Attacks on supply trucks: Pakistani officials put blame on NATO

Qaiser Butt

ISLAMABAD: As the frequency of attacks on Nato supply trucks grows, Pakistani officials blame the alliance for rejecting a security plan that Islamabad unveiled to Western states last year, The Express Tribune has learnt.

File photo shows a Nato truck on fire after an attack on the PAk-Afghan border.

The disclosure came as gunmen set ablaze two more oil tankers in the Surab area of Kalat district, in Balochistan, on Sunday. A day earlier 16 tankers, carrying oil supplies for Nato forces in Afghanistan, were torched by gunmen in Naseerabad district.

“The poor security arrangements put in place by Nato authorities have made supply vehicles vulnerable to Taliban attacks. Now there are frequent attacks on Nato supply vehicles travelling from Karachi to the Afghan province of Kandahar,” a top official told The Express Tribune requesting anonymity.

He said the Pakistan government had offered a comprehensive plan to Nato for safe transportation of military hardware and other supplies from the Karachi port to Afghanistan.

According to the plan, the Balochistan government will be responsible for the safety of Nato supplies to the Chaman border – a journey through 12 districts of the province. For this, Nato will be required to provide four vehicles and monthly salaries of 16 security guards.

The plan was unveiled to Nato officials in a meeting in Islamabad last year where Balochistan government officials were also present. British diplomats agreed to the plan but Nato officials rejected it without citing any reason.

“Nato has hired private security firms for the protection of its shipments. But it has been observed that the private guards flee whenever the convoys they are protecting are attacked by the Taliban or miscreants,” a top official in the Balochistan government told The Express Tribune.

The official precluded the involvement of the Afghan Taliban in Saturday’s attack on Nato lorries in Naseerabad. “Presence of the Afghan Taliban in Balochistan is out of question,” he added.

However, he hinted that the Baloch insurgent groups could be involved in such attacks. “The involvement of the outlawed Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) cannot be ruled out,” he said. Nonetheless, he said it was premature to put the blame on anybody without proper investigation.

The official also pointed to another possible angle to the issue. “Some time drivers of Nato tankers sell out oil to another party and engineer attacks on their empty vehicles,” he said. “They get compensation for their trucks as those are already insured,” he said.

To substantiate his claim, the official said that Nato trucks were always attacked only when they were parked at some roadside restaurant or at filling stations. “Strangely enough, drivers and cleaners of these vehicles always survive the attacks,” he said.

The official said that police have arrested some drivers for their involvement in such engineered attacks. And in some cases the involvement of drivers was established.

He also suspected that some Nato officials were also complacent in the racket. However, no Nato official was available to comment on this allegation.

The Balochistan government is tired of these attacks. “We are sick of these incidents because we have to pay Rs400,000 as compensation for any civilian death in these Rs100,000 for every injured,” the official said.

Profiling Pakistan-1

A Well Orchestrated Defaming Campaign

By Dr. Raja Muhammad Khan

Not Iraq, Lets Bomb Pakistan

“The allegations are baseless,” Pakistan and its security setup, perhaps thought this brief, succinct, and patent elucidation enough in response to the 22 pages, Matt Waldman’s research report on, “The Sun in the Sky: The relationship between Pakistan’s ISI and Afghan Insurgents,” published by Crisis States Research Centre of London School of Economics (LSE) on June 13, 2010. While recognizing the fact the Taliban in Afghanistan is a reality, the report reveals that ISI indeed guides them in their strategic planning, decision making and even in the implementation phases of the insurgency. So much so that, the author is self-assured in claiming that starting from the training, the funding, arming, and even logistical support provided to Afghan Taliban and Haqqani network, is accomplished by this Pakistani intelligence agency. The astonishing research also reveals that, apart from the intelligence setup, President Zardari, otherwise considered to be a pro-US and Pro-West, has given assurances to the Taliban for Pakistani assistance.

U.S and NATO troops are embattling these insurgent Taliban ever since the former invaded Afghanistan in October 2001, following the incident of 9/11. To their hard-luck, these foreign forces could not subdue the resistance put up by Afghan Taliban and masses in spite of having superior weaponry and despotic tactics. Rather their tyrannical acts further fuelled the insurgency in that country. After having analysed, the consecutive failure of US and NATO troops, and their counter-productive results, Afghan President Mr. Hamid Karazai, decided to launch reconciliatory efforts to integrate the Taliban into the main stream of Afghan society and the Government. The process had the US backing and even met initial success too. Therefore, the issuance of this report at this critical juncture, once the reconciliation process is underway between Afghan Government and Taliban insurgents seems to have ill intentions. Since Pakistan, as a brotherly Islamic and neighbourly country is helping the Afghan Government in the process, therefore, is linked with the Taliban.

Pakistan indeed, believes that peace in this war-torn country; Afghanistan is a key to its own internal stability, therefore, decided to encourage and helped the Afghan Government to negotiate with the Taliban; the main insurgent group. In this connection, the statement of Pakistani Army Chief, General Ashfaq Pervaz is on record that; “Pakistan cannot wish anything for Afghanistan which it cannot wish for itself”. There are similar sentiments of the civilian leadership and the people of Pakistan regarding Afghanistan. After many misperceptions, the Afghan President has been very realistic during his visit of Pakistan on March 11, 2010, once he said that, “No country has ever showed more hospitality to Afghanistan than Pakistan”. Declaring Pakistan and Afghanistan as the “twin brothers,” President Karzai further said that the “destiny, grieves and happiness of both the countries are shared.” On this occasion, Pakistani Prime Minister Gilani, assured the visiting President that, Pakistan would enhance its cooperation with Afghanistan to eliminate the terrorism, and bilateral ties between the two countries would be enhanced further. Similar assurances and guarantees were promised during the visit of President Zardari to Afghanistan and in his meet with President Karazai in Washington.

The report primarily focussed on the insurgent activities of Afghan Taliban under the Mullah Omar and the Jalaluddin Haqqani network, both allegedly supported by ISI. The very basis of the report by Watt Waldman, are erroneous that after 1971, disintegration, Pakistan started mobilizing and relying on Islamic groups to avert the threat from India. The fact of the matter is that creation of Islamists through Islamization and enhancement of Maddrassah culture are the outcome of US and Western efforts to counter the former Soviet Union in Afghanistan in 1980s. This has nothing to do with the defence of Pakistan. The paper indeed failed to identify the fact that, indeed, it was United States which concentrated the then Mujahedeen from all over the world all Pak-Afghan border to defeat and disintegrate the former USSR. CIA, the premier US intelligence agency, indeed, did all this.

The report betrays the readers by making reference of the US Congressional Research Service (CRS), that Pakistani intelligence agencies are aware of the Taliban leadership and maintains its active links with it. Such allegations are always made once US and West aim to pressurize Pakistan for the implementation of its own agenda. The malicious nature of the report could be well imagined from the fact that Afghan Taliban are forced to obey the Pakistani intelligence agencies because their families are in Pakistan. Whereas, a large number of Afghan leadership had their residences in Pakistan. Even President Karazai had stayed in Pakistan for a long duration and still owns a house in Pakistan.

In his research work, the author himself remained unsure, whether the interviewees; some former Taliban leaders and some current Taliban commanders in various parts of the Afghanistan are the genuine ones or presented by their intermediaries as a fake lot. The argument is further augmented by the fact that, if a researcher, who indeed was an official representative of UK Government, could find that real leadership of Taliban why cannot over 150,000 large US and NATO forces; whose UK troops are also part of, could trace them. This is not the end; there is a huge network of the CIA, FBI, MI-6, RAW and Mossad operative in and around Afghanistan. Why did they fail to trace them and taken them to the task, instead of killing the innocent Afghans, once they are busy in undertaking their religious and social ceremonies?

There is a misperception that Pakistan is maintaining its links with the Taliban in order to use them as a strategic force at the hours of need. The fact remains that Pakistani security forces, its strategic arsenals are enough to defend the country, and it has never depended on such like forces. The West and U.S indeed used them against the former Soviet Union to accomplish their own agendas. Rather Pakistani security forces are combating them all along the Pak-Afghan border and in other parts of the country, especially the FATA since 2003. Furthermore, Pakistan neither desires to use Afghan soil as its strategic depth nor has intention to use the Taliban (Afghan or Pakistani Taliban) as its strategic strength. All that Pakistan, its security forces and intelligence agencies desire is the durable peace, stability, and unity among various Afghan factions.

The Western media, think tanks and authors like Matt Waldman, must realize that Pakistan and Afghanistan are two neighbourly Islamic countries. Both countries share a lot in terms of their culture, history, traditions, and even common origin. Destined into two independent countries, they cannot be estranged spiritually and ideologically. This is evident from the fact the during Soviet invasion, over 3.5 million Afghan refugees (later rose to 5 million) were sheltered by their brethrens in Pakistan. Still Pakistan is housing over 2.5 Afghan refugees. The Sun in the Sky indeed is that, People of Pakistan and Afghanistan have indissoluble relationship. Therefore, such malevolent reports would not dent the mutual relationship of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Rather, these reports and efforts of extra regional forces and their intelligence agencies would further cement the so for vacillating relationship of the two countries.

The report indeed is an effort to defame Pakistani leadership and its premier intelligence agency; ISI, which has maintained a clean conduct throughout its material life. This spotless intelligence network indeed, neither has established inhuman camps like Guantanamo bay nor colonised its neighbours or undertook massacre during WW-I and WW-II. Moreover, it has not been created to destabilize its neighbours like the RAW or to unleash the terror like Mossad. Its efficiency and diligence, of course bothers the ill-conceived intelligence networks of the globe, the so-called scholars and think tanks, who do not believe on the reality, but desire to maintain their hegemony at all cost, which ISI dispels.

Dr Raja Muhammad Khan is Ph. D in International Relations from Karachi University. Now he is an Associate Professor with National University of Defence. Dr Khan’s focus is on South Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East. He is regular contributor to www.opinion-maker.org

The War Against ISI

By ALI SUKHANVER

The USA could have never been so powerful and authoritative if the CIA and the FBI were not as effective and organized as they are now. Apparently this democratic unison of different states seems flourishing and nourishing under the flag of a very compact and integrated independent system of ‘choose and own’ but in fact the credit goes to these all time vigilant intelligent, inquisitive and hard working organizations. It is no one else but the CIA which is doing its best to keep the USA safe from all possible internal and external factors which may be harmful to the existence of this land. The success of the CIA is hidden in the unshaken confidence and trust provided to it by the people and the government of the USA. The American authorities are very well aware of the fact that no intelligence agency can work properly in the right direction if it is given a free hand along with a mistrusting glance. They also know that an air of doubts and suspicions harms the credibility of any intelligence agency. That is the reason these authorities keep on planning for a blame game against all those contemporary intelligence agencies which could be of any danger to them. The situation becomes more painful when the CIA succeeds in getting the support of the MI5, the RAW and the MUSAD to hit their common competitor, the ISI of Pakistan.

Recently there came a violent hurricane of blames and allegations against the ISI in the western media. So many western newsmen at once started targeting the ISI, blaming it for its so-called relations with the Taliban. The origin of all this propaganda war was a report prepared by Matt Waldman of the London School of Economics commonly known as LSE. According to the report, the ISI actively provides the Taliban with services such as funding, weapons, and the training of troops. The report says numerous ISI officials are part of the Taliban’s council of war.

In Pakistan, this report is being taken as a childish, immature and non-sense piece of work. Even a man without brain can feel the stupidity oozing out of this report. It is something very strange that the ISI is funding and supporting those who are continuously targeting the ISI itself. The ‘philosophers’ yawning there at the London School of Economics have forgotten the suicidal attacks on the GHQ taking lives of so many precious army officers and civilians. They have slipped out of their mind the memories of suicidal attacks on the ISI buildings in Lahore, Peshawar, Multan and Rawalpindi. If the ISI is supporting, funding and training the Taliban, the Taliban must not have targeted all these ISI offices. Not only these mentioned offices but also so many other ISI officials had been targeted in the last few years. Just go through the previous newspapers dumped up somewhere in the libraries of the London School of Economics, you would find the details of the attack on a school-bus which was carrying the children of the ISI officers in Islamabad. Really a ridiculous piece of research that the ISI is training, funding and supporting the Taliban so that they maybe able to slaughter the children of the ISI employees and deprive them of their families. It seems absolutely out of sense and absurd that an intelligence agency is breeding a group of miscreants who’s first and the foremost target is the agency itself.

Major-General Athar Abbas, Pakistan’s military spokesman, predictably described the claim as ridiculous and allegations baseless. The report published by the London School of Economics provides us with two dimensions, two altogether different and distinct propositions; either the Talibans have no affinity with the ISI or the miscreants involved in the acts of terrorism do not belong to the Taliban; they are someone else disguised and masked in a veil labeled as Taliban. Linking ISI with the Taliban is nothing but a very organized type of media war. Various newspapers from India, America and England at once started blaming the ISI in a much mechanized manner. The New York Times published an article of Carlotta Gall on June 13, 2010 with the title ‘Pakistan Intelligence Agency Exerts Great Sway on Afghan Taliban’. ‘The Times of India published an article by Ashis Ray on Jun 14, 2010 with the title ’7 of Taliban’s top 15 are ISI agents’. Same is the case with so many other newspapers from UK, US and India including the UK’s Sunday Times and India’s Hindustan Times. All these papers are narrating the same concocted story. After going through all these articles and the report from the London School of Economics one feels that the same artist is painting the same picture at different places with different names. The only aim behind this entire struggle is to defame ISI which is no doubt the most sacred organization with reference to the security and stability of Pakistan.

It is a daylight fact that the Indian presence in Afghanistan would create a lot of problems for Pakistan particularly when the American forces leave the land. The native Afghans, who are no doubt very much fundamentalists in their approach towards the religion, would never be willing to embrace the Idol worshippers as their new masters. That would be the beginning of a never ending conflict between the Taliban and the Indians leading to a severe threat to the regional peace. Pakistan can never afford such hazardous and perilous situation in its neighboring country. People living along the both sides of the Pak-Afghan borders have very close blood relations; if there is a warlike scenario in Afghanistan, it would certainly affect the other side of the border. That is the reason that Pakistan has always desired and struggled for a longstanding peace in Afghanistan. The report of the London School of Economics contains only one truth that as an ‘official policy matter’ Pakistan’ tries to curtail and put a hard check on the growing influence of India in Afghanistan. Pakistan has its own reservations regarding the increasing influence of India in Afghanistan. Since the very first day of the NATO forces in Afghanistan, Pakistan is of the opinion that the situation would never be bettered if India is given a free hand in Afghanistan but it does not mean that Pakistan starts funding , supporting and training those who have become a threat to its own existence and stability. Such reports as recently released by the London School of Economics would do nothing but create an air of disbelief and distrust between Pakistan and the USA. Talibanisation is good neither for Afghanistan nor for Pakistan and if it started spreading across the borders, it would certainly be the ever worst challenge to the existence of India. The role played by the ISI and the Armed Forces of Pakistan in the war against terror is always praised and applauded by the western countries in all their official communications. If USA is serious in its war against terror it must put a check upon those who are trying to malign the situation for their own petty interests. The people like Matt Waldman must be referred to some psychiatrist for the cleaning up of the rubbish ideas heaped up in their narrow and tiny brains.

The writer is a Pakistan based analyst on defense and strategic affairs.

Shahzad acted alone; no Taliban signature on his bomb attempt: says UN envoy Hussain Haroon

APP

NEW YORK: Pakistan’s U.N. Ambassador Abdullah Hussain Haroon has called Faisal Shahzad, the suspect in the Times Square bomb attempt, a “misguided soul” who had acted alone, and he disagreed with Obama administration officials’ claim that the accused was trained by the Pakistani Taliban.In an interview on CBS television on Monday, he said that General David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, “had it right that this was the act of a lone man.” Petraeus stated (prior to the administration’s claims Sunday) that Shahzad, the 30-year -old US citizen of Pakistani descent, operated as a “lone wolf” who did not work with other terrorists.

But senior White House officials said Sunday that the Pakistani Taliban backed the failed Times Square bombing. On CBS’ “Face the Nation,” U.S. Presidential adviser John Brennan accused Shahzad of working with a Pakistani Taliban group closely allied with al Qaeda.

Although Ambassador Haroon said that the Obama administration may have other evidence, he said, “All I am saying is that the evidence I have points in one direction: It does not have its signature of the Taliban.”

TIMES SQUARE BOMB HOAX, ISRAELI INTEL GROUP SHOWS ITS HAND

ISRAELIS BLAME TALIBAN GROUP, ONE THEY HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH FOR YEARS

By Gordon Duff

Times Squares Bomb Hoax

Who would have believed it? Only days after a warning of an Israeli “false flag” bombing against the US “in the works” a massive car bomb is discovered in Time Square! Better yet, though no intelligence organization in the world could discover anyone claiming responsibility for this embarrassing failure, SITE Intelligence, a group rumored as the “voice of the Mossad” has placed the blame on the Pakistani Taliban.

US defends legality of killing with drones

* WSJ report says Obama administration is pushing back with a legal defence of drone programme it only tacitly acknowledges
* International Humanitarian Law regulates continuous armed conflict between states, with recognisable combatants-little of which prevails in the US fight against al Qaeda and its allies

Daily Times Monitor

LAHORE: The Obama administration, facing questions about the legality of its drone programme – a key part of US counterterrorism efforts in the Pak-Afghan border region – is pushing back with a legal defence of a programme it only tacitly acknowledges, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) said on Tuesday.

The UN Special Rapporteur for Extra-judicial Executions and some legal scholars have questioned whether it is legal for the US to target and execute individuals in countries the US is not at war with.

Pak-US Strategic Dialogue: Analysing the Salient

By Dr. Raja Muhammad Khan

At the conclusion of Pak-US strategic dialogue, held from 24-25 March 2010, at Washington, a joint statement was issued. The statement highlights the salient of the dialogue process between Pakistani delegation headed by Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Overall, this was the fourth phase of the strategic dialogue process. Considering the constantly changing regional and global situation and steps needed to further fortify the bilateral relationship, the dialogue was elevated to the Ministerial level for the first time. The next round of the dialogue would be held in Islamabad. It was also agreed upon by both sides that through the establishment of a Policy Steering Group, sectoral dialogue process would be held between the two friendly countries. This process would encompass dialogue process in the fields of economy and trade; energy; defense; security, strategic stability and non-proliferation; law enforcement and counter-terrorism; science and technology; education; agriculture; water; health; and communications and public diplomacy.

The positive aspect of this dialogue process has been that, it was all encompassing and aspirations of the people of both countries were given a central position. In-spite of the upheavals in the history of Pak-US relationship, either side felt that Pak-US strategic relationship has the potential to be carried forward in the 21st century. This indeed is in the fundamental interest of both countries and can be ensured through mutual trust and mutual respect. In the wordings of the joint statement, Both the United States and Pakistan are determined to foster goodwill and friendship between their people and engage in mutually beneficial cooperation. Both sides stressed Restoration of peace and stability in Afghanistan. U.S desires restoration of peace and stability in Afghanistan before the beginning of its scheduled pulling out from that country in the mid 2011. Pakistan, however, considers that peace and stability in Afghanistan is must for the internal stability in Pakistan, as history proved.

Indian Diplomatic Defeat

Sajjad Shaukat

After witnessing two world wars, Europe has learnt a positive lesson that political solution of any issue should be resolved through dialogue rather than the traditional conflict. Notably, once the American former Sectary of State, Henry Kissinger had said, the “true diplomacy runs on the barrel of guns.” After itself, entangling in a prolonged war against terrorism on global level, even the US has started preferring political solution in this regard. However, in the modern era of globalisation, diplomatic defeat is worse than the war of the past. It is a defeat without war.

In these terms, some rapidly changing developments have indicated Indian diplomatic defeat. In this regard, on January 29 this year, in their final communique, world leaders of the London Conference agreed on a timetable for the handover of security duties to the Afghan forces in late 2010, while backing Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s plan to reintegrate the willing Taliban to pursue political goals peacefully.

Here it would be appropriate to mention that Raja Mujtaba of Opinion Maker and Gordon Duff of Veterans Today along with their panel of writers like General Mirza Aslam Beg, Brig Asif Haroon Raja etc, have all along been insisting that peace in Afghanistan can not be achieved without talking Taliban on board. For this reason, all head money placed on them must be revoked. Today the London Conference has accepted that when some Taliban leaders were taken off that list. But, we need to be more open and pragmatic and remove all Taliban leaders like Mullah Omar, Mullah Haqqani, Gulbadin Hikmatyar etc from this list.

In this connection, sources suggest that dialogue with the Afghan Taliban has already started through the UN special envoy and some other officials through some backdoor channels.

It is mentionable that by availing the golden opportunity of the 9/11, India left no stone unturned in getting its hold in Afghanistan under the cover of the US-led NATO forces. Under the pretext of Talibinisation of Afghanistan and Pakistan, secret agencies like Indian RAW and Israeli Mossad have well-established networks in Afghanistan. Particularly, India has been running secret operations against Pakistan from its consulates in Mazar-i-Sharif, Jalalabad, Kandhar and other sensitive parts of the Pak-Afghan border. It has spent millions of dollars in Afghanistan to strengthen its grip on the country. New Delhi has not only increased its military troops in the counry, but has also decided to set up cantonments. This foreign unwanted and unwarranted troop buildup after American retreat would never let the wounds to heal. Afghan people would never accept or tolerate such grafting on their national spine.

Emboldened by the tactical support of the US and Israel, Indian RAW-based in Afghanistan has been sending well-trained agents in Pakistan, who have joined the ranks and files of the Taliban. Posing themselves as the Pakistan Taliban, they not only attack the check posts of Pakistan’s security forces, but also target schools and mosques. They are continuously conduct suicide attacks in our country. In this context, India has also arranged some Madrassas in Afghanistan where highly motivated and RAW-paid militants are being trained with the help of Indian so-called Muslims scholars. Now, Indian support to insurgency in the Frontier Province and the Baloch separatism has become a common matter.

Apart from Indian investment in order to achieve secret designs against Pakistan, drug and kidnapping are some other source of Indian income. According to an estimate, world’s 90% heroin is cultivated in Afghanistan. So money earned through drug-smuggling and hostage-takings is utilised in buying weapons, being sent to the foreign agents and the insurgents in Pakistan. Nevertheless, Afghanistan has become a hub of anti-Pakistan activities owing to India influence.

In the past, some American officials had also suggested to engage India in Af-Pak strategy. But while realsing the ground realties, a shift started in the US strategy in the end of last year. In this regard, on September 20, 2009, NATO commander, Gen. McChrystal had clearly revealed: “Indian political and economic influence is increasing in Afghanistan including significant development efforts…is likely to exacerbate regional tensions.”

During his recent visit to India, US Secretary of Defence, Robert Gates, while discussing Afghanistan with Indian leadership, has urged India to be transparent with Pakistan about their activities in Afghanistan. Despite Indian perennial blame game against Islamabad in connection with the Mumbai carnage, Gates rejected Indian stand that Pakistan has officially been sponsoring terrorism.

Frustrated in its diplomatic defeat, while rejecting Pakistan’s effort to make distinction between state and non-state actors, Indian Home Minister P. Chidambaram presumed: “Pakistan will be held responsible if there is another Mumbai-type attack.” But Robert Gates pointed out that the non-state actors like Al Qaeda-related militants were seeking to de-stabilise the entire South Asia and could trigger a war between ‘nuclearised’ Pakistan and India.

Meanwhile in the State of the Union address, the US President Obama has repeatedly said that American combat troops will begin a phased withdrawal from Afghanistan from July 2011. Nonetheless, after bearing major losses like cost of war, amounting to more than 6 trillion dollars, financial crisis and domestic pressure, US strongly supports process of reintegration-peace and reconciliation with the Afghan Taliban with the sole aim of leaving that country in accordance with the announced schedule.

If US-led NATO forces pull out of Afghanistan, Indian influence will be eliminated by the Taliban insurgency. As a result New Delhi will have to withdraw from Afghanistan, rolling back its anti-Pakistan agenda.

To what extent, India has been creating lawlessness in Afghanistan by interfering in its internal affairs and by using Afghan soil for terrorist activities against Pakistan as well as Iran could also be judged from the fact that on January 16, three foreign ministers of Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan met in Islamabad and signed the joint Islamabad Declaration, focusing on regional cooperation, security and development. The three countries committed to non-interference in the internal affairs of each country and also to ensuring that their territories were not used for activities detrimental to each other’s interests.

Regarding Indian undue incursion, even Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani made it clear to the NATO meeting at Brussels that the NATO countries, which have greater stakes in Afghanistan, should pay heed to the concerns raised by Islamabad particularly regarding Indian interference in Pakistan through Afghanistan. In his response, a Pentagon spokesman also stated that Washington understands Pakistan’s concerns in this respect.

Again, the London Conference agreed for the handover of security responsibilities to the Afghan National Army for “conducting the majority of operations in the insecure areas of Afghanistan within three years. While India was interested in the training of Afghan security forces, and was covertly making strenuous efforts in that regard, but no country in the conference considered New Delhi for that purpose. On the other side, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi has remarked that Islamabad was ready to train Afghan forces on is own soil. In fact, Afghanistan and Pakistan share common geographical, historical, religious and cultural relationships. So Islamabad’s case of training the Afghan forces is stronger than that of New Delhi which is only manipulating the phenomenon of regional terrorism against Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Moreover, Pakistan’s successful Swat-Malakand and Waziristan military operations have surprised the international community as our armed forces dismantled the command and control system of the Taliban militants within some months. They did in eight months what the US-led NATO forces could not do in Afghanistan in eight years. In this context, while praising Pakistan’s security forces, western high officials insisted upon New Delhi to observe restraint in connection with its war-mongering style. It is due to these developments that the US and European countries have donated million of dollars for the Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs).

Besides the above mentioned developments, Indian diplomatic defeat and Pakistan’s diplomatic victory could also be assessed from the fact that Foreign Minister Qureshi had ruled out the likelihood of meeting with his Indian counterpart Krishna during the London Conference, as India is not displaying seriousness for the composite dialogue.

Returning to our earlier discussion, India which had made a web against Pakistan especially from Afghanistan has met a diplomatic defeat owing to rapidly changing scenario.

Sajjad Shaukat is a panelist of Opinion Maker. He writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

How empires crumble!

By Sajjad Shaukat

One of the major causes that led to the First World War was Emperor Wilhelm’s ambitions for the German Empire to be a world power. He believed in an uncompromising policy of ‘power or downfall’ which ultimately resulted in the ‘downfall’ of the empire. Similarly, it is the misfortune of South Asia that India has been trying to endanger the region’s peace by aspiring to become a ‘world power’, or at least a ‘regional power’, in wake of modern world trends like renunciation of war, peaceful settlement of disputes and economic development.

Over the years, India has not only been developing its conventional and nuclear arsenals, but is also obtaining latest weapons from the US, Russia and Israel in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In this context, presuming a peace-loving China as an enemy New Delhi often justifies arms accumulation, while in practice India has constantly deployed its forces along the Pakistani border. As regards Indian belligerent approach, it is the result of India’s shattered hope of intimidating other neighbouring countries, especially Pakistan which the former considers a continuous obstacle in the way of its designs.

Under the pretext of Talibinisation, the Indian secret agency, RAW, has well established its tentacles in Afghanistan, and has been running secret operations against Pakistan from its consulates located near the Pak-Afghan border. It has spent millions of dollars in Afghanistan to strengthen its grip in order to get strategic depth against Islamabad. Meanwhile, PM Gilani and FM Qureshi have repeatedly stated: “India supports terrorism in Pakistan, and its evidence will be shown to the western countries at the right occasion.” Indeed, this is in coordination with the statements of the ISPR spokesman Major General Athar Abbas who revealed that during the ongoing military operations huge cache of arms and ammunition had been captured while it was being shifted from Afghanistan.

Perhaps, frustrated in achieving its aims of becoming a world power, and a permanent seat in the UNSC, now the Indian rulers have started openly threatening nuclear powers like Pakistan and China. In this backdrop, the Indian Army Chief, General Deepak Kapoor, vocally revealed on December 29 that the Indian army “is now revising its five-year old doctrine” and is preparing for a “possible two-front war with China and Pakistan.” However in response to New Delhi’s threat, Pakistan’s JCSC chairman, General Tariq Majeed, stated: “The Indian army chief’s statement exhibits a lack of strategic acumen…[such a path could] fix India on a self-destructive mechanism.”

It is surprising to note that in more than seven states, India itself faces separatist movements which are the result of acute poverty and social injustices. Particularly, Maoist movement that has been raging in West Bengal, and has now expanded to other regions including Maharashtra. At present, it is a popular insurgency by the downtrodden who have massive support of the people for their ideology. On October 31 last year, the New York Times wrote: “India’s Maoist rebels are now present in 20 states and have killed more than 900 Indian security officers…India’s rapid economic growth has made it an emerging global power but also deepened stark inequalities in society.” Thus, by neglecting all these ground realties New Delhi has been advancing towards a self-destructive path.

Notably, USA’s dependence on Pakistan for war against terrorism and for close economic cooperation with China will roll back the Indian clandestine agenda which is part of its regional ambition against Islamabad and Beijing. Nonetheless, like the failed foreign policy of Emperor Wilhelm II, the Indian policy of ‘power or downfall’ is bound to result in a nuclear catastrophe in the region as ‘nuclearised’ Pakistan and China cannot ignore their defence, while their adversary is determined to act upon its aggressive designs.

The writer is a foreign affairs analyst.
Email: sajjad_logic@yahoo.com

Indian parliament attack — A case study

in propaganda warfare

Monday, December 21, 2009
By Momin Iftikhar

The attack on the Indian parliament on Dec 13, 2001. by five unidentified gunmen turned out to be a watershed in the tumultuous course of Indo-Pak relations. Closely following the 9/11 trauma it provided India with a much sought opportunity to present itself as victim of terrorism, qualifying her to jump onboard US-led anti-terror bandwagon with full legitimacy. The Indian spin doctors, in wake of the incident, coined the “cross-border-terrorism” sound-byte which was to become the mantra of the Indian government and media; not for weeks or months but for years to come. Without any proof of her involvement, Indian propaganda machinery went into an overdrive, charging Pakistan with official sponsorship of terrorism without a shred of evidence. The attack presented India with an opportunity bearing tremendous potential to tap and it was seized upon with a ruthless resolve. There were reports then that it was a planned charade using Taliban prisoners drawn from the Shibberghan Jail administered by Northern Alliance warlords to provide India with a casus belli. Within days Indian armed forces were fully mobilized for Operation Parakram, taking the two countries closer ever to the brink of a full-fledged war with nuclear overtones.

Parakram petered out in Oct 2002, making way for the initiation of composite dialogue process in Jan 2004 but the Indian obsession with presenting herself as victim of terrorism maintained its groove. The effort has proved rewarding; the carefully crafted ‘victim of terror’ syndrome, assiduously built in the post Parliament attack period has shaped into an effective tool for India to regulate the ebb and flow of the bilateral dialogue with Pakistan with telling effect. But even a well-fabricated farce has a life span; Parliament attack case being no exception. Notwithstanding a desire to exploit its terror thesis to the full there are indicators galore that this brilliantly conceived propaganda ploy has finally run its course. It goes to the effectiveness of Indian propaganda churning mills that they could dupe the world opinion for such a long time. Some points in this context merit consideration. Despite the fact that attack on the Indian parliament was treated by India as an act of war and the case is not fully closed, (the only convicted culprit Afzal Guru is awaiting the confirmation or otherwise of his appeal for mercy against a verdict of death by hanging), in India there is a conspiracy of silence to keep the judicial run of the case far away from the media focus.

Inexplicably the Indian government has refused to make public the evidence concerning an act of terror that prompted her within days of its occurrence to start mobilizing troops to borders. Even more perplexing is the fact that despite Indian parliament being the objective of the attack, no mainstream political party, no group and none of the influential print or visual media has ever raised the question of an inquiry. Lower rungs of Indian Judicial System too joined hands with government in suppressing the truth. It took the third judicial pronouncement on the case, by the Supreme Court of India in Aug 2004 that threw aside the charges involving Pakistan in the attack. It is a shame though that judicial pronouncement has elicited no response from the Indian media as well as political establishment; only the propaganda tirade, in total incongruity with the truth as bared by the pinnacle court, gained in momentum building up a body of opinion hostile to any prospects of dialog with Pakistan.

All the five attackers of the Parliament attack were killed in the ensuing encounter and four persons; Mohammad Afzal, a former JKLF militant who had surrendered in 1994, his cousin Shaukat Husain Guru, Shaukat’s wife Afsan Guru and SAR Gilani, a lecturer of Arabic at Delhi University, were arrested by the Delhi Police on charges of conspiracy within hours of the incident. After a year of trial a POTA court found all four guilty; the three men were given death and life imprisonment sentences while Afsan was given 5 years’ rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, the Delhi High Court, on 29 October 2003, acquitted Professor SAR Gilani and Afsan Guru for lack of any implicating evidence, while upholding the death sentence on the remaining two. Afzal and Shaukat appealed to the Supreme Court, which gave its verdict on 3 August 2004; Shaukat’s death sentence was lifted, leaving him with an imprisonment of ten years while Afzal’s death sentence was confirmed. The tragic figure of Afzal, a renegade, with his longstanding association with India’s Special Task Force, emerges as the ultimate fall guy of parliament attack case, who awaits the hangman’s noose. A fact that has largely gone un-noticed is the verdict by the Indian Supreme Court (SC), which has sounded the death knell of the India’s “cross-border-terrorism” thesis, coined in the wake of the attack. As pointed out by the Supreme Court, charges of a ‘Pakistani connection’, based solely on confessional statement of Afzal obtained by police under POTA, were simply untenable; “All these lapses and violations of procedural safeguards guaranteed in the statute itself impel us to hold that it is not safe to act on the alleged confessional statement of Afzal and place reliance on this item of evidence on which the prosecution places heavy reliance.” With Afzal’s confession set aside on legal ground, the SC verdict essentially establishes that five unidentified armed men, killed in the process, attacked Indian parliament and that Afzal participated in the conspiracy allegedly hatched for the attack. The court verdict effectively annuls the Indian prosecution’s story, repeated ad nauseam by the Indian police, argued for by the prosecution, propagated repeatedly in full colors by the print and the visual media and ratified by two courts of law viz Special Court and the Indian High Court. It is a pity though that the Indian government has taken the repudiation of its stance by its own SC in stride refusing to scale down its propaganda against Pak.

The Indian “cross border terrorism” thesis, fabricated in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and imaginatively exploited ever since has served country’s strategic ends commendably well. Through its exploitation India was able to push Kashmir issue to the back burner, degrading the indigenous Kashmiri struggle for the internationally sanctioned right of self-determination to the level of a terrorist activity. In an era marked by the US “hang them high” attitude India unleashed a reign of terror of its own in IHK, unencumbered by the human rights constraints. It consolidated its hold in Afghanistan and the wave of violence ripping across Pakistan has undeniable links with Indian presence across Pak-Afghan borders and in Fata. The Indian exploitation of the attack on the Indian parliament, remains a classic example of how an incident can be stage managed to the level of a casus belli for holding an opponent to ransom. By all measures that is no mean achievement.

Mullen raises Balochistan issue with India

ISLAMABAD, Dec 9 (APP): Chairman of the US Joints Chief of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen said he has raised the issue of interference into Balochistan with the Indian leadership. Talking to Geo News, the US Army Chief said he held talks over the reservations of Pakistan with his Indian counterparts both former and the present one Gen Deepak in addition to the Indian political leadership.

He said he had meeting over the issue with Chief of the Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani.

Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) is involved in the killings of the US citizens, on which US has concerns, Mullen said adding Al-Qaeda and Taliban are aiding each other in the Pak-Afghan border area, which has spurred the violent incidents in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The US Army chief said Pak Army has taken up vital measures to cope with the extremists and clinched successes, adding the relations between Pakistan and the US are based on mutual interests Mullen said the new strategy of US President Obama is also for other countries of the region in addition to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

He also said if Indo-Pak tension is terminated and headway towards the resolution of Kashmir issue is achieved, then the issue regarding the regional stability to a large extent would be resolved, adding the resolution of this issue would have a wholesome impact on the region.

On a query regarding relations between Pentagon and the GHQ, Mullen said there is no communication gap between the two.

Taliban groups seem impressed from Al-Qaeda ideology; while, new emerging Taliban have no theory at all, he said responding a question.

Al-Qaeda, African Taliban and Pakistani Taliban have connections with each other, which have posed threat to the world, he said.

A Diplomatic Surge in Pakistan

Guest post by Ziad Haider

Ziad Haider is an MPA/JD candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School and Georgetown Law, and a Truman National Security Fellow. He conducted field research on governance in FATA with the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan in the summer of 2008 and previously worked as a foreign policy advisor in the U.S. Senate.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent three-day visit to Islamabad and Lahore highlighted the ongoing challenge of conducting diplomacy in Pakistan. For a nation whose partnership is vital to U.S. security, the fact that 64% of Pakistanis view the U.S. as an enemy represents no small problem. As the White House reassesses its “Af-Pak” strategy, it is important to clearly define U.S. interests in Pakistan and to chart a new course in US-Pakistani relations that places a greater emphasis on diplomacy.

The U.S. has two vital interests in Pakistan. The first is to combat extremism. This includes al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the associated domestic terrorist groups that threaten Pakistan’s stability. A corollary to this threat is the security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.

The second is to ensure regional stability for three reasons: to avoid a conflict between Pakistan and India that would force Pakistan to redeploy troops from west to east and detract from the war in Afghanistan; to avoid a conflict between Pakistan and India that may escalate up the nuclear chain; and to improve regional relations so that Pakistan no longer feels the need to retain militant proxies as leverage against its neighbors.

In combating extremism, the U.S. has been relatively successful at securing Pakistani operational support in Afghanistan, including the transit of vital supplies; getting Pakistan to eliminate key al Qaeda leaders; and nudging it to confront internal threats such as those in the Swat Valley.

While domestic dynamics have driven many of these decisions, U.S. diplomacy has played a role. These successes were accomplished through a mix of coercive and soft diplomacy ranging from a “with us or against us” choice at the onset of the invasion of Afghanistan to the lifting of sanctions and generous provision of military assistance.

On regional stability, the U.S. has successfully engaged in short-term crisis management. These include external crises such as the 2001-2002 Indo-Pak military mobilization and the more recent standoff between the civilian government and opposition over the restoration of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. Breakthroughs were respectively possible due to high-level and intensive interventions by Secretary of State Colin Powell and by Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Yet U.S. diplomacy has also failed in significant measure. The U.S. has been unable to alter the Pakistani army’s strategic calculus. The army continues to retain the Taliban and other militant groups as a hedging strategy against Pakistan’s neighbors and a seemingly inevitable U.S. drawdown.

U.S. diplomacy has also been unable to generate support among Pakistanis who harbor deep grievances: historic US support for military rule, “abandonment” and sanctions in the nineties, the invasion of Afghanistan, drone strikes, and U.S. policies in the Middle East. This tortured and at times distorted public narrative has impeded robust cooperation with Pakistan’s fragile democratic government.

Lastly, the U.S. has failed to take a long-term view in addressing regional dynamics. Historic fissures remain, such as the Pak-Afghan border dispute and Indo-Pak grievances, including Kashmir. The military imperative of fighting a war in Afghanistan has eclipsed the diplomatic imperative of tackling the root causes of insecurity in the region.

So how does the U.S. leverage diplomacy to strengthen its relationship with Pakistan based on “mutual interest and mutual respect?” Here are four key elements to consider.

First, U.S. diplomacy must focus on the Pakistani people. The Kerry-Lugar bill that tripled economic aid was an important start; patience and public diplomacy are required to reap the dividends.

Second, the U.S. must also advance the resolution of core regional issues, including supporting the resumption of the Indo-Pak composite dialogue as well as an eventual Af-Pak dialogue on the status of the Durand Line.

Third, the U.S. must manage the visibility/invisibility paradox. This entails balancing a lower profile to avoid appearing overly intrusive with being sufficiently visible to secure the public dividend of development initiatives and to demonstrate sustained engagement. As reflected in the Kerry-Lugar debate, the U.S. must also walk the fine legislative line between accountability for taxpayer money and perceived dictation infringing on Pakistani sovereignty.

Lastly, however, the U.S. must be honest about why Pakistan matters. Stretching back through the Cold War, the U.S. has always seen Pakistan through a security lens. This raises an inescapable question: can the relationship ever be sustainable if it pivots on avoiding negative outcomes instead of achieving positive ones? The way this question is answered or reframed will define the bilateral relationship beyond the current crisis of the hour.

For now, a democratic and prosperous Pakistan at peace with itself and its neighbors is critical for U.S. national security. To this end, as in Afghanistan, the U.S. is essentially fighting a form of counter-insurgency in Pakistan – minus the troops. This further necessitates a surge in U.S. diplomacy toward Pakistan to secure a more willing and able partner.

Waziristan Operation? Some Ground Realities

Iftikhar Momin

South Waziristan, given a combination of forbidding terrain and entrenched presence of the hardcore elements of TTP and al-Qaeda fighters, is a tough military nut to crack. The situation has been building up for a considerable time and as the Pakistan Army moves ahead to eliminate and flush out some of the most feared al-Qaeda fighters along with their TTP henchmen and destroy their infrastructure, the enormity of the challenge is not lost on any one. It is the largest ever anti-terrorist operation that has been mounted on either side of the Pak-Afghan border, in which 30,000 Pakistani troops have been committed. Its outcome is bound to have a deep impact on the war against terror not only in the region but also on security of metropolises around the globe.

The objective of the operation is to break the stranglehold of al-Qaeda, who in close collaboration with TTP, is holding the Mehsud tribesmen to ransom in their own land. It is a measure of the desperate situation that centuries’ old traditional hierarchy of tribal authority lies wasted and warlords, in most cases Taliban upstarts, now call the shots and hold sway in the badlands of Waziristan. Such vacuum of authority has thrown up a string of maverick Taliban commanders aligned with al-Qaeda, including Nek Muhammad, Abdullah Mehsud, Baitullah Mehsud and now Hakeemullah Mehsud, who have turned the South Waziristan area into the heart of darkness feeding destructive instability into entire Fata region and beyond.

Terrorists of all hue, involved in acts of terrorism, have sought refuge here. The trails of all major acts of terrorism in and outside Pakistan inevitably lead to this fountainhead of terrorism. Battle hardened foreign fighters; Arabs, Chechen particularly Uzbeks, have thrived here under the umbrella of al-Qaeda. The threat level has made an operation inevitable and costs are estimated to be high.

Even as the operation moves forward in face of tough and determined resistance, some elements in foreign media have raised the issue of Pak Army’s ‘understanding’ with tribal chiefs Maulvi Nazir and Hafiz Gul Bahadar; Taliban commanders in Northern Waziristan, who have agreed not to interfere with operations in Southern Waziristan. This certainly is a pragmatic political move, which not only provides a greater freedom of movement to the Pak Army against TTP and al-Qaeda but also reduces opposition to the conduct of operations in South Waziristan. Taliban movement has many factions and it is important that the campaign against TTP and al-Qaeda in South Waziristan remains proscribed to the intended scope.

It is important for Pakistan to ensure that Taliban resistance in Afghanistan should not combines with TPP and al-Qaeda to join the fight in South Waziristan. Such a contingency may suit other players in the game but this scenario needs to be avoided by Pakistan at all cost. The ‘understanding’ serves to emphasize the ideological divide in the Taliban movement and should be seriously considered by US and NATO forces that tend to treat the resistance in Afghanistan as monolithic and are routinely tempted to bite more than what can be chewed.

It is good that US for the present have accepted the aims and objectives of Rah-i-Nijat in an understanding spirit. “We have a shared goal here and the shared goal is fighting violent extremism,” State Department spokesman said at a briefing.

It is however the Indian response that, coming at a time when Pak Army is seized with the campaign in South Waziristan, should prove instructive in understanding the Pakistani threat perception vis-à-vis India. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, while making a veiled reference to Pakistan, during his address the top commanders of the three services, said that the situation in India’s immediate neighborhood had worsened and expressed deep concern over intelligence reports of “imminent terror attacks” in the country.

To many Pakistani observers what he meant to communicate was that any terrorist incident occurring on Indian soil may see a repetition of the 2001 -2002 confrontation that followed the attack on the Indian Parliament on 13 Dec 2001. Why should he raise the possibility of a terrorist strike in India and by implication hold Pakistan responsible for it should be of interest to US military leadership which tends to scoff at the Pakistani assertions that even in the current state of affairs the major threat to Pakistan’s security emanated from India.

The veiled threat may be attributed to the Indian anxiety caused by dismantling of al-Qaeda/TPP terror network in which it has invested heavily. India has not lacked in motivation to build up the menace of TPP in a relentless proxy war. It is also worried that a defeat of her protégés will make its position in Afghanistan difficult to sustain.

For Pakistan severing of the umbilical cord that links TPP with the Indian bases in Afghanistan should remain a top priority. Sealing of border with Afghanistan thus emerges as an imperative of the campaign in which US and NATO forces should play an active part.

Operation Rah-i-Nijat has taken a good start and is well onto its way to success. It should, God willing, come to a completion within the six to eight weeks period before the onset of a freezing winter which will limit the conduct of large scale operations. Its focus must remain on isolating the al-Qaeda, TPP and a clutch of other terror outfits from the local population of Mehsuds, followed by annihilation in detail. While holding onto the cleared land will remain important, to prevent a comeback by terrorists, initiation of political and developmental initiatives to utilize the window of opportunity provided by Operation Rah-i-Nijat is paramount so that the militants’ hold over Fata can be effectively broken. A humane and well-organized care of the IDPs should prove a good starting point in launching a campaign for the hearts and minds of the local populace, which remains the ultimate objective of the campaign in South Waziristan.

Iran must learn Manners

Asif Chauhdary

Knees are based under the belly by default and can never come before tummy. Trying it by someone would only bring desperation and humiliation and nothing else. Pakistan has a neighbour who is trying to put knees before belly so ever since the over thrown of Reza Shah Pehlvi. As it is no more a secret that we are talking of Iran, hence it is also essential to mention that the reasons for this vindictive and grudging attitude are known by a hair’s breadth to Pakistan. The rise of Islamic revolution brought no goodwill messages for Pakistan. Though as far as Pakistan is concerned, it always stretched out a brotherly hand towards Iran, may that was about the revolutionaries coming into power or Iran-Iraq war. Besides this Pakistan never meddled into the Iranian politics or its internal affairs, nevertheless, Iran invariably showed a lost sleep about Pakistan’s affairs, contrary to it.

If Iran could find the reasons for showing its disquiet over sectarian issue in Pakistan then the same rationales were valid for Pakistan to protest over the Sunnis plight in Iran but Pakistan while indifferent to whichever government was in power always displayed sensibleness. Pakistan never objected to the founding of Iranian cultural centers (Khana-e-Farhang) throughout Pakistan and that too in a number more than it required. Pakistan always had reasons to believe that why the Iranians have more than one cultural centers of this kind in the cities having Shia population in majority but Pakistan always demonstrated patience. It’s no more a secret that what these cultural centers (Khana-e-Farhang) have been up to in Pakistan but Pakistan has never blamed Iran for any involvement.

Recently the Indians have handed over a newly constructed 218-km Zaranj-Delaram highway to the Afghan government which is of strategic importance. What interest India had in constructing the road that will connect Kandhar to the Iran border is a question that Iran and Afghanistan are in a better position to answer, but Pakistan never showed any nervousness on it despite the fact that highway is defiantly likely to influence Pakistan’s strategic interests in the region.

The IPI gas pipeline project was approved to meet the Indian requirements but who doesn’t know that it was the India who backed out from the agreement at the eleventh hour which annoyed Iran also but at the end of the day Iran had no grievances against India while Pakistan has been asked to sit in the corner, wait and see.

Like Pak-Afghan border, the residents of Pak-Iran border are also living astride the international boundary. While Pakistan on Pak-Afghan border despite having great security problems never thought of erecting the wall and instead augmented the security, but Iran on Pak-Afghan border has constructed a700 kilometer long, 3 feet thick and 10 feet high concrete wall by using extra strong steel rods, alongside its border with Pakistan from Taftan to Mand, although the Baloch community of border village Sorap of western Mekran region have shown their fears about being politically and socially divided. The people were forced by the Iranian authorities to vacate the town in a stipulated time period, but Pakistan’s official stance, that Iran has the right to erect border fencing in its territory, is very much on record.

Pak-Iran relations have seen some frequent highs and lows during last three decades. Late President General Zia ul Haq apart from visiting himself once had been sending the goodwill missions to stamp out the Iranian qualms quite off and on but unfortunately no one could satisfy the pre-fixed mind Iranians. If any common man here in Pakistan is asked he would definitely call the Iranians as Pakistan’s brothers. Pakistani president late Field Marshal Ayub Khan gifted 60 Square KM area to Iran to save their Oil drainage on Pakistan side. Reza Shah Pehlvi reciprocated the gesture and started providing Pakistan subside oil in return. However, contrary to that no wonder if one hear the story of marching by the Iranian Passdarans on Pakistani flag in the presence of Pakistani diplomats as guests invited to witness the parade.

The recent Iranian elections were a unique example of rigging by Ahmadinejad gang where Pakistan had a great opportunity to create trouble for a brother country had the latter been an enemy as it is thought by the Iranians but remained indifferent to the issue until it resolved.

Iran must put his own house in order before leveling any accusation against Pakistan in the most ill-mannered and undiplomatic way as it doesn’t speak high of an Iranian leader whose own loyalties and credibility is doubted amongst his own countrymen. Before pointing any accusing finger towards Pakistan he needs to satisfy the world body about the strong Argentinean criticism on President Ahmadinejad’s decision to put forward Ahmad Vahidi as defense minister in his new 21-member cabinet. No one has forgotten that Vahidi is wanted by Argentina in connection with a 1994 bombing in Buenos Aires which leveled a seven-floor Argentinean building, killing 85 people and wounded 300. It was the worst terrorist attack in Argentina.

Pakistan bagged all the blames for helping Iran in nuclear proliferation but surprisingly it is Pakistan which in return is targeted by the western and USA authorities whereas the Iranian government is simply getting just the verbal warnings by them which provides enough reasons to believe that a conspiracy to tight noose around Pakistan’s neck is being executed discreetly and no wonder if Iran is also a party to it. It is high time for the Iranians to learn the diplomatic norms. Pakistan has always displayed tolerence and maturity. The recent example is of releasing 14 guards from Iranian Passdran-e-Inqilab, who entered Pakistan unlawfully.

Both the countries are not having that tensed relations that they can’t even talk to clarify each others misgivings, only if India has priority over Pakistan for Iran. It is high time for Iran to remember one thing that, genetically knees are based under the belly by default and can never come before tummy. Trying it by someone would only bring desperation and humiliation to one and nothing else.

India behind most terror attacks, says Malik

ISLAMABAD: Interior Minister Rehman Malik on Wednesday accused India of sponsoring terrorism in Pakistan, saying Delhi itself would be responsible for any terrorist attack if carried out in future on its soil.

Interior Minister Rehman Malik stressed that militants are now aiming to create panic in the country and that innocent civilians are being targeted. – File photo

‘We have solid evidence that not only in Balochistan but India is involved in almost every terrorist activity in Pakistan,’ the minister said after attending a meeting on security of educational institutions.

The interior minister’s statement that India was patronising terrorism in Pakistan raises a question why the interior minister had remained silent in the past and why the evidence of Indian involvement was not made public in the beginning.

Mr Malik asked his Indian counterpart Chadambharam to stop blaming Pakistan for terrorism in India, saying: ‘Mr Chadambharam should first take care of his own country and then blame Pakistan. Don’t threaten us. We can give better ones to you.’

APP adds: He said that the Indian interior minister should arrest culprits of Samjhota Express bombing, killers of Rajiv Gandhi and many more such incidents instead of blaming Pakistan for being incapable of coping with terrorists.

‘If we talk about composite dialogue, they (India) should not consider it our weakness at all,’ he added.

He said India had made it a practice to threaten Pakistan every three months, adding: ‘We are a nuclear state and not so weak. We better know how to retaliate.’

The minister referred to the Indian prime minister’s statement that more Mumbai-like attacks could take place in India and said: ‘I ask the Indian prime minister that if they have any information about more Mumbai-like attacks they should share these with Pakistan and we will look into them, but if India does not share anything with us then they would be responsible for any incident,’ he said.

‘I have time and again said there was Indian involvement in Balochistan and we have evidence, which could be shared with India, if they agree to come and sit with us,’ he claimed.

About Mumbai attack, Mr Malik said: ‘We have yet not received the seventh dossier, but we have arrested all seven accused of Mumbai attacks.’

Pakistan would definitely take action against Hafiz Saeed if he was found guilty, but the government could not take action against any citizen of the country without solid proof against him, the minister said.

In reply to a question, the minister said that Pakistan had earlier handed over 18 accomplices of Abdul Malik Rigi, including his brother, to Iran.

He, however, said that Rigi was not in Pakistan and said he was in Afghanistan and ‘we can even point out his exact location in Afghanistan’.

To a question about installation of biometric system at the Pak-Afghan border, he said around 50,000 people crossed the border daily.

‘We have installed a biometric system on the Pak-Afghan border to check the movement of the people and the matter has also been taken up with the Afghan government and they have also agreed to install a similar system at their side of the border.’