KABUL, Afghanistan — On a piece of barren land on the western edge of this capital, a refugee camp is steadily swelling as families displaced by the heavy bombardment in southern Afghanistan arrive in batches.
The growing numbers reaching Kabul are a sign of the deepening of the conflict between NATO and American forces and the Taliban in the south and of the feeling among the population that there will be no end soon. Families who fled the fighting around their homes in Helmand Province one or two years ago and sought temporary shelter around two southern provincial capitals, Lashkar Gah and Kandahar, said they had moved to Kabul because of growing insecurity across the south.
“If there was security in the south, why would we come here?” said Abdullah Khan, 50, who lost his father, uncle and a female relative in the bombing of their home last year. “We will stay here, even for 10 years, until the bombardment ends.”
Sixty-one families from just one southern district — Kajaki, in northern Helmand Province — arrived in Kabul in late July. A representative for those families, Khair Muhammad, 27, said that a major jailbreak last month that freed hundreds of Taliban prisoners was the latest sign of the deteriorating security. “Do you know, the Taliban entered Kandahar city and broke into the prison?” he said. “Do you think that is security?”
The United Nations refugee agency has registered 450 families from Helmand Province at the camp — approximately 3,000 people. But that is only a part of the overall refugee picture. An estimated 10,000 to 15,000 people have been displaced by the insurgency in the south, but the numbers fluctuate as some have been able to return home when the fighting moves elsewhere.
The International Committee of the Red Cross has warned that the displaced who have reached the cities represent only the tip of the iceberg, and many others are trapped by violence in remote areas without assistance.
Many of the families who have arrived in Kabul have suffered traumatic losses and injuries, and they say that they are pessimistic about the future.
“The Taliban are getting stronger,” said Muhammad Younus, a farm worker who abandoned his village after his father, brother and uncle were killed in an airstrike two years ago. “There were armored vehicles on the hill and they were firing. There was a heavy bombardment, and planes bombed, too,” he said. “They did not differentiate between the guilty and not guilty.”
He, like many of the displaced people, complained that villagers found themselves trapped between Taliban fighters, who used the villages for cover to attack foreign forces, and NATO and American forces, which would often call in airstrikes on village compounds where civilians were living.
“We left our houses because we had no power to resist the Taliban or the government,” said Mr. Muhammad, the representative who brought families to Kabul from villages in Kajaki.
“Anytime the Taliban fired a shot from our houses, then the coalition, the government and the police came to the area and hit us.”
“The government comes and arrests us, and then the Taliban come and arrest us as well,” he said. “We are under the feet of two powers.”
As a civilian plane circled above the city, Mr. Muhammad and the crowd of men around him all looked nervously upward. “We are in trouble with these things,” he said, pointing at the plane. “There was fighting in the village a hundred times, roadside bombs, bombardment, firing and shooting.”
His strongest complaints were against the Taliban who, he said, had accused a relative of being a spy for the coalition forces and executed him. “I absolutely know he was not,” he said vehemently.
“The Taliban are coming during the night, with heavy weapons, riding on vehicles, and we cannot even dare ask them to leave, because if they see someone at night outside they will slaughter them and accuse them of being spies,” he said.
But the heavy reprisals by NATO and American forces was what drove them from their homes in the end, he and others said.
Khan Muhammad, 35, came with 40 people from his extended family three months ago after their village, Tajoi, near Kajaki, was bombed and his 4-year-old son, Umar Khan, was killed. “His mother was cooking, and he was lying beside her,” he said. “The whole village was destroyed, and after that we left.”
He said the villagers did not even see the Taliban but heard them fire as foreign troops were driving along the road outside the village.
“We don’t know from which side they fired, but we heard that,” he said. “Half an hour or an hour later they bombed.”
His father, Sher Ali Aqa, 75, was trapped under the rubble and his leg was shattered. Still unable to walk, he sat on a mat beside a makeshift tent.
“I blame the foreigners,” Mr. Muhammad said. “If the Taliban fire from over there, do you come and bomb this village?”
He added, “We only want a stable country, whether with the Taliban or the foreigners.” But he said that the level of violence made him realize that the foreign forces could not bring security.
That sentiment was echoed by many of the villagers, who said that the civilian deaths were particularly galling given the sophisticated technology of the coalition’s warplanes.
“If they kill, if they wound innocent people, we don’t want them,” said Tauz Khan, a man from the Sangin district who said he lost five members of his family in bombings last year. “If they build and bring peace we will accept them.”
His father, brother and a daughter were among those killed. “You cannot take revenge against a plane,” he said. “But I will not forgive the foreigners for this crime.”
As the Fighting Swells in Afghanistan, So Does a Refugee Camp in Its Capital
HISTORY: South Korea Says U.S. Killed Hundreds of Civilians
August 3, 2008 NEW YORK TIMES
South Korea Says U.S. Killed Hundreds of Civilians
By CHOE SANG-HUN
WOLMI ISLAND, South Korea — When American troops stormed this island more than half a century ago, it was a hive of Communist trenches and pillboxes. Now it is a park where children play and retirees stroll along a tree-shaded esplanade.
From a hilltop across a narrow channel, Gen. Douglas MacArthur, memorialized in bronze, appears to gaze down at the beaches of Inchon where his troops splashed ashore in September 1950, changing the course of the Korean War and making him a hero here.
In the port below, rows of cars, gleaming in the sun, wait to be shipped around the world — testimony to South Korea’s industrial might and a reminder of which side has triumphed economically since the conflict ended 55 years ago.
But inside a ragged tent at the entrance of the park, some aging South Koreans gather daily to draw attention to their side of the conflict, a story of carnage not mentioned in South Korea’s official histories or textbooks.
“When the napalm hit our village, many people were still sleeping in their homes,” said Lee Beom-ki, 76. “Those who survived the flames ran to the tidal flats. We were trying to show the American pilots that we were civilians. But they strafed us, women and children.”
Village residents say dozens of civilians were killed.
The attack, though not the civilian casualties, has been corroborated by declassified United States military documents recently reviewed by South Korean investigators. On Sept. 10, 1950, five days before the Inchon landing, according to the documents, 43 American warplanes swarmed over Wolmi, dropping 93 napalm canisters to “burn out” its eastern slope in an attempt to clear the way for American troops.
The documents and survivors’ stories persuaded a South Korean commission investigating long-suppressed allegations of wartime atrocities by Koreans and Americans to rule recently that the attack violated international conventions on war and to ask the country’s leaders to seek compensation from the United States.
The ruling was one of several by the government’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission in recent months that accused the United States military of using indiscriminate force on three separate occasions in 1950 and 1951 as troops struggled against Communists from the North and from China. The commission says at least 228 civilians, and perhaps hundreds more, were killed in the three attacks.
In one case, the commission said, at least 167 villagers, more than half of them women, were burned to death or asphyxiated in Tanyang, 87 miles southeast of Seoul, when American planes dropped napalm at the entrance of a cave filled with refugees.
“We should not ignore or conceal the deaths of unarmed civilians that resulted not from the mistakes of a few soldiers but from systematic aerial bombing and strafing,” said Kim Dong-choon, a senior commission official. “History teaches us that we need an alliance, but that alliance should be based on humanitarian principles.”
The South Korean government has not disclosed how it plans to follow up on the findings. And Maj. Stewart Upton, a Defense Department spokesman in Washington, said the Pentagon could not comment on the reports pending formal action by the South Korean government.
Under South Korea’s earlier authoritarian and staunchly anti-Communist governments, criticism of American actions in the war was taboo.
But after investigations showed that American soldiers killed South Korean civilians in air and ground attacks on the hamlet of No Gun Ri in 1950 — and after the United States acknowledged the deaths but refused to investigate other claims — a liberal government set up the fact-finding commission in 2005. More than 500 petitions, some describing the same actions, were filed to demand the investigation of allegations of mass killings by American troops, mostly in airstrikes.
The recent findings were the commission’s first against the United States, and it is unlikely that the commission has the time or resources to investigate many more before it is disbanded, as early as 2010.
Separately, the commission has also ruled that the South Korean government summarily executed thousands of political prisoners and killed many unarmed villagers during the war.
The Wolmi victims’ demands for recognition tap into complicated emotions underlying South Korea’s alliance with the United States.
“We thank the American troops for saving our country from Communism, for the peace and prosperity we have today,” said Han In-deuk, chairwoman of a Wolmi advocacy group. “Does that mean we have to shut up about what happened to our families?”
The airstrikes came during desperate times for the American forces and for the South Koreans they came to defend.
The war broke out in June 1950 with a Communist invasion from the north. In September, when the American military planned the landing at Inchon to relieve United Nations forces cornered in the southeastern tip of the peninsula, it decided it first had to neutralize Wolmi, which overlooks the channel that approaches the harbor.
“The mission was to saturate the area so thoroughly with napalm that all installations on that area would be burned,” Marine pilots said in one of their mission reports on Wolmi that were retrieved by the commission from the National Archives and Records Administration of the United States.
They also reported that no troops were seen, “but the flashes observed on the ground indicated the intensity of the fire to be accurate enough to destroy any about.”
The reports describe strafing on the beach but make no mention of civilian casualties.
The Inchon landing helped United Nations troops recapture Seoul and drive the North Koreans back. But the tide turned again when China entered the war.
The other two attacks the commission ruled on, in Tanyang and Sansong, south of Seoul, occurred as Communist forces barreled down the peninsula. As the allies fell back, they were attacked by guerrillas they could not easily distinguish from refugees.
Fearing enemy infiltration, American troops stopped refugees streaming down the roads and told them to return home or stay in the hills, or risk getting shot by allied troops. On Jan. 14, 1951, the Army’s X Corps under Maj. Gen. Edward M. Almond ordered the “methodical destruction of dwellings and other buildings forward of front lines which are, or susceptible of being, utilized by the enemy for shelter.” It recommended airstrikes.
“Excellent results” was how American pilots summarized their strikes at Sansong on Jan. 19, 1951.
The same day, however, one of General Almond’s subordinates, Brig. Gen. David G. Barr of the Seventh Infantry Division, wrote to General Almond that “methodical burning out poor farmers when no enemy is present is against the grain of U.S. soldiers.” At least 51 villagers, including 16 children, were killed in Sansong, according to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
The attack on Tanyang followed the next day, when, survivors say, American planes dropped napalm near the entrance of the cave where refugees had sought shelter.
“When the napalm hit the entrance, the blast and smoke knocked out kerosene and castor-oil lamps we had in the cave,” Eom Han-won, then 15, said in an interview. “It was a pitch-black chaos — people shouting for each other, stampeding, choking. Some said we should crawl in deeper, covering our faces with wet cloth. Some said we should rush out through the blaze. Those who were not burned to death suffocated.”
Like Mr. Eom’s family, most of the people there were refugees who had been turned back at an American roadblock south of Tanyang, survivors said. In the days before the attack, the cave was packed with families. When the American warplanes flew in from the southwest, children were playing outside amid cattle and baggage.
That day, the Seventh Division’s operations logs noted that 13 planes attacked “enemy troops” and “pack animals and cave.” It reported “many casualties and got all animals.”
Mr. Eom, who rushed out of the cave into a hail of machine-gun fire from the planes but survived, said, “The Americans pushed us back toward the enemy area and then bombed us.” He said he lost 10 family members.
Shortly afterward, South Korea’s Second Division reported 34 civilians killed and 72 wounded at Sansong, but “no enemy casualties,” prompting the American military to open an investigation. The American investigators did not dispute the South Korean report but concluded that the airstrike was “amply justified.” They said that Sansong was considered an enemy haven and that its residents had been warned to evacuate.
The case appeared closed until several years ago, when, in the course of a Korean television reporter’s investigation, villagers acquired a copy of the American military’s wartime report and read that they had been told to evacuate. They insist, and the commission agreed, that this was not true. They say the village where North Korean troops were sighted was elsewhere and was never bombed.
Regarding the Wolmi attack, the commission said that while it recognized the need for the landing at Inchon, it could find “no evidence of efforts to limit civilian casualties.”
Wolmi survivors said the North Korean officers’ housing was about 1,000 feet away from their village. They say the American pilots, whose mission reports noted “visibility unlimited” and firing altitudes as low as 100 feet, should not have mistaken villagers, including many women and children, for the enemy.
They said the American troops later bulldozed their charred village to build a base.
“If you say these killings were not deliberate and were mistakes, how can you explain the fact that there were so many of these incidents?” asked Park Myung-lim, a historian at Yonsei University in Seoul.
The victims’ grievances found an outlet in 2005, when left-leaning civic groups tried to topple the MacArthur statue. But Wolmi survivors said they did not join the protest for fear they might be branded anti-American.
“We consider MacArthur a hero to our country, but no one can know the suffering our family endured,” said Chung Ji-eun, an Inchon cabdriver whose father died at Wolmi. “Both governments emphasize the alliance, but they never care about people like us who were sacrificed in the name of alliance.”
Rogue Pakistan spies aid Taliban in Afghanistan
Bush warns of ‘serious action’ after evidence of agents masterminding deadly embassy bombing
Officers from Pakistan’s main intelligence agency have had links with the Taliban.
The United States has accused Pakistan’s main spy agency of deliberately undermining Nato efforts in Afghanistan by helping the Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants they are supposed to be fighting.
President George W Bush confronted Yusuf Raza Gillani, Pakistan’s prime minister, in Washington last week with evidence of involvement by the ISI, its military intelligence, in a deadly attack on the Afghan capital and warned of retaliation if it continues.
The move comes amid growing fears that Pakistan’s tribal areas are turning into a global launch pad for terrorists.
Gillani, on his first official US visit since being elected in February, was left in no doubt that the Bush administration had lost patience with the ISI’s alleged double game.
Related Links
RAF sends air rescue crews to Afghanistan
British Muslims aid Taliban in attacks on UK soldiers in Afghanistan
Pakistan warns US over 'unilateral' strikes
Bush warned that if one more attack in Afghanistan or elsewhere were traced back to Pakistan, he would have to take “serious action”.
Gillani also met Michael Hayden, director of the CIA, who confronted him with a dossier on ISI support for the Taliban. The key evidence concerned last month’s bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul, which killed 54 people, including the military attaché.
An intercepted telephone conversation apparently revealed that ISI agents masterminded the operation. The United States also claimed to have arrested an ISI officer inside Afghanistan.
Yesterday ministers said they had left Washington reeling from what they described as a “grilling” and shocked at “the trust deficit” between Pakistan and its most important backer.
“They were very hot on the ISI,” said a member of the Pakistan delegation. “Very hot. When we asked them for more information, Bush laughed and said, ‘When we share information with your guys, the bad guys always run away’.”
“The question is why it’s taken the Americans so long to see what the ISI is doing,” said Afra-siab Khattak, provincial president for the Awami National party which runs the government in the Frontier province bordering Afghanistan. “We’ve been telling them for years but they wouldn’t buy it.”
The American accusations were categorically denied by Rehman Malik, Pakistan’s de facto interior minister. “There is no involvement by the ISI of any form in Afghanistan,” he told The Sunday Times. “We requested evidence which has not yet been given.”
Malik admitted that in meetings in London, senior British government and intelligence officials had also told him they were convinced of ISI involvement in the embassy bombing.
It is the first time the White House has openly confronted Pakistan since just after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on Washington and New York when General Pervez Musharraf’s regime was told to drop its support for the Taliban or be bombed back to the Stone Age.
Musharraf agreed and went on to change the director of the ISI and build a close relationship with Bush who described him as his “best friend”. But many middle-ranking officers continued to hold close links with militants built up over 20 years since the mujaheddin was fighting the Russians in Afghanistan.
There were persistent reports of Pakistani territory being used for terrorist training camps and recruitment. Foreign journalists were banned from Quetta “for our own security” – those of us who have ventured there to investigate have generally ended up arrested.
President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan has repeatedly accused Pakistan of harbouring Taliban leaders, providing lists of addresses and at one time claiming that its leader, Mullah Omar, was living in a military cantonment.
For the West, confronting Islamabad is a risky strategy as Pakistan’s support is critical to the war on terrorism. Afghanistan is landlocked and much of the logistical support and food for the 53,000 Nato troops, including water for the British forces in Helmand, has to be shipped into Karachi and driven through Pakistan.
“It’s a calculated risk,” said a western diplomat in Islamabad, pointing out that Pakistan could not afford to do without US aid, which averages £1 billion a year. The military has also benefited: only last week four more F-16 fighter jets were handed over to the air force.
An open challenge to the ISI was welcomed by Nato troops operating in Afghanistan, particularly the American forces fighting in the east.
For years their commanders have expressed frustration at militants coming across the border to take pot shots at them, before moving back to the sanctuary of the triba areas. These areas are seen as the new battleground in the war on terror. Originally created by the British as a buffer between the Indian empire and Afghanistan, they stretch along Pakistan’s 1,500-mile border with Afghanistan.
As the poorest and most backward part of Pakistan with a literacy rate of just 3%, but fiercely martial, they are the breeding ground for militant groups. Political parties are not allowed. As militant groups have grown in influence, local people have nowhere else to turn.
Most of the attacks on US soldiers in eastern Afghanistan are ordered by Maulvi Jalalud-din Haqqani, who operates from Miramshah in North Waziristan, and whom the United States believes to have close ties with Al-Qaeda.
Neighbouring South Waziristan is dominated by Baitullah Mehsud, a former gym teacher, whose Pakistan Taliban is believed by the CIA to be responsible for the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, the former prime minister, last December.
“The security of Pakistan, Afghanistan, the entire region and maybe that of the whole world will be determined by developments in the tribal areas over the next few months,” said Khattak.
The United States has carried out a number of bombings and missile strikes inside the areas, although each time the key targets seem to have escaped. So concerned is the Bush administration that the ISI is tipping militants off that in January it sent two senior intelligence officials to Pakistan. Mike Mc-Connell, the director of national intelligence, and Hayden asked Musharraf to allow the CIA greater freedom to operate in the tribal areas.
Of particular US concern was the ISI’s alleged involvement with Haqqani, one of its former allies, and its links to Lashkar-i-Toiba, a Punjab-based militant group, which is thought to have been behind the attack on an American outpost in Kunar last month in which nine US soldiers were killed.
Many US intelligence officials have long suspected that ISI officers accept their money and then help their foes, but it has been difficult to find proof. In June the Afghan government publicly accused the ISI of being behind an assassination attempt on Karzai in April and threatened to send their own troops into the border. But they were unable to produce any concrete evidence.
“The Indian embassy bombing seems to have finally provided it. This is the smoking gun we’ve all been looking for,” a British official said last week.
On the eve of the Washington visit, the Pakistan government tried to tame the ISI by announcing that it would henceforth come under interior ministry control. It was forced to revoke the decision within three hours after angry phone calls from the army chief.
Malik, on behalf of the government, claimed the decision had been misinterpreted. “What we were trying to do was bring national security and the war on terror under the interior ministry but it was wrongly announced,” he said.
US officials say the number of attacks on their soldiers in Afghanistan have increased by 60% since the civilian government took power this year.
There is widespread disillusion with Gillani’s government after elections in the wake of Bhutto’s assassination brought her Pakistan People’s party (PPP) to power as head of a coalition government. Nearly six months on, Musharraf is still president.
In a reflection of who really calls the shots, while the government party was in Washington Lieutenant-General Martin Dempsey, acting commander of Centcom, the US military command, was in Islamabad handing over F-16 fighter planes and holding meetings with the top brass. A British officer who was present at the meeting said Pakistani generals had spoken of their frustration with the civilian government: “They said they were still waiting for a signal to act in the tribal areas. To be honest, none of us could think of a thing they had done in six months.”
The sensitivity of the intelligence issue became clear on Friday night when Sherry Rehman, the information minister, acknowledged to journalists that the ISI might still contain pro-Taliban operatives. “We need to identify these people and weed them out,” she said, only to change her statement later to maintain that the problems were in the past and there would be no purge.
For its part, Islamabad says America is interested only in countering attacks in Afghanistan and gives it no help to confront militants causing problems in its own territory nor vital equipment, such as drone spy planes.
Pakistan ministers were particularly incensed when the United States launched a missile strike inside one of the country’s tribal areas on Monday, while the government party was still en route to Washington. “It was the first thing I read on my BlackBerry when I got off the plane,” said a member of the delegation. “What a nice gift.”
Offer of Inquiry into Kabul attack
Pakistan yesterday offered to investigate the bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul on July 7, in which 54 people died and 140 were injured. It was the bloodiest attack in the Afghan capital since the fall of the Taliban in 2001. Nobody has claimed responsibility.
A suicide bomber drove a lorry laden with explosives into the embassy gate during the morning rush hour, wounding and killing many of those queuing for visas. The embassy is in the centre of Kabul.
The main target seemed to be a diplomatic convoy that had just entered the gate. Among those killed were two senior diplomats including the military attaché, Brigadier Ravi Mehta.
Where writs don't run.....PAKISTAN'S WILD WEST
Borderland Pakistan is the old west reincarnated, and ignorant outsiders won't force change.
Peter Preston The Guardian
America has seen enough John Ford movies to get the point. Britain, too, had its fill of John Wayne. So why are we all so infernally slow to realise that borderland Pakistan is the old west reincarnated - except that we're not talking Apaches or Sioux now, just Bugti, Swati, Jadoon and Tareen in the realms of the Pashtuns and Baluchis?
Such parallels bound out only a few miles from Peshawar. If this were Nevada, you'd find casinos down some desert road, run as a matter of restitution by the tribes. That big, lushly watered house on the hill would be where the chief lives, counting his cash. And here the feeling is just the same: no slots or blackjack, maybe, but gun supermarkets, smugglers' paradises, walled mansions and the rest - ritually patrolled by the tribes' own internal police. Ten yards off the Khyber Pass, Pakistan's national forces' law and order give up the ghost. Their writ doesn't run. Reservation self-preservation.
Yet still, Washington doesn't see the similarities. It wanted elections, even after Benazir Bhutto's assassination, but now it can't abide the result. Yousuf Raza Gilani's fragile PPP-led government seems more feeble than Musharraf at bringing the tribes to heel. Even more cross-border flits for the Taliban; even less hope of catching Bin Laden. A bomb in Kabul kills 58, and renegade extremists in Pakistan army intelligence must be "weeded out". This country has just got to do what it's told - otherwise (shades of Barack Obama) the White House will send its cavalry in. After you, General Custer ... And nobody sees the challenge whole.
That shanty city along the main route out of Peshawar is Afghanistan by another name: more than a million who fled the Russians and haven't gone home. In Baluchistan far to the south, the tribes have been fighting each other for centuries - and, much more recently, the troops Musharraf sent in to try to bring some semblance of order (they want independence, not devolution). The North-West Frontier Province has a population the size of Iraq, and the religious far right in control. It's a dusty, rugged, rock-strewn terrain, perfect for using the Stingers you bought on your last trip to the supermarket.
Telling Gilani, far away in Islamabad, to order his army to crack down on this chaos is empty foolishness. The army - mostly born and nurtured in Punjab - has scant stomach for rumbling civil war. It has lost too many of its own on these killing slopes already. Meanwhile, slipping and slithering back and forth, the enemies we call the Taliban - or al-Qaida, in our more facile moments - are part of the landscape, simply unstoppable except by the kind of massive, sustained surge nobody has the will or resources to mount. Musharraf couldn't do it when he was really in charge. Random, passing politicians are even further off the pace.
And the danger, time after time, is seeing Pakistan's far west in the way that ignorant generals from the east were expected to act (until James Stewart showed them what a fine chap Geronimo was). This is a deep and often deluding mix of race, many tongues, acute poverty, tradition and religion. It isn't some simple terrain where the word of the PM goes. Nor is it a territory invaded and held by alien terrorist forces. What you've got, instead, is something fiercely autonomous but also anarchic - a world where the state called Pakistan barely exists.
There's suspicion and duplicity lurking in these ravines, to be sure. Army intelligence, like some corrupt trading-post keeper, is used to playing both ends against the middle: and was hailed in heroic terms when the Red Army was one of the ends it ran ragged. But the greater game far outweighs small, if bloody, plots. Gilani, and the heirs of Bhutto, barely in power and already buffeted by food shortages and energy costs, are the best democratic hope Pakistan has on offer. It's politicians or the generals again, and the braided ones haven't really gone back to base yet after their last failed spell. The frail balance of turn and turnabout between democrats and soldiers is perilously out of phase.
Pakistan as a whole voted against extremism a few months ago: but Pakistan is not a whole. Indeed, in many places, the central government is disregarded. Gilani - widely advised - has tried to take off the pressure, to reassure the Baluchis and Pashtuns, to bring gifts and pipes of peace. That's not good enough for the long knives from DC, perhaps. They want crackdowns and action: they've got a war against terrorism to win. But we know, from too many seats in the stalls, who truly wins in the end. And it's not the ignorant, impatient outsiders raining death on a people their "civilisation", in its careless way, cannot comprehend.
Feudalism: a myth or mother of all ills?
It should be commonly understood that feudalism as a mode of production does not exist. However, it is the feudal ways and norms that remain the bane of underdeveloped societies. Consequently, the term "feudalism" is used to describe pejoratively "anything reactionary, old-fashioned, or resonant of aristocratic values" (Oxford Dictionary).
Under the original feudal system, a vassal or a feudal tenant would hold land and would in return perform military duties for an overlord. The overlord would, in turn, provide protection and land tenure to the tenant. The overlord would pledge allegiance to a king. Land tenures of the lesser lords were thus guaranteed. The communities remained subservient to the vassals and the overlords. If some communities still have no better option other than servile existence under big landlords, it can be safely concluded that the world has yet to get rid of "feudalism" or feudal ways and practices. Surely, in Pakistan, it remains a daunting challenge.
Feudal system existed in Europe as much as it did in Japan. In England, it met with stiff resistance from its institutions as they developed. Industry rose on the ashes of feudalism. France is known for entrenched feudalism until their revolution. Modernization in France could not be conceived to coexist with feudalism. The French Revolution commenced by putting an end to feudalism by decree. It changed the structure of the society so as to make it growth- and development-oriented.
As the Philadelphia Convention met to draw up the American Constitution in 1787, France was ripe for a revolution. King Louis XVI of France had financed the American War of Independence against the British. France almost reached the verge of bankruptcy as, "those with the capacity to pay taxes failed to bear their share of the burden." The French King summoned the Assembly of Notables (aristocrats) requesting them to abandon some of their fiscal privileges. The Notables resisted and called for summoning of the Estates General (assembly) to deal with the fiscal crisis. The Estates General comprised three estates, namely, the clergy, the aristocracy, and the rest. When the Estates General met, the Third Estate, comprising the rest, withdrew and declared itself the National Assembly competent to give a new constitution to France. The fiscal crisis was thus viewed against the larger backdrop of the structure of the French society wherein the privileged few enjoyed tax privileges as the country was driven to bankruptcy. The fiscal crisis could not be addressed in 18th century France unless the structure of the society was changed. For, if the privileged were not willing to part with their privileges, then the privileged had to go. So it was ruled in 18th century France.
In 21st century Pakistan, the privileged argue that there privileges and the socio-economic hardships of the underprivileged are both a myth. The people of this country are neither dense nor dumb. Many similarities emerge as we look back at the economic development path of the developed West. All those aware of Pakistan's fiscal crisis and its distorted structures of politico-economic power would further know where the similarities end. The similarity ends when we display a lack of courage and will-power to effect change for the better.
Bastille was demolished on July 14, 1789 and feudalism was abolished on August 4, 1789 through a series of "Decrees Abolishing the Feudal System." The opening words were, "The National Assembly abolishes the feudal regime entirely ....." The decrees did away with many kinds of manorial obligations to begin with. The decrees also abolished special tax privileges and opened all offices to all citizens "without distinction of birth." Cornerstone to build a modern France had been laid.
The second important decree was the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen passed late August 1789. The second decree came on the heels of the first decree about abolishing feudalism and privileges. The decrees were thus logically sequenced. Without the first one, the second would have been meaningless.
The French Revolution did not end in the year it started. Rather, the Revolution kept consolidating itself even in the 19th century until the Napoleonic era. Even though Napoleon turned despotic, the ideals of the Revolution were pushed forward forcefully on nearly every front in his era. These ideas were also exported to Italy, Spain, and Prussia. Germany would then provide further intellectual thrust to the ideals of the enlightenment. Unfortunately, these ideas have yet to be assimilated and internalized by us.
We remain backward as we try to build a modern society on the traditional repugnant value system most prevalent in the countryside from where it also gets exported to the urban so-called modern sector. Thanks to this age of rapid and effective communication, one is saved the agony of personally witnessing the oppression in the villages. There is enough evidence available about life in rural areas on the basis of which serious students of economics can draw the sad conclusions from which the big farm lords wish to look the other way. It is true that behaviour and attitudes in other sectors of the economy are also repugnant in many ways. However, one needs to determine not just the "sources" of ills in the society but rather the "causes" of them. If a cause-effect tree is constructed, it will converge to the major problem identified way back in 1789 by none other than the French which is "feudalism." Later in the 20th century, it was identified by the Japanese, the Koreans, the Taiwanese, and the Chinese as soon as they embarked on development and modernization. However, China is ignored by many in this country due to its totalitarian political disposition. We may then travel Westward and find a case in point in the liberated France which exported the idea to other parts of Europe.
Until such time that the root cause is addressed in Pakistan, it would be very difficult to reform the rest of the society. Rather, it is impossible to reform if the major sector of agriculture or big agriculturists continue to occupy the privileged status that they do. They continue to wield the same amount of power as they did when their sector contributed over 40 per cent to the GDP in the 1950s and the 1960s. They might well know that their sector's contribution to the GDP stands declined to about 25 per cent in the decade of the 1990s. It is, therefore, not a "predominant factor" as still imagined by some of them. They should not, therefore, be allowed to continue to dominate the value system which some of them think is their birth right by virtue of the sector's significance in the economy.
Nonetheless, the rural economy remains significant as it is still home to 67 per cent of the country's population. With a declining GDP share, the misery of the multitude can only be expected to increase unless drastic land and agrarian reforms are undertaken. It is common knowledge that even though "begaar" is abolished, the tiller barely subsists. The condition of socio- economic or human rights remains pathetic on which enough data have been collected by many development centres at least one of which works under the auspices of the UN. There is enough empirical evidence already in support of the fact that the number of displaced and landless peasants is rising. This is creating pressure on urban areas due to influx of rural migrants. To argue the above facts, data, and actual trends is to be unreasonable and irrational.
The matter, however, needs to be addressed whenever status quo is supported. Otherwise, it would only reinforce the already existing barriers to reform. As soon as the sentiment for meaningful land reforms caught on in the country recently, big landlords tried to project "feudalism" as a myth. It would be a fantasy to assume that the country is not plagued with a feudal mindset. Some of the ills found in other sectors of the economy are actually a manifestation of this same mindset exported from the countryside to the rest of the economy. Absentee landlords, living off the wealth generated on the soil tilled by subsisting tenants, served as "role models." The societal goals got transformed to maximizing personal material gain and personal power only. These goals were sought increasingly in other sectors, be it industry or bureaucracy. The undesirable norms and attitudes caught on. These trends are now being used to justify oppression in that same agricultural sector from which they were exported in the first place. The vicious circle ought to be broken rather than justified. The importance of parallel attempts notwithstanding, first attempts should then be made in the sector from which these anti-developmental attitudes originated.
These attitudes have also been the biggest roadblock to the development of institutions in the country. As this sector remains virtually exempt from fiscal and other socio-economic obligations, other sectors find their legal fiscal and administrative requirements discriminating. Consequently, they are fulfilled only partially, if at all. Profitability in agricultural sector remains a question mark as the sector has made itself impervious. The luxurious lifestyles of big agriculturists belie their claims about economic hardships. Other sectors then consider it not-so-illegitimate to underreport incomes. The taxation structure remains horizontally iniquitous. Agriculturists complain of multiplicity of taxes and try to remain exempt from income taxation. Other sectors and salaried individuals too have to pay a number of taxes but their incomes remain heavily taxed. Despite heavy taxation, fiscal and economic problems have compounded because, inter alia, the economic managers can no longer justify the privileged status of agriculture. It is now even allowed market prices for output. The issue of implicit taxation exists no longer. But the privileges do!
Can a modern economy be constructed with attitudes and norms that discourage enterprise, seek rents rather than healthy normal profits, and which encourage distribution in favour of a few powerful rather than all the input providers? Economic history answers in the negative!
Why choose now to complain about Pakistan’s ISI?
Why now? Until this week, the ISI was an acronym for Pakistan’s powerful spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence, that was little known outside of South Asia. Now it’s all over the American media as the organisation accused of secretly helping Islamist militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan, while the country it works for is a crucial ally in the U.S. battle against al Qaeda and the Taliban.
The New York Times led the charge by reporting that the CIA had confronted Pakistan over what it called deepening ties between members of the ISI and militant groups responsible for a surge in violence in Afghanistan. It followed it up with a story quoting U.S. government officials blaming the ISI for an attack last month on the Indian embassy in Kabul. The Washington Post and TIME, amongst others, ran similar stories.
Whenever you see a deluge of stories in the media quoting government or intelligence officials, it’s always worth asking why those unnamed officials have chosen this particular moment to speak out. The accusations against the ISI — denied by Pakistan — are not new.
India has complained for years about the role of the ISI in supporting the insurgency in Kashmir. It threatened to go to war in 2001/2002 over a December 2001 attack on the Indian parliament that it blamed on militants backed by the ISI, a charge denied by Pakistan. The debate within India at the time was very similar to the one you can find today in the U.S. media — how much do the ruling authorities in Pakistan control the ISI, and to what extent is it a monolithic disciplined organisation, and to what extent does it have renegade members who might follow their own agenda?
More importantly, perhaps, in the current context, is how the Americans viewed the ISI. The U.S. diplomats I knew in India had no illusions about the ISI, although publicly they refused to take sides as they tried – successfully as it turned out — to persuade Islamabad and Delhi to stand down from a conflict that threatened to undermine America’s post 9/11 efforts to tame Afghanistan.
During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989, the CIA worked closely with the ISI to arm, train and fund the mujahideen. Between them they drove the Russians out of Afghanistan and helped bring down the Soviet Union. There can be no closer relationship between two countries’ spy agencies than that. The CIA knows, and has long known, the ISI — perhaps better than any other country’s intelligence services.
So I come back to my original question. Why turn on them now?
There are, of course, obvious answers. Pakistan’s new government, elected in February, just made a botched attempt to bring the ISI under civilian control. Its subsequent retraction served only to highlight the power of the ISI. The Americans and their allies are suffering heavy losses in Afghanistan, while going into a presidential election where the war in Iraq, and the U.S. failure to hunt down al Qaeda and the Taliban, have become a major issue.
But I can’t help but wonder whether those unnamed officials now so keen to talk to the media are spinning a line. There have long been arguments within the CIA about how to handle the ISI, with agents based in Kabul generally arguing in favour of confrontation and those in Islamabad backing cooperation.
So is what we are seeing in the U.S. media a reflection of a battle within the CIA over rival views on how to handle Pakistan and the ISI? Maybe.
Or is it a reflection of actual events, including the increase in violence in Afghanistan, the renewed focus on Iraq/al Qaeda created by the U.S. presidential election, the speculation about whether the United States will send its troops into Pakistan to hunt down leaders of al Qaeda and the Taliban, and heightened tensions between India and Pakistan over the attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul? Maybe.
I am not asking these questions in the kind of rhetorical way that suggests that I already know the answer. I’m asking because I don’t know.
But I am just a little bit suspicious when I see the media all heading in the same direction. It feels uncannily similar to the way the media quoted unnamed officials about WMD to justify the invasion of Iraq. Many countries had been suspicious of Saddam Hussein since the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. But having ignored that for years, there was suddenly a groundswell of opinion to remove him. Are we now seeing a similar groundswell against Pakistan?
Once again, I don’t know the answer, but suggest only that there is a need to ask why people have chosen this moment to talk. Otherwise we prove the old cliche true, that “we learn from history that we don’t learn from history.”
Situation in global war on terror remains stern
Two explosions tore through a crowded pedestrian area of Turkey's largest city of Istanbul when local residents sat around to enjoy the cool of the evening or strolled along bustling streets on late Sunday, July 27. The blasts killed at least 15 people and injured more than 150 others, and 15 of them seriously.
A day earlier, a string of 18 explosions rocked and destroyed markets, bus stations, residential quarters, hospitals and other crowded areas in the city of Ahmedabad in Gujarat state, west India last Saturday or July 26. The serial explosions killed at least 45 people and wounded 161. Also in India, 60 people died and more than 150 were injured in seven successive bomb blasts that occurred on May 13.
Terrorist attacks have taken place not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but in other countries and regions since early this year. In some thrilling bomb blasts, the cruel, ruthless nature of terrorists has been fully exposed or unmasked. They not only target at innocent civilians at some overcrowded sites, but also resort to other means as fixing snag nails and other stuffings into deadly explosive devices to cause maximal casualties. They even did not let off hospitals, where many rescuers got killed.
Appalling horrible scenes drenched with much bloodshed have given people all over the world a clear and strong signal: Terrorism still poses a very immediate threat to the contemporary world, and the situation with global war on terrorism remains stern and stark.
Then, some people would naturally ask this question: The war on terrorism launched by the United States has been still going on with a steady increase in the cost of manpower and material and financial resources, and why terrorist activities have turned so ferocious and rampant? Here, we'd better hear what Tunisian President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali has said. "The war against terror cannot be won by police force alone," President Ben Ali acknowledged, and some new preventative measures should be taken, and the root cause for generating terrorism has to be eradicated by means of improving democracy, popularizing education and culture, raising the status of women and eradicating poverty. If the infallibility is claimed from one's might and persistence bent on via military means to combat terrorism, the effect is likely to discount greatly.
With the war on terror having been fought for year after year, some others may also ask: Why terrorists have not sunk into oblivion but contrarily make people feel the world insecure and more violent as they have gone on fighting against the terrorism more resolutely and relentlessly? This is, however, owed to an outcome inflicted by some of the moves taken to combat terrorism, apart from varied political, economic and social factors.
Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan expressed his grave concern over the humanitarian crisis. He vehemently denounced such anti-terrorist moves as an "ethnic cleansing" operation, the massive bombing of cities, the mistreatment and torture of prisoners in violation of human rights and international humanitarian law and the ensuing deaths of innocent people. More important, he deemed such moves could possibly be taken as the excuse for terrorists to attract or regroup new recruits and create a round after another of violence. Facts have again told people that erroneous actions will incur even more serious consequences.
How to further reinforce global cooperation constitutes an important realm worthy of attention for the global war on terrorism. Without an effective international cooperation, it is out of the question to attain the objective for anti-terrorism efficaciously. Some Western nations could hardly push ahead the worldwide cooperation in the war on terror as they often resort to double standards in the sphere of fighting against terrorism and give heed only to their own concern to the neglect of terrorist threats posed for others.
To date, all above-mentioned questions have shed light on causes for an inconspicuous effect and stark reality in the ongoing global war on terrorism. So, the global community should reappraise and re-think carefully of such issues as those regarding the outcome of the war on terror, on how terrorism has been bred and multiplied, how to beef up cooperation in the anti-terrorism field and how to seek a temporary solution and uproot the cause of terrorism.
By People's Daily
U.S. Officials: Pakistani Agents Helped Plan Kabul Bombing
U.S. intelligence officials have concluded that elements of Pakistan's military intelligence service provided logistical support to militants who staged last month's deadly car bombing at the Indian Embassy in Afghanistan's capital, U.S. officials familiar with the evidence said yesterday.
The finding, based partly on communication intercepts, has dramatically heightened U.S. concerns about long-standing ties between Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, and Taliban-allied groups that are battling U.S. forces in Afghanistan, according to two U.S. government officials briefed on the matter.
The July 7 bombing at the Kabul embassy has been linked to fighters loyal to Jalaluddin Haqqani, an ethnic Pashtun militant who has led pro-Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan and has been associated with numerous suicide bombings in the region. More than 40 people were killed in one of the deadliest attacks on Afghan civilians since the U.S.-led invasion in 2001.
"There continues to be evidence of Taliban and Haqqani network involvement in the Indian Embassy bombing as well as the attempted assassination of [Afghan President Hamid] Karzai," said a senior U.S. official briefed on the reports. He said there was "significant" evidence suggesting that individual ISI members provided logistical support to the embassy bombers. He declined to elaborate further.
Pakistani officials today said there was no evidence of that the military intelligence service was involved in the bombing, according to an Associated Press report from Islamabad. Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammed Sadiq described the allegation as "total rubbish," and government spokeswoman Sherry Rehman also said there was "no proof" of ISI involvement in the bombing. She did acknowledge, however, that some members of the intelligence service may be working against official policy.
CIA officials raised the issue of possible ISI support for the embassy bombers during a meeting last month between the newly elected Pakistani government and a delegation led by Stephen Kappes, the agency's director of clandestine operations, two officials said. The conclusion by U.S. intelligence and the visit were first reported by the New York Times.
One official involved with U.S. counterterrorism efforts stressed that the ISI has generally worked closely with U.S. intelligence in battling al-Qaeda and Taliban forces in the tribal region between Pakistan and Afghanistan. But he acknowledged that the Pakistani intelligence service is "not monolithic."
The intelligence community is divided about the extent of Taliban sympathies within the Pakistani service, a second senior official said. "You will find folks who will say there is significant penetration of the ISI by terrorist elements and that's a serious concern," the official said. "But others are saying that certainly, there's penetration, but we don't think it's top to bottom."
Pakistani officials have repeatedly denied the allegation of ISI support for the Taliban, though Defense Minister Ahmed Mukhtar, who accompanied Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani in a visit to Washington this week, acknowledged that his U.S. counterparts had aired serious concerns. Following their meetings this week, Gillani and President Bush sought to ease bilateral tensions over the conduct of the campaign against terrorism. Their talks focused on efforts to clamp down on al-Qaeda and Taliban extremists in Pakistan's northwest tribal areas.
Gillani secured a pledge from Bush to respect Pakistani sovereignty in exchange for promises from Islamabad to crack down on the militants. "This is our own war," Gillani said. "This is a war which is against Pakistan."
Pakistan, which has received more than $10 billion in U.S. aid since 2001, has resisted suggestions that troops from the United States or other countries be allowed into the region.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen, when asked yesterday whether the ISI and the military were aligned with the Pakistani government, said it was a question "the government of Pakistan ought to speak to."
Mullen, who recently traveled to Pakistan, said the country's leaders made clear during talks that they recognized the tribal areas pose "a serious internal threat to Pakistan, and it's growing," and that they are "committed to taking steps to . . . address it."
U.S. concerns about Taliban support within the ISI's ranks date back nearly a decade. Robert Baer, a former CIA case officer with experience in the region, noted that the ISI was an early backer of the Taliban during the 1980s, at a time when they were allied in the fight against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Some ISI officers forged personal ties with Taliban commanders that persist today, he said.
Pakistan spy agency 'fiasco' derided
The timing could not have been more embarrassing for Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, in the United States for a meeting with President George W Bush on Monday that focused on Pakistan's role in the US-led war on terrorism.
Last week, Washington demanded Pakistan investigate Indian and Afghan accusations that the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) was involved in a Kabul suicide bombing that killed 58 people outside the Indian embassy, including two diplomats.
Mr Gilani's four-month-old government has issued denials of ISI complicity but can say only what the spies and army divulge.
The United States and its Western allies have trusted the ISI to help combat Al Qaeda, but there have long been suspicions that it takes a permissive line over the Taliban, allowing the militants freedom to attack Afghanistan over the border.
There is mounting apprehension that Pakistan's generals are becoming less cooperative because the country fears Washington has allowed rival India to extend influence in Afghanistan.
With Pakistan in a fragile transition to democracy after President Pervez Musharraf's eight years of military rule, Washington has been talking to various parties in the nuclear-armed nation about closer coordination on security.
On Saturday night, while Mr Gilani was still en route to Washington, his government dropped a bombshell with a decree that the Interior Ministry would oversee spy agency activities.
The government said the ISI and its civilian counterpart, the Intelligence Bureau (IB), would be brought under the "administrative, financial and operational control of the Interior Division with immediate effect".
On Sunday, the government issued a clarification saying it had been "misinterpreted" and that the decree "only re-emphasises more coordination" between the ministry and the ISI on internal security matters.
It said another detailed decree would be issued later.
"I think the ISI immediately got into the act and did what they thought was best to have the decision reversed," said Najam Sethi, editor of the Daily Times newspaper.
'Amateurish'
Defence analyst Nasim Zehra said the Government's action had been "amateurish, thoughtless and hasty", though there was a good case for streamlining the security apparatus and drawing more rigorous reporting lines.
Newspaper editorials saw the chain of events as farcical.
"Is it mischief, conspiracy or stupidity?" said the Urdu language daily Nawa-i-Waqt, while the English language News newspaper referred to the saga as the "ISI fiasco".
Sethi's Daily Times noted that two previous prime ministers with solid parliamentary majorities and public support had tried and failed to cut the military down to size.
It offered words of caution to a weak coalition, already under pressure from political, economic and energy crises.
"Unless this move is for cosmetic purposes, Islamabad should tread with caution," said the newspaper.
PAKISTAN'S ISI
The report in a leading US newspaper about links between the ISI and militants, which a CIA official reportedly showed evidence of to Pakistan government members in Islamabad recently, adds a new dimension to the much talked of government move to place the agency under the interior ministry. The same theme is reinforced by the defence minister who informed this publication that President George Bush had expressed displeasure over ISI behaviour in his meeting with the Pakistani prime minister. The Pakistan military has denied a nexus exists between the ISI and terrorists. It seems unlikely this denial has cut much ice in Washington.
While the ill-fated move to place the ISI under the interior ministry has kindled a heated controversy, the latest concerns regarding the role of the outfit, raised in the US, make it imperative that it be placed under some kind of civilian control. It is obviously unfair to expect a government to take responsibility for battling militancy while the country's premier agency backs the outfits engaged in terror. Indeed the consequences are potentially horrendous for all of us who wish to see Pakistan evolve into a modern, progressive state. The fact is that the ISI needs to be brought under check. As civilians we need to know what its role is. So far, the allegations that this role has involved conspiracies within the country, backing for militants in Kashmir and northern areas and other rather dubious policies makes it questionable whether it is working for or against the national interest. US leaders are quite openly now pressing for the agency to be brought into line. Many in the country would agree.
This having been said, the manner in which the notification regarding the change in control over the agency was issued by the government has not helped matters. Indeed it may have made things more difficult for the future. Criticism has also focused around the controversial adviser on interior, under whom the ISI would have fallen had the change gone through and the fact that he is not an elected person. The controversy rages on, with talk now of heads rolling. But all this has meant a basic principle is being completely overlooked as the rant against the government goes on. Looking beyond the issue of an individual and adopting a more institutionalized approach, the ISI, and indeed other secret agencies, need to serve the government and not act as an entity quite beyond the control of parliament. For this, the agency must be brought under the control of the civilian authorities. The suspicion that the ISI operates as a body quite outside the command of civilian set-ups is a key factor in the rumours and conspiracy theories that so often spread through the country, particularly at critical moments. This speculation in turn is often a key destabilizing factor for democratically-eldcted governments.
Over the years, the ISI has grown into an entity that is not answerable to government. As citizens, whose taxes help keep it running, we need to know more about the organization and its operations. After all, in many countries including Britain, there is today far greater transparency than ever before in the running of secret agencies. Looking beyond the ham-handed means adopted by the government, followed by a clumsy effort to present the whole fiasco as a case of misunderstanding, the fact cannot be ignored that there is an urgent need to bring the ISI under civilian control. One must hope that the attempt to do so continues and the government finds a way to achieve this goal by building greater consensus on the issue, keeping in mind the fact that Pakistan must move from a national security state to evolving as a pro-development state, where the needs of citizens take priority over other considerations.
Pakistani Military protect Elite !!!
LATE LAST year Pakistan's military rulers struck a deal allowing the former president, Nawaz Sharif, to avoid corruption charges and flee to Saudi Arabia. His departure shocked people even more than the sudden disappearance of the Sharif family from the political scene. After a year-long propaganda campaign against Sharif, the convict has been set free by government order.
The widespread anger this deal has provoked shows that the reaction from below is brewing against the military junta. Its claims that it came to power to save the country from a rogue prime minister and would cleanse a corrupt political system lie in tatters.
Sharif's exile, George W Bush's US presidential election victory, and the hurdles created to avoid the prosecution of Chilean dictator, Augusto Pinochet, show that there is no impartial judicial system in the world. The judiciary and other state institutions are manipulated by the ruling classes for their own convenience. Sometimes, powerful sections of the world ruling classes arbitrate in the disputes of another country. In Sharif's case, they arbitrated between different feuding factions of the Pakistani ruling elite.
Sharif's exit has proved that his political philosophy was only to enrich himself and his clan. Once he had run out of political options, he tried to salvage the wealth he had accumulated abroad. One thing is clear: at the time of their departure to Saudi Arabia, the Sharifs were as unpopular as when they were ousted in October 1999. The people object to the way Sharif has been allowed to leave and ask why those who plundered the country have been let off the hook.
At first, the US ambassador denied his government played any role. Now the US administration has confirmed that it was involved. Considering that Sharif signed the Washington statement of July 1999 agreeing to the withdrawal of troops in the Kashmir conflict with India - under pressure from Bill Clinton - the US president could not remain indifferent to his fate. The involvement of the Saudi royal family, with whom Sharif has close personal and business relations, comes as no surprise either.
The power exerted by the US and Saudi Arabia is mainly financial. The primary concern of the military government, on the other hand, is to preserve its rule, so it is prepared to accept the most humiliating deals, indifferent to the feelings of the masses. The people only ever figure in the establishment's considerations when they take to streets and attempts to suppress them fail.
What moves the establishment are its own interests. The ruling class reacts to the pressure exerted by Middle Eastern elites because they support Pakistan's establishment at a time when it is targeted by the West for its nuclear weapons programme, its support for the Afghanistan Taliban, and its confrontations with India. The Middle East supplies oil to Pakistan at cheap prices with deferred payments. These advantageous terms do not benefit the poor masses, of course. They are exclusively used by the ruling classes.
Instead of holding free and fair elections, the establishment always intervenes in the interests of the ruling classes to bring in the leadership of its own liking. This seems to be happening again. The military regime's effort to create a 'moral legitimacy' has come crashing to earth.
Another consequence of Sharif's release is to feed the discontent of the peoples of the smaller nationalities once again. What is the justification behind releasing one set of politicians while keeping those from the smaller provinces in jail? The nationalist parties of the smaller provinces have already started exploiting the ruling military establishment's discriminatory attitude. The Sindhis argue that Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Mohammad Khan Junejo and Benazir Bhutto (three Sindhi former prime ministers), all fell victim to conspiracies hatched by the Punjabi-dominated military establishment. They also point out that the first elected prime minister from Sindh, Zulfikar Bhutto, was sent to the gallows despite repeated calls for clemency by the entire Muslim world. On the other hand, a convicted prime minister from Punjab has been provided a safe exit.
The masses of the smaller provinces think of themselves as a deprived lot and see the 'federation' as taking unjust decisions against them, be it with regard to financial resources or water allocations. The military government's so-called devolution plan has added to their fear that it will further reduce provincial autonomy.
The BBC has linked the decision on Sharif to Pakistan's economic predicament. The military government does not admit this but, given the deteriorating financial situation of the country and the threat of default as a result of the post-nuclear sanctions, it is facing an economic impasse. The junta is increasingly worried of an explosion from below.
It is pertinent to recall the report of the State Bank of Pakistan (July-September 2000), which indicates that inflation has risen and price hikes are inevitable in utilities and petroleum. Efforts to increase tax revenues have fallen significantly short of their targets. The compulsion to rely on Western financial institutions remains. This means the International Monetary Fund dictating low public spending, fewer new jobs (if any), job cuts in sectors being prepared for privatisation, and a higher rate of unemployment which is compounding the already bad job situation, especially for young people.
With the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) leader, Benazir Bhutto, already in exile, Sharif's flight to Saudi Arabia means that the leaders of the two main 'liberal' parties are now banished from the country. This is a major boost for the religious parties. The political landscape has been cleared exclusively for those who have the support of reactionary Muslim fundamentalist forces. This is a dangerous development for the poor.
The military government will try to install a prime minister of its own choice. The ban on all political activity and the exile of the PPP and Muslim League leaders is a good opportunity for the army to get the desired result because it is easier for them to bargain with the weaker liberal groups and religious parties.
Though it seems that the junta has manoeuvered well to take hold of the political process, it is also the biggest loser in this game. Not all of its problems have been resolved by the Sharif case. The more serious problems are rooted in the feudal-capitalist state structure upheld by the military. The army is an instrument for safeguarding the interests of national and international big business. It makes no real difference who is on the scene, whether that is Sharif, Bhutto or General Musharraf. All of these represent feudal-capitalist class rule.
Sharif's exit has created a political vacuum. The masses are burdened by price hikes and feel betrayed by Sharif's exile but are not taking to the streets because they also distrust the old political leadership. The religious parties will try to exploit this opportunity with the help of their like-minded generals.
The most disappointing aspect is that the old 'left' has abandoned the politics of raising any alternative and have either become part of the bourgeois parties or have sunk into the oblivion of the NGOs (non-governmental organisations). There is a desperate need to build a genuine socialist alternative to the present political and social chaos, the imminent threat of reactionary fundamentalist forces and the danger of the break up of society. That requires building support for a programme aimed at the social, economic and national problems, all of which are intertwined.
A socialist alternative would start from the fact that the junta, religious groups and other feudal-capitalist leaders, like Sharif and Bhutto, have consistently betrayed the Pakistani masses, and convincing the workers and poor that capitalism means unemployment, poverty and wars. The real choice is between the struggle to overthrow capitalism and feudalism or continued poverty and talibanisation (brutal state repression).
A socialist federation of Pakistan would release the resources needed to wipe out social deprivation and poverty. It would create the basis for fulfilling the national aspirations of the smaller nationalities and protecting the rights of all nationalities. Only a genuine socialist alternative with a democratically-elected and accountable leadership can put forward such a programme.
Pakistani Elite !!!
An elite gone berserk !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mwaqar
I think its already too late for failed politicians of Pakistan to save this country for which so many sacrificed, I been saying for years that Pakistan will become another SOMALIA, lets face reality that Army Generals, Politicians, bureaucrats, Mullahs, bourgeois and elite is responsible for destroying Pakistan. Pakistani politicians never had any agenda for developing the country, in this country elite is responsible for keeping people of this country backward and illiterate, where over 40 million people have no education, Islam has never been an issue in Pakistan. The cry of 'Islam in danger' is a powerful weapon and slogan of Pakistani politicians and Army generals. General Zia fully utilized the process of Islamization to achieve his political ends. The whole sprit of Qur’an is dynamic as pointed out by so many great Islamic thinkers like Jamaluddin Afghani, Muhammad Abduh, Sir Syed and Muhammad Iqbal. They waged real jihad against stagnation, dogmatism, ignorance and superstition in the name of Islam. It is highly necessary to revive the spirit of these great Islamic thinkers and activists. Their jihad was real jihad. Their main weapons were knowledge, understanding and constant efforts to change. Iqbal represented this spirit in his much quoted verse which says Firm conviction, constant efforts and overpowering universal love are the weapons of men in jihad of life. This is a challenge for us all Muslims. We must turn into a great opportunity and change the image of Islam in the modern world. Mullhas tell you what happens after death but they never told you how to live in this world, no one cared about education of people, selfish leaders of this country go to USA and WEST and ask for charity and then steal all aid money. Elite use name of Islam for their benefits, Cruel dictator Zia did not hesitate to introduce religious fanaticism for keeping himself in power. Nawaz sharif will do anything to get power, It was democratic government of Pakistan that created Taliban movement and installed Taliban government in Afghanistan. Nawaz Sharif, after meeting Osama bin Laden personally at least three times in Saudi Arabia and receiving a huge donation for reelection campaign, democratically elected government of Pakistan under Nawaz Sharif facilitated relocation of Osama bin Laden from Sudan to Afghanistan in 1996 to prove his (Sharif’s) own confides as a ‘true jehadi’ because Osama had taunted Sharif not being a ‘true jehadi’ in one of the meetings. The existing situations or expansions of Taliban in the regions were due to previous Mulla's govt in Pukhtoon land. It is a shame that Pakistani Army only takes action against criminal Taliban and their leaders when Washington force them, otherwise they have no will and sincerity to shoot these criminals who are involve in crimes against humanity. Pakistan seems to have a majority of moderate Muslims and a minority of crazed, religious fundamentals. Who will prevail??? Hard to say, but the religious wack-jobs definitely seem to operate as they wish. As a result, it's a problem. When extremist distort and totally misinterpret the Prophet Mohammad's teachings, they act like a bunch of crazed teen-agers high on Ecstasy with loaded weapons. It's a shame . But then again people like QAZI HUSSAIN whose son got educated in States, wants sons of poor to take part in his senseless marches and dharnas creates fanatics. Pir Pagara who loves to predict political events keeping his followers without education. All these so called failed politicians wants to be Prime Minister but no one talks about the miseries of people living in Pakistan. None of these so called ignorant politicians talk about education, health, poverty, terrorism, they don’t care about people who are committing suicide because of poverty, people who are selling their kids and kidneys for money. Most of the Politicians lack qualifications, experience and even commitment to tackle the problems of the Country. Politics and power dominates their agenda and real issues of poverty, illiteracy and disease do not fare in their book. Anyone who expects them to lead the country to peace and prosperity must be dreaming. The representatives of the people need to pass certain tests of eligibility. Character, ability, a sense of responsibility and experience are necessary ingredients of that eligibility, but in Pakistani Politics we don’t see that, a lot of these politicians, even can’t sign their names in English or Urdu. Typical Pakistani politicians thinks this following way. 1. They consider themselves higher than their institutions. 2. They believe - or at least that is what they claim - that only they can save the country. 3. Only they know what is right for their parties and for the country. 4. They make “temporary” compromises for their own personal interest. 5. They try to maintain a vacuum of leadership so that the party is identified with them - and no-one else. Where is the discussion about the higher education in Pakistan? How are the top notch scientists, engineers and doctors going to be trained? When will govt start pouring funds into these fields? I don’t really understand whether Pakistan and Pakistanis wants to become a peaceful and hopeful country or not. India, China and Iran are surging ahead in research and development. Pakistan is caught up in political and ideological quagmire. India and China will be super powers by year 2050. Leader means visionary personality who can lead others to achieve certain vision. Pakistan’s condition in over 60 year of its ‘independence is one of tragedy; it is a country which has lost its way and whose politicians care little for its reputation. It is not sufficient to change from military leaders to political leaders without changing the underlying political system. It will not work now, nor has it ever worked in the past. There is no check and balance in Pakistan. What Pakistan therefore needs is clear, a comprehensive change of system not a return to the failed politics of the past and another set of cosmetic leadership changes. Retired General Pervez Musharraf would be most remembered for his failure to change the political landscape of the country. In this he would share the fate of other three generals who attempted to remake the political structure of the country and who failed miserably, all three generals failed to establish a new political order in the country, they did achieve a certain degree of success in destroying Pakistan’s social, economic, and cultural landscape. Ayub Khan’s long reign fortified feudal culture, provided new opportunities to the rich to become richer, and gave unprecedented leverage to the notorious thirty-two families who controlled most of the industrial and agricultural holdings of Pakistan. This concentration of wealth in a few hands deprived the poor and middle classes of any genuine role in the country’s political and social structure. General Zia’s failure to bring any substantial changes in the political culture of Pakistan was primarily due to the fact that he was not really interested in this task; his own survival was his greatest concern. During his long reign, he presided over a process of rapid deterioration of the social fabric of the country and allowed a handful of military generals to amass huge amounts of money. The new power mafia which emerged during his reign brought a culture of drugs and violence even to those segments of Pakistani society where such things were unimaginable until then. General Musharraf has done to Pakistan what no other man has before him: his draconian measures have produced a total break down of Pakistani society in a manner never seen before. It may seem premature to pronounce the final verdict, yet it is absolutely clear that Musharraf’s ruthlessness is responsible for the emergence of unprecedented violence in Pakistan. He also allowed plunder of state resources at a level and of an order not seen before. His attempts to restructure Pakistani politics through exiling political leaders have been an utter failure. He relied on turn coats, just as his predecessors had, but it is a truism that one can only rent the loyalties of Pakistan’s corrupt politicians, they cannot be bought permanently. The rented loyalties are always available for anyone ready to pay higher rents. It cannot be denied that political power and authority were snatched away by the bureaucrats and generals after the assassination of the first Prime Minister of Pakistan, Liaquat Ali Khan, in October 1951.The former US national security advisor, Robert C. McFarlane rightly observed that the democratic system in Pakistan is comprised of "a few families struggling with one another to achieve absolute power and are inevitably, in Lord Acton's phrase, corrupted absolutely." The feudal controllers of the government appear to have a long-term strategy to maintain the status quo by ignoring human resources development and keeping the masses illiterate. Even before independence, the feudal lords blocked spread of education in their respective areas for selfish reasons. Since independence, all governments have without exception, deliberately curbed the spread of literacy. Education has never been a priority with any form of government whether it was a democratic or a military one. Since all governments, including the martial law regimes, solely depended on feudal support, they intentionally suppressed education, a potential threat to the status quo. Ironically, the billionaire club of our ruling elite, that enjoys all the privileges and political clout, does not pay any taxes. Generally, everyone who is some one in Pakistan does not like to pay his or her tax. Despite having declared assets of Rs 676.8 million of the Sharif family, , Nawaz Sharif and his brother, Shahbaz Sharif, filed a zero income tax and deficit wealth tax returns, in1998. According to the tax statements of June 30, 1998, total income tax paid by the 11-member Sharif family was just Rs 0.25 million. The family also paid Rs 0.55 million as wealth tax and 0.13 million as agriculture tax raising the total tax payment of the family to Rs 0.94 million and Nawaz family is not the only political family, there is a long list of other politicians and elite who does not pay tax. One can write thousand of books on selfish, failed Pakistani Generals and politicians, corrupt elite, bourgeois, cruel feudal lords, selfish bureaucratic system, but how to get rid of this selfish group of elite in Pakistan?, The Chinese revolution came about with the collapse of the Manchu dynasty, a result of increasing internal disorders, pressure from foreign governments, and the weakness of central government, that’s what we see in Pakistan today. I think we need a true revolutionary in Pakistan before this country breaks up.
“A great revolution is never the fault of the people, but of the government.” Goethe
AN ELITE GONE BERSERK
What else do you expect if you have pumpkins as your rulers and elite? At this point in time, vicious storms are gathering threateningly on the country’s western borders. After years of calm, the LoC is becoming uncomfortably live too, with the Indians pointing finger at us for the recent spate of bomb blasts in their country and accusing the ISI of the terrorist attack on their Kabul embassy as well. In the tribal belt and the settled areas in the vicinity, the extremists are becoming increasingly aggressive and a law unto themselves, behaving like a sovereign power, dictating terms to the state authorities for peace, and even projecting themselves as the alternative leadership for the Islamabad throne. But how are these elites reacting to all these threats and dangers? By setting deadlines, by announcing long marches, by threatening sit-ins, isn’t it? But what for? For their own self-driven agendas and for their own maddening pursuits of settling personal scores; isn’t it? Have you ever heard any of them ever making some sensible proposal or mooting some wise idea in detail for facing up to these threats? Isn’t it that you hear of only silly noises and populists slogans coming forth from their loud mouths? To cope with all these challenges, a visionary gracing the ranks of the opposition-in-wilderness has a gem of wisdom. Just redraw a new constitution, is his magic recipe. But the sage doesn’t tell how his magic formula would bring about his touted miracle when these challenges are immediate needing instantaneous remedial actions, while framing a constitution anew needs months upon months, if not years, in spite of the best intents and efforts of its framers. And that unbeatable intellectual light and unsurpassable political wizard who has anointed himself as this nation’s spiritual guru and its political guide, Mian Mohammad Nawaz Sharif, the head honcho of the PML (N), he has only a plaintive refrain to make to address all these existential threats to us. The ruling PPP leadership, he complains, has not taken him and his party into confidence on the moves taken to come to grips with these challenges. And that is it that he has all on this score. What do you make of it if not that his heart is not in these issues, even though of so fundamental import to this country’s existence and its security and stability? He is all obsessed with his blinding madness to avenge his ouster by the retired general and somehow get him and drag him to the gallows. Ludicrously, he has catapulted his obsession into the people’s mandate in the February poll, whereas the people had rejected him outright in Sindh and Balochistan, even in the subsequent bye-elections, and it is only in the NWFP where he could muster up a sprinkling of public vote and in Punjab where his party was though the largest but not even in simple majority. The PPP says, and rightly, that it holds a countrywide people’s mandate, which it secured not for the judges’ reinstatement but for its promise of roti, kapra aur makan. Yes, it did. But where is roti? Has not the runaway food inflation on its watch snatched roti from many more mouths? Has indeed anyone any idea what a piece of roti now costs, what rate a cup of tea sells in a shabby roadside eatery, and what price a plate of pulse is sold at? Does anyone in the PPP, or in the elite, for that matter, know that a labourer from Swabi in Islamabad has to spend more than half of his day’s earning on just his food and the rest he consumes up in the days he finds no work, leaving not even a paisa with him to send home for his hungry children and starving family? Does anyone in this elite nobility knows that he sleeps at night on the pavements, as do numerous labourers who work for a day or two and remain idle for days on end for no job? Has anyone in the gentry strutting on the national political landscape so grandiosely even a slight idea that jobless, hungry and starving pavement sleepers in cities and metropolises alike are multiplying by leaps and bounds in these days? These elites across the spectrum must wake up to the horrendous realities on the ground. If it becomes a Somalia of this country, as it seems heading to terribly, where would they stage their long marches and sit-ins, and to whom will they be setting deadlines to meet? They must change, their politics must change, their rhetoric must change, and their idiom must change before it is too late. A stormy tide is evidently in the making to ferociously sweep away each and all.
C.I.A. Outlines Pakistan Links With Militants
WASHINGTON — A top Central Intelligence Agency official traveled secretly to Islamabad this month to confront Pakistan’s most senior officials with new information about ties between the country’s powerful spy service and militants operating in Pakistan’s tribal areas, according to American military and intelligence officials.
The C.I.A. emissary presented evidence showing that members of the spy service had deepened their ties with some militant groups that were responsible for a surge of violence in Afghanistan, possibly including the suicide bombing this month of the Indian Embassy in Kabul, the officials said.
The decision to confront Pakistan with what the officials described as a new C.I.A. assessment of the spy service’s activities seemed to be the bluntest American warning to Pakistan since shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks about the ties between the spy service and Islamic militants.
The C.I.A. assessment specifically points to links between members of the spy service, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, and the militant network led by Maulavi Jalaluddin Haqqani, which American officials believe maintains close ties to senior figures of Al Qaeda in Pakistan’s tribal areas.
The C.I.A. has depended heavily on the ISI for information about militants in Pakistan, despite longstanding concerns about divided loyalties within the Pakistani spy service, which had close relations with the Taliban in Afghanistan before the Sept. 11 attacks.
That ISI officers have maintained important ties to anti-American militants has been the subject of previous reports in The New York Times. But the C.I.A. and the Bush administration have generally sought to avoid criticism of Pakistan, which they regard as a crucial ally in the fight against terrorism.
The visit to Pakistan by the C.I.A. official, Stephen R. Kappes, the agency’s deputy director, was described by several American military and intelligence officials in interviews in recent days. Some of those who were interviewed made clear that they welcomed the decision by the C.I.A. to take a harder line toward the ISI’s dealings with militant groups.
Pakistan’s prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, is currently in Washington meeting with Bush administration officials. A White House spokesman, Gordon D. Johndroe, would not say whether President Bush had raised the issue during his meeting on Monday with Mr. Gilani. In an interview broadcast Tuesday on the PBS program “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer,” Mr. Gilani said he rejected as “not believable” any assertions of ISI’s links to the militants. “We would not allow that,” he said.
The Haqqani network and other militants operating in the tribal areas along the Afghan border are said by American intelligence officials to be responsible for increasingly deadly and complex attacks inside Afghanistan, and to have helped Al Qaeda establish a safe haven in the tribal areas.
Lt. Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the acting commander of American forces in Southwest Asia, made an unannounced visit to the tribal areas on Monday, a further reflection of American concern.
The ISI has for decades maintained contacts with various militant groups in the tribal areas and elsewhere, both for gathering intelligence and as proxies to exert influence on neighboring India and Afghanistan. It is unclear whether the C.I.A. officials have concluded that contacts between the ISI and militant groups are blessed at the highest levels of Pakistan’s spy service and military, or are carried out by rogue elements of Pakistan’s security apparatus.
With Pakistan’s new civilian government struggling to assert control over the country’s spy service, there are concerns in Washington that the ISI may become even more powerful than when President Pervez Musharraf controlled the military and the government. Last weekend, Pakistani military and intelligence officials thwarted an attempt by the government in Islamabad to put the ISI more directly under civilian control.
Mr. Kappes made his secret visit to Pakistan on July 12, joining Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for meetings with senior Pakistani civilian and military leaders.
“It was a very pointed message saying, ‘Look, we know there’s a connection, not just with Haqqani but also with other bad guys and ISI, and we think you could do more and we want you to do more about it,’ ” one senior American official said of the message to Pakistan. The official was briefed on the meetings; like others who agreed to talk about it, he spoke on condition of anonymity because of the diplomatic delicacy of Mr. Kappes’s message.
The meetings took place days after a suicide bomber attacked the Indian Embassy in Kabul, killing dozens. Afghanistan’s government has publicly accused the ISI of having a hand in the attack, an assertion American officials have not corroborated.
The decision to have Mr. Kappes deliver the message about the spy service was an unusual one, and could be a sign that the relationship between the C.I.A. and the ISI, which has long been marked by mutual suspicion as well as mutual dependence, may be deteriorating.
The trip is reminiscent of a secret visit that the top two American intelligence officials made to Pakistan in January. Those officials — Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, and Michael V. Hayden, the C.I.A. director — sought to press Mr. Musharraf to allow the C.I.A. greater latitude to operate in the tribal territories.
It was the ISI, backed by millions of covert dollars from the C.I.A., that ran arms to guerrillas fighting Soviet forces in Afghanistan in the 1980s. It is now American troops who are dying in Afghanistan, and intelligence officials believe those longstanding ties between Pakistani spies and militants may be part of an effort to destabilize Afghanistan.
Spokesmen for the White House and the C.I.A. declined to comment about the visit by Mr. Kappes or about the agency’s assessment. A spokesman for Admiral Mullen, Capt. John Kirby, declined to comment on the meetings, saying “the chairman desires to keep these meetings private and therefore it would be inappropriate to discuss any details.”
Admiral Mullen and Mr. Kappes met in Islamabad with several high-ranking Pakistani officials. They included Mr. Gilani; Mr. Musharraf; Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the army chief of staff and former ISI director; and Lt. Gen. Nadeem Taj, the current ISI director.
One American counterterrorism official said there was no evidence of Pakistan’s government’s direct support of Al Qaeda. He said, however, there were “genuine and longstanding concerns about Pakistan’s ties to the Haqqani network, which of course has links to Al Qaeda.”
American commanders in Afghanistan have in recent months sounded an increasingly shrill alarm about the threat posed by Mr. Haqqani’s network. Earlier this year, American military officials pressed the American ambassador in Pakistan, Anne W. Patterson, to get Pakistani troops to strike Haqqani network targets in the tribal areas.
Gen. Dan K. McNeill, the senior NATO commander in Afghanistan until last month, frequently discussed the ISI’s contacts with militant groups with General Kayani, Pakistan’s military chief.
During his visit to the tribal areas on Monday, General Dempsey met with top Pakistani commanders in Miramshah, the capital of North Waziristan, where Pakistan’s 11th Army Corps and Frontier Corps paramilitary force have a headquarters, to discuss the security situation in the region, Pakistani officials said.
North Waziristan, the most lawless of the tribal areas, is a hub of Al Qaeda and other foreign fighters, and the base of operations for the Haqqani network.
On Tuesday, Pakistani security forces raided an abandoned seminary owned by Mr. Haqqani, Pakistani officials said. No arrests were made.
