washington. He had no choice, especially after an uproar in the country where a clear majority in the parliament, media, the public opinion and in the armed forces accused his government of accepting humiliating language that stops short of accusing Pakistan of running terrorist training camps and continuing to proliferate nuclear knowhow, both of which are accusations not backed by any evidence except unsourced US media reports and noise on the US think-tank circuit. The language in at least one clause is carefully drafted to push the civilian government to pick up fights with the military on issues ranging from officer promotions to excluding military input from nuclear-related policy.
So when Mr. Qureshi was back in Washington acting excited all over again, both Kerry and Berman were understandably unsure whether they should believe the minister or wait for him to go to Islamabad, get an earful again and come back with more reservations.
But a far more serious issue is how Washington's establishment appears to have dismissed genuine Pakistani concerns with a mere 'explanatory' note. You just have to admire the sense of humor behind naming this piece of paper a 'joint explanatory statement' that will be attached to the Kerry-Lugar bill.
Since the Pakistani parliament is still debating the bill and is yet to pass its final resolution on it, it is too early to say how will Mr. Qureshi be received back home [he is en route as these lines are written.]
But here is an initial assessment.
With the so-called 'Joint Explanatory Statement', Washington has rebuffed President Zardari, Prime Minister Gilani, Chief of Army Staff Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, and ISI chief Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, who huddled for a couple of hours before designating Foreign Minister Qureshi to fly to Washington and seek changes in the controversial clauses or simply the removal of the three or four controversial clauses so that the remainder of the bill focused on aid and cooperation could move forward.
If the bill is accepted in its present form, Pakistan will
1. Effectively be accepting that two major cities Quetta and Muridke are centers of terror as the bill alleges without any real evidence
2. Pakistan will also be accepting that it will entertain possible US requests for access to suspected nuclear proliferators as demanded by US and without stipulating that evidence be produced for such a demand
3. Pakistan will also be allowing Washington to demand reports from Pakistani civilian leaders confirming their control over internal military promotions and appointments. Interestingly, this clause opens the door for more US meddling in Pakistani politics since politicians will be using this clause and Washington's muscle to reign in the Pakistani military. The clause is a recipe for endless civil-military tensions.
4. Pakistan will also not be in a position to dispute unfounded US and British accusations that seek to shift the blame to Pakistan for failures in Afghanistan.
Mr. Qureshi has essentially sold off Pakistani interest on the basis of an 'explanatory statement'. He failed to defend the Pakistani position or prevail on the American officials on the core issue of the insult that most Pakistanis feel today because of the humiliating language in the bill.
Another problem is how the Pakistani embassy in Washington, under Ambassador Husain Haqqani, continues to feed a wrong picture of the debate back home in Pakistan. Mr. Haqqani is under tremendous attack in the Pakistani parliament for his role in failing to stop the controversial clauses. Members of his own government feel that the buck should stop at his desk for the fiasco. To save his position, it seems Mr. Haqqani is feeding his friends in the US media and the Washington establishment that the angst is Pakistan over the bill is 'manufactured' by 'anti-America forces' and is 'manipulated' by the Pakistani military. Some of his friends in the US media are peddling the theory that Mr. Haqqani is under attack because of his anti-military writings when he was out of government.
What Mr. Haqqani is not telling the Americans is that politicians in Pakistan have accused him, and not the US Congress or the US government, of deliberately inserting anti-military clauses in the Kerry-Lugar bill with the help of lobbyists paid for by the Pakistani exchequer and in pursuance of a domestic Pakistani political agenda [in other words, settling domestic scores.] It is also possible that some quarters in Washington that are not very Pakistan-friendly helped push the bill with unnecessary military-related clauses in a document that is focused on US-Pakistani partnership.
The bottom line is this: While his government spokespeople in Islamabad refuse to recognize there is anything wrong with the US bill [even US Ambassador has conceded the language was a mistake'], Mr. Qureshi could not have been expected to put any real effort into convincing US officials to chance the offending language, especially when it is already beginning to look like a battle between his government on the one side and the media-public opinion-political opponents-military on the other side.
It is unfortunate that an effort that most probably was undertaken in good faith by Vice President Joe Biden has degenerated into a major blot on the face of US-Pakistani ties because of overbearing US congressmen, a politicized Pakistani ambassador in Washington, and an inept government in Islamabad headed by insecure leaders.
Pakistan is left saddled with a bill whose language represents a major Pakistani policy concession on military, nuclear and terrorism issues. A government that passionately defended the bill's language inside Pakistan made little effort to force a change in language in Washington.
The worst part is that future US legislation and government policy can now always look back and use the clauses that are part of the bill to perpetuate popular US accusations against Pakistan.
Does Mr. Qureshi really believe he will receive a hero's welcome in Islamabad tomorrow morning?
© 2007-2009. All rights reserved. AhmedQuraishi.com & PakNationalists
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium
without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)