American Conspiracy Theories

In her column today, renowned defense analyst Dr. Shireen Mazari surprises her readers when she says that instead of appreciating Pakistan's cooperation, US officials and media have launched a campaign of conspiracy theories against Pakistan.

She identifies three threads: CIA organizing a conference in Thailand dedicated to Pakistan's disintegration, fresh attacks in the US media on Pakistan's judiciary to protect the pro-US government in Islamabad, and belittling Pakistani help in America's faltering war in Afghanistan.

Here's a quote:

"In the coming days we should gear up for a new nuclear related hype building up in the US media. Unfortunately, Dr Khan’s “letters” have been purchased by a leading US newspaper and will be used to target Iran. In the process Pakistan will also be targeted - killing two birds with one stone, so to speak. Would that our government undertake some proactive measures with the Iranians to deflect this new campaign but it hardly seems likely. So we need to brace ourselves once again for an onslaught against our nuclear capability and accusations of proliferation at a time when the US continues to proliferate to Israel and, post the 123 Agreement with India, to this South Asian aspiring hegemon."

Click here to read the full column.

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.

WWW.PAKNATIONALISTS.COM

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

Did US Ambassador In Pakistan Bribe Local Officials?

America's Intrusive Ambassador In Pakistan

Anne Patterson vs. Shireen Mazari

Mazari vs. Patterson: Clarifications By Jang Group, Shireen Mazari & PakNationalists

A US Counteroffensive In Pakistan

Why Lie, Madam Ambassador Anne W. Patterson?

EXCLUSIVE: Documents Show Rehman Malik Helped US Embassy Import Banned Weapons Without Telling ISI

Want To Meet Hillary? Don't Criticize United States!

Latest From US & Indian Ambassadors In Pakistan

What Robert Gates Didn’t Say - And US Media Hides - About Blackwater In Pakistan

Shireen Mazari On Seymour Hersh

In Bob Woodward’s book, “Bush at War”, he recalls how when he (Woodward) quoted Hersh to Bush, the latter replied that Seymour Hersh was a liar! Hersh’s article “Defending the Arsenal” in The New Yorker (November 16, 2009) has predictably caused a stir in Pakistan. But this always happens after the event; after foreign journalists have been given excessive access into the corridors of power in Pakistan. So it has been with Hersh. Now the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) claims Hersh has a well-known “anti-Pakistan” bias. If that is the case, then did the MFA give an official perspective on how much access Hersh should have been given in Pakistan? Did they advise the President to avoid meeting this man or did they give any official brief to the President on what to say to him on sensitive issues? Clearly, the Zardari meeting with Hersh has no reflection of the MFA or any official Pakistani position. Instead, there is a reflection of ignorance with the President declaring that our army officers are “British-trained”!

CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL COLUMN

Anti-Americanism Rises In Pakistan Over U.S. Motives

By Saeed Shah

McClatchy Newspapers

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — For weeks now, the Pakistani media have portrayed America, its military and defense contractors in the darkest of lights, all part of an apparent campaign of anti-American vilification that is sweeping the country and, according to some, is putting American lives at risk.


Pakistanis are reacting to what many here see as an "imperial" American presence, echoing Iraq and Afghanistan, with Washington dictating to the Pakistani military and the government. Polls show that Pakistanis regard the U.S., formally a close ally and the country's biggest donor, as a hostile power.


U.S. officials have either denied the allegations or moved to blunt the criticism, but suspicions remain and relations between the two countries are getting more strained.


The lively Pakistani media has been filled with stories of under-cover American agents operating in the country, tales of a huge contingent of U.S. Marines planned to be stationed at the embassy, and reports of Blackwater private security personnel running amuck. Armed Americans have supposedly harassed and terrified residents and police officers in Islamabad and Peshawar, according to local press reports.


Much of the hysteria was based on a near $1 billion plan, revealed by McClatchy in May and confirmed by U.S. officials, to massively increase the size of the American embassy in Islamabad, which brought home to Pakistanis that the United States plans an extensive and long-term presence in the country.


The American mission in Islamabad was forced to put on three briefings for Pakistani journalists in August trying to dampen the highly charged stories, which could undermine US-Pakistani relations just as Washington is preparing to finalize a tripling of civilian aid to Islamabad, to $1.5 billion a year. Over this last weekend, an embassy spokesman had to deny suddenly renewed stories that the U.S. was behind the mysterious death of former military dictator General Zia ul Haq back in 1988.


Pakistan is a key priority for the United States because of its nuclear weapons and its potential usefulness in taking on al Qaida within its borders and ending the safe haven for the Afghan Taliban.


"I think this recent brouhaha over the embassy expansion has been difficult to beat back," said Anne Patterson, the U.S. ambassador, in an interview Thursday. "I can't really understand what's behind this because what we're doing is actually quite straightforward. We've tried to explain it carefully to the press, but it just seems to be taken over by conspiracy theories."


Briefing Pakistani journalists last month, Patterson told them that there were only nine Marines stationed to guard the embassy in Islamabad and that, even after the expansion, their number would be no more than 15 to 20. Press reports had put the figure at 350 to 1,000 Marines. She also stated categorically "Blackwater is not operating in Pakistan". But the stories refused to go away.


Patterson said she wrote last week to the owner of Pakistan's biggest media group, Jang, to protest about the content of two talk shows on its Geo TV channel, hosted by star anchors Hamid Mir and Kamran Khan, and a newspaper column of influential analyst Shireen Mazari in The News, a daily, complaining that they were "wildly incorrect" and had compromised the security of Americans.


There are 250 American citizens posted at the Islamabad mission on longer-term contracts, plus another 200 on shorter assignments, the embassy said. The present embassy compound can accommodate only a fraction of them. According to independent estimates, there are some 200 private houses for U.S. officials, on regular streets located throughout upscale districts of Islamabad.


Pakistani press and bloggers also targeted Craig Davis, an American aid worker, insisting that he's an undercover secret agent. Davis, a contractor to the USAID development arm of the government, is based in the volatile northwestern city of Peshawar, and now appears to be at risk. Last year, another American USAID contractor in Peshawar, Stephen Vance, was gunned down just outside his home.


"In one or two cases these commentators have identified very specific embassy employees as CIA or Blackwater, and that very much puts the employee at danger. In at least one case we're going to have to evacuate the employee," said Patterson, without identifying the individual involved. "What particularly scared us about him is that Stephen Vance, who was the other AID Chief of Party in Peshawar, was of course assassinated a few months ago. So there is a track record here that's sort of alarming."


In recent days, shows on two popular private television channels, Geo and Dunya, which broadcast in the local Urdu language, put up pictures of homes in Islamabad which they claimed were occupied by CIA, FBI, or employees of the controversial Blackwater company of private security contractors, now called Xe Services. Some of the houses were identified with their full address. It is believed that several of the homes weren't occupied by Americans but others were. According to the U.S embassy, bloggers are now calling on people to "kill" the occupants of these houses.


A survey last month for international broadcaster al Jazeera by Gallup Pakistan found that 59 percent of Pakistanis felt the greatest threat to the country was the United States. A separate survey in August by the Pew Research Center, an independent pollster based in Washington, recorded that 64 percent of the Pakistani public regards the U.S. "as an enemy" and only 9 percent believe it to be a partner.


"The Ugly American of the sixties is back in Pakistan and this time with a vengeance," said Mazari, the defense analyst whose newspaper column was the subject of the American complaint. "It's an alliance (U.S.-Pakistan) that's been forced on the country by its corrupt leadership. It's delivering chaos. We should distance ourselves. You can't just hand over the country."


While the anti-US sentiment appears genuine, it is uncertain whether the current storm, and the particular stories that it thrived on, was orchestrated by a pressure group or even an arm of the state. In the past, Pakistan's notorious Inter-Services Intelligence spy agency, part of the military, has very effectively used the press to push its agenda.


The U.S. provided over $11billion in aid to Pakistan since 2001. Yet in recent days, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani has complained that too much of the promised new enhanced U.S. aid package would be eaten up in American administrative costs, while President Asif Zardari demanded that multi-billion dollar civilian and military aid money, currently stuck in Congress, be speeded up.


The Pakistani government has repeatedly stated that joining the U.S. "war on terror" has cost the nation an estimated $34 billion and ministers frequently lambast the U.S. for trespassing on Pakistani territory with use of spy planes to target suspected militants — an emotive tacit for the Pakistani population.


Ambassador Patterson said that "the (Pakistani) government could be more helpful" in combating the anti-American controversies, which took on a new fever pitch since the beginning of August.


The weak Islamabad government appears unable to come to the defense of its ally and even tried to score some popularity points by joining the U.S.-baiting.


A widely believed conspiracy contends that America is deliberately destabilizing Pakistan, to bring down a "strong Muslim country", and ultimately seize its nuclear weapons. Pakistanis, especially its military establishment, also are distrustful of U.S. motives in Afghanistan, seeing it as part of a strategy for regional domination. Further Pakistanis are appalled that the regime of Hamid Karzai in Kabul is close to archenemy India.


"Part of the reason why we can't fight terrorism is because the terrorists have adopted what I'd call anti-U.S. imperialist discourse, which makes them more popular," said Ayesha Siddiqa, an analyst and author of Military Inc.


Many also blame the U.S. for "imposing" a president on the country, Zardari, who is deeply disliked and who last year succeeded an unpopular U.S.-backed military dictator. So democrats resent American interference in Pakistani politics, while conservatives distrust American aims in Afghanistan.


"You used to find this anti-Americanism among supporters of religious groups and Right-wing groups," said Ahmed Quraishi, a newspaper columnist and the leading anti-American blogger. "But over the past two to three years, young, educated Pakistanis, people you'd normally expect to be pro-American modernists, and middle class people, are increasingly inclined to anti-Americanism. That's the new phenomenon."


Shah is a McClatchy special correspondent in Pakistan.

Mazari vs. Patterson: Clarifications By Jang Group, Shireen Mazari & PakNationalists

The ambassador of the US in Pakistan has accused a prominent columnist and US critic of endangering the life of a US citizen without providing any evidence to support this claim. The newspaper puts the burden of proof on the columnist. The US ambassador gets away with making a serious allegation without proof. What is wrong with this picture?


The Editorial Board of the Jang Group issued a clarification published today, Sept. 7, reacting to a written complaint by US Ambassador to Pakistan Anne W. Patterson that resulted in knocking Dr. Mazari's regular column off the pages of the newspaper for one day last Wednesday, Sept. 3.

The newspaper published the regular column a day later, on Thursday Sept. 4, after back and forth with Dr. Mazari.


The clarification in The News also indirectly referred to a report published at PakNationalists/AhmedQuraishi.com and carried by several websites where the US ambassador's letter to the newspaper was described as 'private'. The paper says it was not 'private'.

It is unfortunate that a letter by the US ambassador, which was not printed or made public and as such can be legitimately misconstrued as an attempt at undue pressure by an envoy of a foreign government, has resulted in a misunderstanding between the esteemed columnist and the respected newspaper, ending a long relationship that goes back almost a decade.

The two- The News International and Dr. Mazari – are especially remembered for the bold decision taken last year by The News, one of Pakistan's largest English-language newspapers, to publish an exclusive report, written by Dr. Mazari, which prevented the Bush administration from quietly appointing an anti-Pakistan US army general as a defense attaché in Islamabad.

The ending of this relationship [Dr. Mazari joins The Nation as editor, columnist and television host as of tonight] must have engendered many smiles at the US embassy in Islamabad. There is a history between Dr. Mazari, a renowned defense expert, and the US mission here. In 2006, the US ambassador at the time reportedly approached Pakistan's Foreign Secretary to request that Dr. Mazari, who was heading a think tank financed by the Pakistan Foreign Office, be asked to stop writing columns critical of US policy in Afghanistan. Mr. Khokhar, according to Dr. Mazari, resisted the pressure. But last year, Dr. Mazari was unceremoniously removed from her post in one of the first few decisions taken by the new elected government. Mr. Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's envoy to Washington and one of America's most vocal Pakistani apologists, personally supervised the move.

The following is the clarification as published in The News International today, followed by the reply sent by Dr. Mazari to the newspaper [also received by us], and then a reply from PakNationalists, written by Ahmed Quraishi.



Clarification by The News


A press conference of Dr. Shireen Mazari was reported in the newspapers of Thursday (September 3) in which it was indicated that The News International had been pressurised by the US Embassy into dropping her article, although it appeared in the same day’s issue. Some websites have also alleged that the US ambassador has written a ‘private’ letter to the Jang Group pressuring that Dr. Mazari’s article be dropped.

We are surprised that someone as familiar with the Jang Group’s editorial policy as Dr. Mazari — an official turned politician and Information Secretary/ Spokesperson of the Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf — should level such unfounded allegations. The facts of the matter are as follows:

* The US ambassador had sent a letter to the Jang Group complaining that in her article published in The News the week before, Dr. Shireen Mazari had levelled certain incorrect allegations that had endangered the life of a US citizen.

* In accordance with our policy, and accepted international norms, we referred the complaint to Dr. Shireen Mazari — for her feedback and comments.

* While this complaint was being investigated, Dr. Mazari sent another article on Tuesday (September 1), which was to be published the next day — that is on Wednesday. In this article she had again levelled certain allegations, which were also without attribution. Since certain contentions in the previous article had been refuted and were under investigation and she had not produced any evidence or reliable reference to prove the same (nor has she been able to do so till date), we reverted to Dr. Mazari and asked if she could substantiate these allegations. The concerned editor also informed her that her article had been referred to the concerned department to make sure that it was not libellous. As it happens, on receiving supporting comments from her, as well as advice from the concerned editor, the article was published the very next day — that is on Thursday.

* It is normal for embassies, political parties and other affected people and institutions to complain against perceived bias and the letter from the US ambassador was in the same vein. She neither asked us in the above letter nor any time in the past to drop articles by Dr. Mazari or by any other contributor holding similar views and writing for many years in The News. The ambassador also did not desire that the letter be kept confidential. While we take all complaints seriously, we allow them to exert no pressure on us or influence editorial policy or decisions. Therefore, at no point did anyone from the management or editorial staff of The News suggest to Dr. Mazari that this, or future, articles by her would not be published.

* We not only publish articles by some of the most respected columnists in the country, but as a matter of policy, give space to people holding strong and diverse opinions. Since years some of the fiercest criticism of US policies has been voiced on the pages of The News. We are sorry that she chose to go public with accusations that have no basis in fact.

Editorial Board - Jang Group



Dr. Mazari's Response


This is the response sent by Dr. Mazari to The News in response to the clarification [as received by us]:

With reference to my press conference on Wednesday, 2 September, I was clearly premature in assuming the newspaper would succumb to US pressure given its past stance on such occasions. So on that count I stand corrected by the paper’s clarification published on 7th September and appreciate the fact that I have not been victimised for my critical stance on US policies.

However, the thrust of my press conference was on multiple efforts by the US embassy to intervene in the media and I had cited my own earlier cases. Now The News has substantiated my position on this issue.

I am glad that The News has referred to US ambassador’s letter in which certain objections were made to one of my columns. My point is that she levelled a serious allegation against me – that of endangering the life of an American citizen. What proof does she have of that from my columns? Did I incite anyone to kill an American? Did I print pictures of the citizen in question? On what grounds did she come to this conclusion? Did The News editorial team ask her for substantiation of what is a serious charge? After all I was asked for so many “proofs”! Here was a foreign emissary levelling a serious allegation against a Pakistani citizen and where was the proof? My columns discuss issues and do not include any form of incitement.

The normal practice that one has seen in newspapers is for embassies to have their objections published which then allows the writer to respond to the allegations. It is strange that the US ambassador chose not to have her objections to my column published so that I could have directly responded to these.

Finally, I simply want to correct one error in The News’s clarification – I was never an “official” – otherwise I would not have been able to write a regular column. I was an academic for 16 years before I headed a research think tank as a researcher/technocrat.

I am presuming again that The News will, in its policy of fair play and equal access to all, publish this response and my appreciation once again of the paper’s ability to withstand all manner of pressures.

Shireen M. Mazari



PakNationalists Comment

Ahmed Quraishi comments:

1. The issue in question is not The News. The issue in question is a letter sent by US ambassador Anne Patterson to a Pakistani newspaper accusing a Pakistani columnist of endangering the life of a US citizen. Since Ms. Patterson provides no proof and does not seek to publish her letter, as is the custom when you dispute a published report, there is a possibility she is intimidating a known critic of US policy into submission.

2. The accepted practice is for politicians or ambassadors to send a letter that is published and then the concerned writer gets a chance to respond or apologize if he or she is wrong. This never happened. Dr. Mazari never saw a copy of the ambassador's letter or was provided proof from her writings that she was endangering the life of a US citizen.

3. US ambassador's serious accusation to Dr. Mazari of threatening a US citizen's life was taken at face value, without supporting evidence, and Dr. Mazari was asked to provide evidence for her opinions that she shapes based on circumstantial and/or factual evidence, which is what all established analysts do.

4. Nowhere in her articles did Dr. Mazari call for violence against any US citizen.

5. The US citizen in question was mentioned in several news mediums before Dr. Mazari referred to him. The US embassy never reacted in public or private to those stories, which were both in print and on television. This is why it is inexplicable why Dr. Mazari was singled out by the US ambassador, beyond the fact that Dr. Mazari is a fierce critic of US policy.

6. Several newspapers published the statements of a retired Pakistani intelligence officer accusing United States of engineering the assassination of Gen. Zia ul Haq. Did any newspaper ask him for evidence before publishing the story, which, according to the US ambassador's logic, endangers the lives of all US diplomats here since it implicates them in the murder of a former Pakistani president and almost the entire leadership of the Pakistan armed forces? It is strange, then, for the US ambassador to demand that Dr. Mazari provide evidence for her opinions and analysis.

7. The US media outlets have spread false alarm worldwide over the past two years by saying Pakistan's nuclear weapons risked falling in wrong hands. Did any one of these US news organizations provide evidence?

8. Dr. Mazari went public on the undue pressure by the US ambassador. She did not accuse the newspaper of anything, nor would it have been appropriate to do so in the first place. If anyone should be issuing clarifications, it is the US embassy because the US ambassador has failed to justify how Dr. Mazari endangered the life of a US citizen.

9. The core question here is this: Why should the US ambassador in Pakistan get away with accusing a Pakistani columnist of endangering the lives of Americans and the columnist gets a rough treatment where she is asked to produce evidence for her analysis? How do we know that Dr. Mazari is not being attacked by the US ambassador for her opinions critical of US policy?

There is no question that The News did not succumb to any pressure. The biggest evidence on this is Mr. Holbrooke's undiplomatic statement against the Geo television in June [See here].

But it is also true that the US ambassador did inadvertently get a special treatment when she got to accuse Dr. Mazari without evidence and without having her letter published for Pakistanis to see and question the veracity of her position and the position of the accused journalist, as is the custom when someone disputes a newspaper article.

In a country reeling under excessive US meddling in domestic affairs, we certainly did not need this reminder of where things stand.

Ahmed Quraishi