The outgoing US ambassador to Pakistan needs to be congratulated for one thing: she did an excellent job of meddling in Pakistani media and politics. She is credited with organizing a pro-US cabal inside Pakistan that springs into action whenever the US is criticized in Pakistani media. Ironically, this cabal, which consists of Pakistanis, never shows equal passion when the US officials and media demonize Pakistan worldwide.
Ms. Patterson has not been working alone. She received full support from the ruling PPPP's media managers. That is why I am mentioning Pakistan's own wunderkid: Ambassador Husain Haqqani who is said by sources in his won party to be responsible for organizing PPPP's media plans while sitting in Washington DC.
Today the pro-US Zardari-Haqqani cabal in Pakistan [read: PPPP Media Cell] are seething with anger that I criticized Nobel's cheap shot against China. A version of my op-ed, titled, A 'Nobel' Mob Ambush, Chicago Style, was published by the blog section of the Pakistani affiliate of International Herald Tribune. The comments section makes for an interesting read.
They are livid that I linked Nobel's China swipe to the unusual wave of anti-China political ads during the current mid-term election campaign in the US. I explained how the Indian lobby in the US is contributing to the 'Blame China' campaign to divert attention from US public's anger at outsourcing jobs to India.
So guess what? The pro-US Zardari-Haqqani cabal teams up with Indian net surfers to bash China on this excellent Pakistani website.
But no one should worry: Their comments and arguments don't even begin to scratch the surface. The best answer to their ramblings cames from Mr. Ghias Ahmed whose half-line was both pithy and shrewd:
"2012 Nobel Prize will be paid in Chinese Yuan...".
Showing posts with label Hussain Haqqani. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hussain Haqqani. Show all posts
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Friday, June 25, 2010
Did Ambassador Haqqani Grant Visa To Faulkner Thinking He Was CIA?
How did US citizen Gary Faulkner manage to get entry visas for Pakistan six times, bring along weapons, roam the military-prohibited tribal region, and not once catch the eye of Ambassador Husain Haqqani and his staff at the Pakistan embassy in Washington DC?
This question is important because only a few months ago Ambassador Haqqani faced accusations he issued visas to tens and possibly hundreds of US citizens without verifying who these visa applicants represented. Most of them, however, claimed to be traveling on US government business. Pakistani security officials suspected Mr. Haqqani was basically facilitating US intelligence agents and private security contractors for Pentagon and CIA. By directly issuing visas, Mr. Haqqani avoided the long route through the Pakistan Foreign Office, which also meant verification by law enforcement agencies.
This issue is so close to Ambassador Haqqani's heart that at one point late last year he fired a letter to Pakistan's Foreign Secretary and ISI chief warning them that blocking visas to US citizens would endanger the supply of military hardware.
Mr. Faulkner traveled to Pakistan six times and was caught in the last one carrying a gun, a knife and hashish while 'hunting' for bin Laden in the Pakistan border region. He lied to Pakistani investigators that he planned to cross into Afghanistan. He never tried to cross into Afghanistan in the previous five trips.
Despite violations of Pakistani visa and laws, he was released without a single charge, not even a police report for the record. This was done most probably on the orders of Interior Minister Rehman Malik.
While it's nice to be nice to others, the problem is that such generosity is never reciprocated by the US government, which continues to prosecute innocent Pakistani college students on terror-related charges in cases where FBI agents planted flimsy evidence to promote their careers.
Compare Faulkner to Adnan Mirza, a twenty-something Pakistani and his cousin Shiraz.
Adnan remains in jail for the past 4 years because FBI is forcing him to accept guilt while he won't accept something he didn't do. The so-called evidence against him consists of [believe it or not] a tape recording where an undercover FBI agent pretending to be Muslim lead him into a conversation on Iraq and Afghanistan. Adnan's cousin Shiraz, whose wife and child are US citizens and whose aging parents live with him in the US, was released by a US judge for lack of evidence. But last week, FBI descended on him as he celebrated his child's birthday after Amb. Husain Haqqani colluded with US authorities to issue his deportation papers.
This is the worst part, where the Pakistani ambassador has actually been forcing these kids to accept the false charges against them. What Mr. Haqqani should have done was to tell US authorities that fake terror cases against Pakistani citizens for war propaganda purposes would hurt US-Pakistan relations. But of course Mr. Haqqani can't do that.
Moral of the story is that Pakistanis can rot in US jails but a US citizen who is in clear violation of Pakistani laws will always be promptly released by a pro-US government in Islamabad. These Pakistani officials, whose lives and careers exist outside Pakistan, don't even have the imagination to drive a fair bargain by exchanging Mr. Faulkner for Mr. Mirza, or even for Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, who might be partially guilty in some ways but whose method of punishment would forever remain a stain on the faces of those American and Pakistani political and intelligence officials who handled her case.
It is important to add a nore here about how ordinary Americans have dealth with Adnan Mirza's case in Houston. Ordinary Americans are good people who are confused and scared because of these fake terror cases. Many of them are coming out now to defend Adnan Mirza. These are college students and charity acitivists who knew him. But Amb. Haqqani won't defend this Pakistani because, well, Mr. Haqqani can't upset FBI since he has to live in the US long after the incumbent US-installed Pakistani govt. is gone.
P.S.: Mr. Faulkner plans to return to Pakistan in August. Let's see if Amb. Haqqani will grant him a visa for the seventh time.
For more information on Adnan Mirza, please see www.FakeTerror.com
Sunday, March 14, 2010
EXCLUSIVE: This Is How US Agents Sneak Into Pakistan
See The Video Here
For a few hundred dollars, low-paid border guards are allowing entry into Pakistan to spies and agents of multiple foreign intelligence agencies operating in Afghanistan. In this story and video, see how a US lady entered Pakistan through Torkham on Saturday, Mar. 13, 2010, without visa and without the knowledge of Pakistani intelligence officers posted there. This happens in a country that faces terrorism exported by both US-controlled Afghanistan and its Indian ally.
BY SYED FAWAD ALI SHAH
Saturday, 13 March 2010.
TORKHAM, Pakistan—Rampant corruption and a weak Pakistani state are helping the entry into Pakistan of spies and terrorists from multiple foreign intelligence agencies operating in Afghanistan. Almost all terror in Pakistan is coming from Afghanistan.
This American woman tried to sneak into Pakistan through Torkham on Afghan border today, Saturday, Mar. 13, 2010, around early afternoon. She was wearing an Afghan woman’s burqa and apparently spoke local dialects. She would have successfully crossed into Pakistan safely hidden among a group of Afghan women but something about her demeanor raised the suspicion of a Pakistani border guard.
However, the border guards, known as Khasadars, made sure that Pakistani intelligence officers posted in the area are not told about this arrest. Torkham is considered a hot station within Kasadar tribal force circles. With salaries that go less than PKR 10,000 per month [less than US$ 130], major checkpoints such as Torkham provide an extra source of income for the Khasadars through bribes from travelers.
The guards kept the woman in a room for about thirty minutes and then let her enter Pakistan in her burqa. She paid the Khasadar guards a handsome amount of money as bribe. According a source in the Khasadar Force who witnessed the whole thing, the woman didn’t panic. She appeared composed and familiar with the ways of the border guards. She knew what to do in such a situation.
Thanks to my contacts in the border force, I was able to make a cell phone video of her passport while the Khasadar chief at the checkpoint talked to her.
Her name on the passport was Zohra Rehmati, which makes her an American from either Iranian or Tajik-Afghan extract.
Over the past four years, a large number of US agents have entered Pakistan through Afghanistan. Several have been arrested in different parts of the country disguised as Afghan men, complete with beards and Turbans and fluent in Pashto, Dari and Urdu. Unfortunately, much of this covert American activity was sanctioned first by the Musharraf government and now by the pro-US Zardari-Haqqani combine in the incumbent government.
Ms. Rehmati, if that is her real name, may or may not be a CIA operative, or one of its private contractors associated with either DynCorp or Xe International. But such lax security in a country that is a target of terrorism, DynCorp managed to create quite a covert network in Pakistan before being busted by Pakistani security last year. DynCorp remains in Pakistan, thanks to backing from both the US Embassy in Islamabad and the pro-US government, despite repeated attempts by the country’s security officials to force the US defense contractor to wrap up its operations here. Xe International, formerly known as Blackwater, also operated in Pakistan until 2005 before being moved to Afghanistan, according to an earlier report in the New York Times. But going by the number of incidents in Pakistan over the past couple of years where US private agents were seen operating in major Pakistani cities, it is safe to say that both contractors continue to quietly operate in Pakistan in one
Private contractors help give CIA the benefit of deniability if an agent is arrested on foreign territory.
CIA has been known to send US citizens of foreign descent to their home countries for espionage.
The most recent example is Roxana Saberi, an Iranian-American who was busted in Tehran carrying sensitive documents handed to her by an informant. Ms. Saberi was sent to Iran posing as a journalist. CIA even managed to get her newspaper accreditation from a major American newspaper. The US government was embarrassed at the arrest because Ms. Saberi was arrested red handed receiving official documents from a contact.
In Pakistan, a State that is falling apart at the seams, with no central figure or department to control the rot, is providing the perfect environment for meddling in the country not only by the United States, UK, India and other established powers based in Afghanistan, but also by a puppet regime like that of Mr. Hamid Karzai and his spymasters, who in eight years are in a good position today to wreak mayhem inside Pakistan while the politicians in Islamabad and the military in Rawaplpindi have little recourse beyond words of appeasement or caution during closed-door meetings with foreign powers in Afghanistan that are never translated into action to reestablish Pakistan’s writ domestically and in the region.
Mr. Shah is an independent journalist based in Peshawar.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
A Pakistani Minister Steals US$ 20 Million From A Pakistani Ambassador
A young democracy reverts back to corruption as a battle ensues between two Pakistan Government titans over a commission worth US$ 20 million
Pakistan hit a new high in corruption when ‘state actors’ joined a resourceful cartel to create a fake nationwide shortage in a major commodity – sugar – and made millions.
Now some very powerful people in Islamabad are on their way to hitting another jackpot: a commission between US$ 15 to 20 million on a sugar consignment meant to plug the hole created by the fake shortage.
Two senior figures in the government, a federal minister and an ambassador to a Gulf state, have locked horns to grab the millions of dollars in commission. But only one of them will win and bag the bounty.
This is also a classic case of how corruption by junior government officials is hijacked by big fish when the commission is high.
Responding to a tender floated by the federal government for the import of 600,000 tons of sugar, Al Khaleej Sugar Trading (Pvt.) Ltd. submitted a bid of US$ 740 (London sugar price) plus US$ 80 as freight and premium charges on a per ton basis.
The initial negotiations for this bid were handled by Pakistan’s Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates Mr. Khursheed Ahmed Junejo. Apparently the final deal that Amb. Junejo reached with Mr. Jamal al-Ghurair, the CEO of Al-Khaleej Sugar Trading, involved a hefty kickback of somewhere around US$ 15 to US$ 2o million. In return, Mr. Junejo committed himself to pulling all the necessary strings to ensure Mr. al-Ghurair’s bid is not only accepted but that the bid is exempted from federal government’s ceiling of US$ 50 on freight and premium charges.
What Ambassador Junejo did not anticipate is that the sweet deal might go sour on him and the rewards – the commission – would be bagged by people more powerful than him in the present government in Islamabad.
At some point, federal Interior Minister Rehman Malik jumped into the fray, backed apparently by no less than the President of Pakistan. Now, according to sources in the federal government, Mr. Malik is poised to win the race for the millions in commission in the Al-Khaleej Sugar Trading deal. According to sources, Mr. Malik will grab this deal instead of Mr. Junejo thanks to backing from no less than the President. No brownie points for where the commission is bound for. Suffice to say that it will be far from the pockets of the man who was supposed to have pocketed it in the first place.
In an agricultural country where sugar cane is a major crop, the sugar shortage crisis is highly suspicious in the first place. It has become a case of state actors backing a resourceful mafia for the exploitation of national resources.
And once again, Pakistan’s democracy is under the threat of reverting back to the well known corruption stories that resulted in the failure of the entire political system in the past.
PakNationalists.com has reproduced this report verbatim from the post of Tania Khan on Facebook where it first appeared.
Monday, February 8, 2010
This Ambassador Is A Sore In US-Pakistani Relationship
“I have a challenge for Ms Patterson today. I challenge her to repeat every single word she said back then and swear it is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth … America’s reputation is lying in the lowest gutters in Pakistan at the moment and it can’t sink any lower.”
By AHMED QURAISHI
Monday, 8 February 2010.
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—US Ambassador to Pakistan Ms. Anne W. Patterson is becoming quite controversial. She has overseen the worst spell in the relationship between Washington and Islamabad in sixty years and many say she is responsible for at least some of it. Ties weren’t this bad even when the United States unfairly sanctioned Pakistan in 1990 over its nuclear program.
Mr. Thomas Houlahan, a Washington DC-based expert on Pakistani military issues, accused her in 2008 of conducting ‘bunker diplomacy’—that is, conducting United States diplomacy with Pakistan from the barricaded and isolated confines of her office inside a heavily fortified embassy building which in turn is located inside the isolated Diplomatic Enclave in an outer tip of Pakistan’s federal capital.
Her reports back to Washington are misleading, explained Mr. Houlahan, because she doesn’t really know what Pakistanis are thinking.
For information, Washington’s diplomats in Pakistan have been relying on two things: a pro-US government whose principals owe their power to a deal brokered and guaranteed by the US, and a list of proverbial ‘good guys’ that Ms. Patterson’s Embassy recruited from the media, including retired diplomats, military officers and academia, who could take America’s case to the Pakistani public opinion.
This strategy backfired. Big time.
Failing to see that Pakistanis were asking for respect and not confrontation, she shot alarming reports back to Washington warning of an organized campaign in Pakistani media to assail US reputation.
Getting their cue from Ms. Patterson’s reporting, US government’s spin masters countered by launching an organized campaign within the US media and worldwide, accusing Pakistan of ‘anti-Americanism’. The accusation was expanded to include harassment of US diplomats and non-issuance of visas to them. Obviously, Ms. Patterson failed to tell people back in Washington that CIA and other intelligence-related personnel where using diplomatic cover under her guidance to spy on Pakistan.
She also might have overlooked another small detail: the US ambassador in Pakistan is a potential suspect in a case of bribing a senior Interior Ministry official in order to get a cache of banned weapons into Pakistan without the knowledge of the country’s intelligence.
The alarm generated by Ms. Patterson and her team led US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to rush to Pakistan in order to counter the Pakistani media, with carefully-orchestrated interviews and public appearances where Ms. Patterson did her best to keep Mrs. Clinton away from the ‘bad guys’. She ensured that her boss never met those commentators and media people who could provide the harsh, but legitimate, viewpoint.
This misrepresentation on the part of Ms. Patterson led someone no less than US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to land in Pakistan making a highly inappropriate statement, where he accused legitimate critics of US policy toward Pakistan of orchestrating an 'an organized propaganda campaign'. He probably had no idea that legitimate criticism of policy by Pakistanis claiming they want US not to ignore Pakistani interests did not qualify to be described as ‘an organized propaganda campaign’.
[There are indications that some Pakistanis in Mr. Zardari’s government, and not just Ms. Patterson, helped create this misperception in Washington. Topping the list of Pakistani suspects is Mr. Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s envoy in Washington, a key aide to Mr. Zardari and recently the wizard behind Mr. Zardari’s media outreach campaign. Mr. Haqqani has been quite active behind the scenes in mounting a counterattack on the critics of Mr. Zardari and the critics of US in Pakistan. Recently, large numbers of Pakistani legislators have publicly accused Mr. Haqqani of misusing his official position to poison American perceptions of Pakistan’s military and intelligence.]
So, in essence, Ms. Patterson squandered two great opportunities – the visits of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Gates – to address the concerns of the harshest critics in the Pakistani media. Due to Ms. Patterson’s failure, it fell to the Pakistani military to discuss those concerns with counterparts in the US military and use that channel to convey Pakistan’s legitimate concerns about how the US was ignoring Pakistani strategic interests in the region.
What Ms. Patterson should have helped resolve in the civilian arena was actually tackled, and somewhat resolved, in the military arena. But the damage is done. United States’ combative ambassador in Islamabad has left a permanent scar in the media record of the two countries, with silly accusations of anti-Americanism and harassment of diplomats.
Last year she fired a secret letter to a newspaper to silence Dr. Shireen Mazari, a defense expert and Columbia graduate, leading to a public spat that gave the impression the US ambassador was out to force newspapers to fire critics of US.
AND NOW: YVONNE RIDLEY
In 2008, Ms. Patterson accused ‘irresponsible elements’ in the Pakistani media of spreading lies about Dr. Aafia Siddiqui being in US custody in Afghanistan.
Yesterday, the British journalist who uncovered Dr. Siddiqui’s presence inside US-controlled Bagram base wrote a damning piece showing that Ambassador Patterson basically lied to the Pakistani public in her 2008 letter, which she sent to Pakistani newspapers.
This is what Ms. Ridley has to say about Ms. Patterson:
“Everyone had something to say, everyone that is except the usually verbose US Ambassador Anne Patterson who has spent the last two years briefing against Dr Aafia and her supporters.
This is the same woman who claimed I was a fantasist when I gave a press conference with Tehreek-e-Insaf leader Imran Khan back in July 2008 revealing the plight of a female prisoner in Bagram called the Grey Lady.
She said I was talking nonsense and stated categorically that the prisoner I referred to as “650” did not exist.
By the end of the month she changed her story and said there had been a female prisoner but that she was most definitely not Dr Aafia Siddiqui.
By that time Aafia had been gunned down at virtually point blank range in an Afghan prison cell jammed full of more than a dozen US soldiers, FBI agents and Afghan police.
Her Excellency briefed the media that the prisoner had wrested an M4 gun from one soldier and fired off two rounds and had to be subdued. The fact these bullets failed to hit a single person in the cell and simply disappeared did not resonate with the diplomat.
In a letter dripping in untruths on August 16 2008 she decried the “erroneous and irresponsible media reports regarding the arrest of MsAafia Siddiqui”. She went on to say: “Unfortunately, there are some who have an interest in simply distorting the facts in an effort to manipulate and inflame public opinion. The truth is never served by sensationalism…”
When Jamaat Islami invited me on a national tour of Pakistan to address people about the continued abuse of Dr Aafia and the truth about her incarceration in Bagram, the US Ambassador continued to issue rebuttals.
She assured us all that Dr Aafia was being treated humanely had been given consular access as set out in international law … hmm. Well I have a challenge for Ms Patterson today. I challenge her to repeat every single word she said back then and swear it is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
As Dr Aafia Siddiqui’s trial got underway, the US Ambassador and some of her stooges from the intelligence world laid on a lavish party at the US Embassy in Islamabad for some hand-picked journalists where I’ve no doubt in between the dancing, drinks and music they were carefully briefed about the so-called facts of the case.
Interesting that some of the potentially incriminating pictures taken at the private party managed to find the Ambassador was probably hoping to minimize the impact the trial would have on the streets of Pakistan proving that, for the years she has been holed up and barricaded behind concrete bunkers and barbed wire, she has learned nothing about this great country of Pakistan or its people.
One astute Pakistani columnist wrote about her: “The respected lady seems to have forgotten the words of her own country’s 16th president Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865): “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time”.
Well I, and many others across the world like me, can’t handle any more lies. America’s reputation is lying in the lowest gutters in Pakistan at the moment and it can’t sink any lower.
The trust has gone, there is only a burning hatred and resentment towards a superpower which sends unmanned drones into villages to slaughter innocents.
It is fair to say that America’s goodwill and credibility is all but washed up with most honest, decent citizens of Pakistan.
And I think even Her Excellency Anne Patterson recognizes that fact which is why she is now keeping her mouth shut.
If she has any integrity and any self respect left she should stand before the Pakistan people and ask for their forgiveness for the drone murders, the extra judicial killings, the black operations, the kidnapping, torture and rendition of its citizens, the water-boarding, the bribery, the corruption and, not least of all, the injustice handed out to Dr Aafia Siddiqui and her family.
She should then pick up the phone to the US President and tell him to release Aafia and return Pakistan’s most loved, respected and famous daughter and reunite her with the two children who are still missing.”
Far from the way Ms. Patterson portrayal of Pakistanis as a bunch of ‘anti-Americanists’, most Pakistanis believe in the goodness of the American people and that this American here [click to see the video and report] represents America much better than Ms. Patterson has unsuccessfully been trying so far in Pakistan, with all due respect.
MUST SEE
Saturday, January 23, 2010
What Robert Gates Didn’t Say - And US Media Hides - About Blackwater In Pakistan
(Photo courtesy DoD)
This report explains the bogus American claims about anti-Americanism and conspiracy theories in Pakistan, and how Washington has used the issue of visa delays to hide serious violations of diplomatic norms and stories about pushy US diplomats in Pakistan.
This report should be an eye-opener for the good people of America.
Two Pakistani employees of an American defense contractor engaged by the US Embassy in Islamabad have been linked to two attacks on Pakistani military and the assassination of a Brigadier. If this is not alarming, then consider that US Ambassador Anne Patterson’s name has come up in an investigation where thousands of dollars were paid in bribes to Interior Ministry to smuggle illegal weapons into Pakistan. Not to mention how Washington is empowering India in Afghanistan at Pakistan’s cost. When Pakistan takes countermeasures, US officials like Mr. Gates and Mr. Holbrooke accuse Pakistan of ‘anti-Americanism’ and harassing US diplomats. Time for some straight talk.
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL REPORT
Friday, January 15, 2010
American McShoe In Pakistan's Face
US senators Mitch McConnell and John McCain visited Pakistan at the same time. Both of them met Pakistani leaders. These two pictures, from the Associated Press of Pakistan, stand out from their list of meetings in Islamabad. At the top, Sen. John's McShoe is protruding into Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilnai's face. And in the second one, Sen. Mitch's McShoe is distracting Pakistan's army chief.
Is there something here or am I just reading too much into these pictures?
I'd love to see our Ambassador Husain Haqqani mustering his guts to put on display a similar spectacle with US President or his VP in Washington. Mr. Haqqani probably won't do this because it's simply in bad taste.
A Pakistani living in the United States for a long time emailed me saying this happens all the time in the US and so it's no big deal.
That's not true. In recent months, Pakistani officials have seen an increase in the number of incidents where US diplomats have resorted to bully tactics against the host country. This includes sending undercover operatives and private defense contractors to Pakistan with diplomatc passports and lying to the Pakistani government about it. When Pakistan tried to check this, CIA and other parts of the US government resorted to a cheap tactic. Reports suddenly flooded the US media talking about Pakistan 'harassing' US diplomats. Then there is the story of how several junior diplomats working under the US ambassador in Pakistan took turns every week or so in issuing public statements indirectly threatening war and invasion against Pakistan over the alleged presence of the Afghan Taliban leadership here. Our Foreign Office told them not to make such statements without evidence. And yet they were at it again.
In this backdrop, actions such as flaunting a shoe in the face of a guest during a formal government-to-government meeting is not okay.
If some of you think this is reading too much into things, see how Turkey extracted an apology from Israel over a sofa. See the two pictures below.
I know I would take offense to someone flaunting his shoe in my face during an official meeting.
Maybe Amb. Anne W. Patterson should sensitize the powerful guests from Washington to common manners instead of wasting her energies on hunting down who to expel next from which Pakistani newspaper for criticizing US policies. This week, the US Embassy in Islamabad had the audacity to issue a statement accusing an editorial writer in the Urdu-language newspaper Nawai Waqt for slandering Richard Holbrooke. Why? Because the paper dared question US policy intentions.
Pakistan should start taking offense at these indirect messages of insult in the same manner that Turkey did. Unfortunately, under a US-installed government, Pakistan has lost tremendous credibility and respect in the eyes of both its own citizens and friends overseas.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Haqqani Should Buy Zardari A New Maximilian
The Zardari-Nawaz musical chairs stands exposed before the Pakistani people. Syed Faisal Saleh Hayat appears on Ahmed Quraishi's TSS [Sunday, Nov. 15, 08:00 pm-Aag TV] to issue this warning: this is the last chance for the politicians and the expanded ruling elite. Anjum Niaz puts that warning in perspective in this column in her unique style.
Click here to read the full column
Friday, November 13, 2009
America's Sleazeball Haqqani
In the thick of the debate over Kerry-Lugar bill in Pakistan, Ambassador Husain Haqqani came under unprecedented attack. In fact, he is the only Pakistani ambassador to US who was ruthlessly criticized in the federal parliament for two days, with open demands that he be recalled from Washington. There are two reasons he survived. One is Mr. Zardari, and the second is the terrorist attack on the GHQ building in Rawalpindi. Pakistan's isolated President sees Mr. Haqqani as his man in Washington, entrusted with ensuring that Washington keeps its part of the 'deal' that brought his government to power. Interestingly, the Americans see Haqqani as their man, entrusted with ensuring that Zardari and Pakistan's military keep their parts of the 'deal'. When Mr. Haqqani sensed the noose tightening around his neck, he tried to play smart, using the Foreign Policy magazine to leak out a message to whom it may concern in Islamabad [and Rawalpindi]. The Nation published this message in a story titled If Fired, Haqqani Threatens To Reveal 'Reams' of Pakistani Secrets on Oct. 14. Mr. Haqqani didn't anticipate that someone will catch his subtle message. So he slapped a defamation suit. But he certainly wasn't expecting this response from The Nation. Here it is in case you missed it.
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
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Haqqani's Blackmail
Pakistan's Ambassador to the United States Mr. Husain Haqqani is an insecure man these days. Members of his own government as well as the opposition are gunning for his head as the prime suspect in the Kerry-Lugar bill fiasco were anti-Pakistan clauses were inserted in an aid bill. There are reports his own government has reached a secret deal with the military to quietly ease the man out of his power seat.
Ever the consummate media manipulater [ex-journalist, professor and an admirable social climber], Mr. Haqqani tried to send a message to the Pakistani establishment through a prestigious American platform: If I am fired, I will reveal ugly and embarrassing secrets.
When The Nation picked up the story, he slapped the respected daily newspaper with a defamation lawsuit worth Rs. One billion.
So what is it that has really unsettled the man who has President Zardari's ear, and rubs shoulders with the powerful in Washington? Read on ...
CLICK HERE OR HERE FOR THE FULL REPORT
Saturday, October 17, 2009
In Serving US Interest, This Pakistani Govt. Is In A Class Of Its Own
You must be hearing a lot these days from the apologists of expanded US influence in Pakistan that every government in the past has accepted humiliating US conditions.
In fact, on Wednesday, government's PR wizards working under the direction of the PPP media team published a preposterous propaganda piece on the front page of one of the national dailies alleging that, "Jinnah also appealed for US aid."
The government media team is keen to convince Pakistanis that humiliating foreign conditions on aid are kosher because that is what previous Pakistani governments have been doing. Shamelessly, even the Quaid-e-Azam has been dragged into this government propaganda.
While the record of previous governments is debatable, what's beyond doubt is that this is the first government in Pakistan that came through a 'deal' brokered by US and UK diplomats, whitewashing the illegal wealth of individuals who enjoy a dubious record. This has never happened before in the history of any Pakistani government.
I bet even the Americans have never seen before this kind of an 'easy' pro-US government in their decades-old record of meddling in other countries.
This alone should put to shame anyone who defends these shady characters in this government.
Pakistanis should rest assured of one thing. The challenge of governing Pakistan and subduing this nation in the service of a foreign agenda is a difficult task. It's above and beyond the intellectual capacity of the rulers in Islamabad today.
As the challenge mounts, these shady characters will run away abroad in a few months' time with their fat bank accounts and will never look back. They will leave and never look back sooner or later.
While criticizing this ruling class, we need to send a note of thank you to Mr. Musharraf for 'dealing' us this hand as a parting gift to the nation.
Pakistanis should recognize this distinction about the current Pakistani government in the debate over the record of past Pakistani rulers in dealing with Washington.
The current government, in this debate, is in a class of its own.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
An 'Explanatory' Note From Washington To Pakistan
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)