Tag Archive | "Barack Obama"

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

U.S Aid- Suspension of Supply to NATO Troops

Posted on 04 January 2012 by Tea Server

Finally, President Barack Obama has signed a $662 billion national defence authorisation bill which freezes $700 million in aid to Pakistan until Islamabad gives assurances of helping it fight against the spread of improvised explosive devices (IEDs). After signing the bill Obama stated, “I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions [...]

Related posts:

  1. Improvised Explosive Devices
  2. NATO Attacked Pak Check Post & Bonn Conference
  3. Pakistan blocked NATO supplies
  4. U.S. Exit Strategy – Intrigues against Pakistan
  5. NATO’s attack on Pakistani checkpost – Protests are for military personnel only!



Syndicated from: GeoTauAisay Pakistan

Comments (1)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

New Year’s gift: Obama signs bill freezing aid to Pakistan

Posted on 01 January 2012 by Tea Server

As Reported By Reuters

President Barack Obama signed a sweeping US defense funding bill on Saturday which includes new sanctions on financial institutions dealing with Iran’s central bank, and curtailing up to $850 million in aid to Pakistan. The bill was signed despite concerns about sections that expand the US military’s authority over terrorism suspects and limit his powers in foreign affairs.

The massive defense bill Congress passed on earlier in December freezes 60 per cent of the $850 million aid, or $510 million, until the US defense secretary provides lawmakers with assurances that Pakistan is working to counter improvised explosive devices (IEDs). US lawmakers say that many Afghan bombs that kill US troops are made with fertilizer smuggled by militants across the border from Pakistan into Afghanistan.

“The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it,” Obama said in a statement, citing limits on transferring detainees from the US base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and requirements he notify Congress before sharing some defense missile information with Russia as problematic.

The bill, approved by Congress last week after its language was revised, aims with its Iran sanctions to reduce Tehran’s oil revenues but gives the US president powers to waive penalties as required. Senior US officials said Washington was engaging with its foreign partners to ensure the sanctions can work without harming global energy markets, and stressed the US strategy for engaging with Iran was unchanged by the bill.

The bill may also prove problematic for Pakistan in ways other than providing assurances of concrete steps to counter the manufacture of IEDs. The sanctions placed on dealing with Iran’s central banks may weigh on Pakistan’s plans for the Iran-Pakistan pipeline which aims to provide gas to Pakistan.

Pakistan needs the gas supplies from Iran to augment its own gas reserves which have been shrinking fast, leading to widespread gas shortages affecting its industry and daily life.

Filed under: Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Pakistan Army, Pakistanis, President Obama, United States, US Army, US-Pakistan Relations Tagged: Afghanistan, Iran, NATO, Pakistan, Pakistan Aid, Pakistanis for Peace, President Obama, US Aid, US Pakistan Relations

Syndicated from: Pakistanis for Peace

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

US asks for Pakistan army secret info

Posted on 28 December 2011 by Tea Server

Washington: US military officials urged Pakistan to regularly disclose classified information regarding Pakistani military facilities and installations along the border with Afghanistan, US media reported on Tuesday.
Commander of the US Central Command General James Mattis made the plea late Monday following a November 26 incident in which NATO helicopters and fighter jets attacked two military border posts in northwest Pakistan and killed 24 Pakistani soldiers, US based “Press-TV” reported on Tuesday.
“The strongest take-away from this incident is the fundamental fact that we must improve border coordination,” Mattis claimed in a statement.
He also called for establishing a shared database between the two countries, saying that an increase in information could help NATO forces in Pakistan avert similar incidents.
In addition, Mattis ordered the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to seek ways to improve its relations with Islamabad.
US Air Force Brigadier General Stephen Clark, who led an investigation into last month’s incident, said on Thursday that US forces bore some responsibility for the deaths as they relied on the wrong maps, were unaware of Pakistani border post locations and mistakenly provided the wrong location for the troops.
The investigation, however, claimed that the US forces “acted in self-defense and with appropriate force after being fired upon,” and that there was “no intentional effort to target persons or places known to be part of the Pakistani military or to deliberately provide inaccurate location information to Pakistani officials.”
The Pakistani military has dismissed the investigation and said it does not “agree with the findings of the US/NATO inquiry as [it is] being reported in media.”
Pakistani officials accuse US-led forces of deliberately carrying out the air strikes from inside Afghanistan.
Following the November incident, US President Barack Obama offered condolences for those killed in the attack but failed to issue an official apology.
Pakistan decided to halt the supply convoys destined for US-led foreign soldiers in Afghanistan in retaliation for the deadly airstrikes and blockade has entered in second month which causing difficulties to foreign troops deployed in landlocked Afghanistan.
US-led planes and helicopters have increasingly violated the Pakistani airspace over the past months.
The US claims its drone raids target militants who cross the Pakistani border into Afghanistan. But locals say civilians are the main victims of the unauthorized attacks.
Syndicated from: PAKISTAN DEFENCE BLOG

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Bargaining Leverage?

Posted on 26 December 2011 by Tea Server

Bargaining leverage?
 3 0
 
 

After the US Congress froze close to $700 million in aid to Pakistan earlier this month, the Obama administration is trying to assure its estranged ally that the legislation merely includes a reporting requirement that could be waived.

The provision is part of a giant $662 billion defence budget for fiscal 2012 passed by US Senate by 86 to 13 votes on December 15, a day after the US House of Representatives approved it by 283 to 136 votes.

The new legislation would freeze any aid to Pakistan until Secretary of State Hillary Clinton verifies Pakistan’s cooperation in the war on terror.

Cooperation between the US and Pakistan came to a halt after a fatal NATO attack on a Pakistan border post. Pakistan stopped all supplies to NATO troops in Afghanistan and told the US to leave the Shamsi air base.

“I cannot believe that the cooperation stopped because of a couple of incidents – it’s immature,” said Tim Barkin, a defense analyst who has worked in Afghanistan.

While President Barack Obama and his administration want close ties with Pakistan, the security establishment and the hawks in the administration and the Senate are pressing for tougher actions.

“There have been over 2,800 NATO causalities so far, and we have not blamed them on Pakistan,” said a senior NATO commander in Afghanistan. “What if we act like Pakistan? What would that lead to?”

Former US embassy military spokesman Col Michael Shivers said Pakistan received $3.5 billion in economic assistance from the United States over 15 years from 1952 to 1967. This was more than three times the combined aid provided by West Germany, Canada, Great Britain and Japan. From 2002 to 2010, the US was been the biggest donor to Pakistan with approximately $4 billion in direct aid. Its security assistance support was $462 million in fiscal year 2008, $884 million in FY 2009, and $1,114 million in FY 2010. This does not include the Coalition Support Fund (CSF), a reimbursement programme for expenses incurred by Pakistani military for its assistance to the US. CSF reimbursements since 2001 total approximately $8.88 billion.

Relations between Pakistan and the US have worsened to the extent that all US military representatives working in Pakistan, including the important Director of Strategic Communications, have been virtually stopped from working in Pakistan after the Raymond Davis case, and according to a US diplomat, “We are treated as enemy combatants in Pakistan.”

Carl Prine, a veteran journalist and military analyst, however thinks that “without Pakistan, the US won’t end up anywhere in Afghanistan.”

Making a joke about what appears to be a key factor in the worsening of the ties, he asked if it would be “better to give $10 million a month to the Haqqanis instead of wasting $120 billion a year in Afghanistan?”

Some analysts see the new US move as a response to Pakistan’s decision to stop supplies to NATO troops in Afghanistan. “Some in the US want to take on Pakistan by exerting financial pressure,” one expert said.

“The last time they closed the supplies, the US made alternate arrangements,” said diplomat Mark Author. “They are more expensive, but that’s better than being blackmailed.”

Syndicated from: AKC

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why Obama should apologise to Pakistan

Posted on 24 December 2011 by Tea Server

In the wee hours of November 27, US-Nato and Afghan forces based in
Afghanistan’s Kunar province engaged a Pakistani military outpost in
Pakistan’s tribal agency of Momand. Little information is publically
available — or likely to be — about what happened or how. What is clear
is that after several Nato airstrikes, 24 Pakistani soldiers were dead
and many more injured. The episode, and the US response, battered the
ever-strained US-Pakistan relationship. Pakistan immediately cut off
ground routes for logistical support of the US-led war in Afghanistan,
and insisted that the United States vacate Shamsi, one of the airfields
from which the US launched drone attacks.

In quick succession,
Pakistan convened a parliamentary commission to determine whether and
how Pakistan will remain engaged with the United States. Pakistan’s
Ministry of Foreign Affairs recalled all of its ambassadors to hold a
high-level strategic discussion about how Pakistan should refashion its
relations with the United States. Their recommendations will be
considered by the same parliamentary commission. Pakistanis, whether
civilian or military, whether in the government or on the street, want
out of this relationship and deeply believe that Americans do not value
Pakistani lives. They may not be wrong.
Pakistani military
officials quickly denounced the attack as deliberate, unprovoked US
aggression and demanded both an immediate apology and a renegotiation of
military and intelligence cooperation. That Pakistani officials made
such pronouncements in the complete absence of information about the
attack cast aspersions on their motives. The move appeared to be another
effort to wriggle free fromWashington’s poisonous embrace, abandon
military operations against anti-Pakistan militants, and pursue an
independent Afghan policy.

While rejecting the Pakistani
military’s account, Nato and US officials declined to officially
speculate about the details of the event — much less offer an apology —
until a full investigation was complete. The investigation is now
complete. The report has been issued, and the Pentagon released a
statement on Thursday saying only that “US forces, given what
information they had available to them at the time, acted in self
defence and with appropriate force after being fired upon.” There was,
the statement said, “no intentional effort to target persons or places
known to be part of the Pakistani military, or to deliberately provide
inaccurate location information to Pakistani officials.” Instead,
“inadequate coordination by US and Pakistani military officers…
resulted in a misunderstanding about the true location of Pakistani
military units.” The statement expressed regret, but neither President
Barack Obama nor Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has issued a
forthright apology. Unfortunately, neither is likely to do so given the
toxic atmosphere in Washington and the looming presidential campaign.
The
US ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron Munter, urged Obama to apologise,
but he was quickly cut down. Munter has sought to mitigate Pakistanis’
anger by saying in Urdu “humay bahut afsos hai” (“We are very sorry”).
On Monday, he joined several interfaith leaders in offering a prayer at
Islamabad’s Faisal Mosque for the Pakistani soldiers killed on November
27, offering, “We share in this grief, and we share in this sorrow.” The
author’s contacts here in Islamabad and in Washington lament that
instead of heeding the sagacious advice of the ambassador, who
understands the raw sentiments of Pakistanis, some within the US
government dismiss Munter as “having gone native.”
 
While the
Pentagon report apportions blame to both sides, an astute reader can
only conclude that the most heinous mistakes were not made by Pakistan.
The report claims that Nato and Afghan troops came under fire from
Pakistani positions. (Official Pakistani sources refute this.) Believing
they were under attack by insurgents, the Nato and Afghan troops called
for suppressive air fire. The report concedes that, contrary to
established standard operating procedures, Nato did not inform Pakistan
that the operation on the border was taking place. This supports early
US claims that Nato-Afghan forces came under fire. After all, how could
the Pakistani soldiers know that the forces moving near their area of
operations were “allied forces”? (Americans dismiss this and say
Pakistan should have known better. After all, the insurgents do not have
helicopter gunships.) While one can get caught up in the details of who
fired first and why, Nato’s failure to follow established procedures is
indefensible.

But this is not the most egregious mistake. The
worst — and fatal error — was the fact that the Americans provided the
Pakistani army with incorrect coordinates for the designated targets of
AC-130 gunships and attack helicopters. In the early days of the
incident, there were several claims and counterclaims about whether the
coordinates were given, whether they were correct, and whether the
Pakistan army had cleared the coordinates before the attack. However,
the report makes evident that Pakistan’s clearance of the coordinates or
lack thereof is immaterial: The strikes would still have killed those
innocent soldiers because the coordinates were simply wrong.

The
details of the report, and its efforts to apportion blame across all
sides, will not satisfy Pakistanis, who feel they have suffered too much
and received too little from this partnership over the last 10 years.
They want nothing more than an apology from Obama. Despite the report’s
tedious efforts to parse culpability, it is obvious that most of the
onus falls on the United States and Nato. So why does the United States
steadfastly refuse to do the right thing and issue a clear apology to
Pakistan and its citizenry in and out of uniform?
Like Pakistanis,
American officials and citizens alike are war weary and angry. As the
endgame in Afghanistan approaches, Americans are now — or should be —
confronting the vacuity of our Afghan policy. Vice President Joe Biden,
who has taken a lot of heat for saying, “the Taliban, per se, is not our
enemy,” was right: We invaded Afghanistan to destroy al Qaeda. The
Taliban were not the immediate objects of our intervention. (For this
reason, Biden advocated for a robust counterterrorism strategy and
advised against a counterinsurgency policy that implied a war on the
Taliban and affiliated fighters rather than on al Qaeda.) Once the
United States decided to make the Taliban the enemy — for the simple
reason that the Taliban and affiliated fighters are killing American and
allied troops whom they see as occupying Afghanistan — it also made
Pakistan an enemy as well.

Just as Pakistanis are deeply aggrieved
that US forces killed 24 of their soldiers, Americans are increasingly
outraged that thousands of troops have been killed or maimed in
Afghanistan at the hands of Pakistan’s proxies.

But neither the
United States nor Pakistan will benefit from a continued and escalating
standoff. America needs Pakistan to conclude its Afghanistan
misadventure. This requires Pakistan to productively assert its
influence to achieve a negotiated settlement that is palatable to most
in the country.
As for Pakistan, it’s an economic disaster case.
Pakistanis have long endured incomprehensible electricity outages. Now,
they lack inadequate gas to cook or heat their homes. Public
transportation has been strangled by shortages in compressed natural
gas. Water is in acute scarcity. Pakistan’s manufacturing sector is
struggling to remain competitive under these adverse conditions.
Although Pakistan has told the IMF to take a hike, most informed
Pakistanis concede that it will again have to approach the IMF sooner
rather than later. As Pakistan knows well, the United States is a key
actor in that institution. In short, Pakistan and the United States must
forge a sustainable way of working together because the strategic and
regional interests of both depend on it.

The United States must
swiftly act to rectify this mess first by apologising. Second, the US
military must hold to account those officers who are responsible for
this tragedy. Not only should the appropriate personnel be demoted or
ousted per the severity of their negligence, but prosecution may also be
merited.
Americans will howl in protest. They may rightly counter
that no senior Pakistani military or intelligence officials lost their
jobs when Osama bin Laden was found hanging out in Abbottabad, a
military garrison town not far from Islamabad. But the United States
claims to promote democracy, accountability, justice, law and order, and
human rights. Now is the time to prove it. Pakistanis need to know that
their lives matter as much as those of others.

Syndicated from: PAKISTAN DEFENCE BLOG

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

From Pakistan to Afghanistan, U.S. Finds Convoy of Chaos

Posted on 21 December 2011 by Tea Server

By Shahan Mufti

    The route from Karachi to Kabul was the best way to get supplies to U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and the main artery for a Pashtun trucking empire—until Pakistan shut it down.

    Nato-Supply-Routes

    Like a broker tracking the dips and spikes of a volatile but lucrative stock, Mohammad Shakir Afridi has kept a close eye on U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan since the first Americans landed in the country 10 years ago. As president of the Khyber Transport Assn., one of the largest associations of truck owners in Pakistan, Afridi’s biggest contract involves moving military equipment for American and coalition forces through Pakistan to military bases in Afghanistan. The slightest policy shift in Washington can carry major consequences for Afridi and his business.

    Sitting on a rooftop in a leafy residential block in Peshawar, the largest city in northwest Pakistan, Afridi slaps the morning paper on the floor beside his mat. “Twenty-four of our boys in one go,” he spits out. A front page photograph shows a field full of coffins draped in Pakistani flags. The soldiers were killed on Nov. 26 when U.S. helicopters and jet fighters from Afghanistan fired on military outposts on the Pakistani side of the border. The relationship between Pakistan and the U.S., which has been rocky for years, hit a new low. While the U.S. military promised to investigate and the NATO chief regretted the “tragic, unintended” incident, the Pakistani Prime Minister said there would be “no more business as usual” with the U.S. Pakistan demanded the U.S. vacate an airbase it was using in the South and choked off all U.S. and coalition military supplies traveling through the country.

    Afridi learned of the American attack before the Pakistan military or government had issued any statement; one of his truck drivers called to tell him the border was closed. Afridi was later given orders from the military to halt trucks near the border, and to direct all others to the southern port city of Karachi. He quickly obliged. “It’s serious this time,” Afridi says. “They’ll make the Americans sweat.”

    U.S. and Allied forces in Afghanistan get the bulk of their supplies in two ways. The first is the Northern Distribution Network, a web through Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia that crosses through at least 16 countries, using a combination of roads, railway, air, and water to move supplies in from the north. The chain can be complex and circuitous. One path through the network, for example, might involve military cargo that arrives by sea in Istanbul. From there it travels the width of Turkey on truck and crosses the northern border into Poti, Georgia. In Georgia the equipment goes by rail to Baku in Azerbaijan, where it’s loaded onto a ship bound for the Kazakh Port of Aktau, across the Caspian Sea. Then it’s put on trucks for the 1,000-mile ride through Kazakhstan, then a train through Kyrgyzstan and, finally, into Afghanistan.

    The second passage to Afghanistan, known as Pakistani Lines of Communication, begins at the port of Karachi and continues on one of two land routes, north toward the logistical hub at Bagram Airfield or west toward Kandahar. It has always been the primary option for American forces: It’s the shortest and cheapest, requires only one border crossing, and minimal time on the road inside Afghanistan. Nearly 60,000 trucks drive more than 1,200 miles through the length of Pakistan every year carrying supplies and fuel. According to varying figures provided by U.S. and NATO forces, 40 percent to 60 percent of all military supplies used by coalition forces in Afghanistan come through Pakistan.

    Afridi doesn’t cut the figure of a man playing a key role in the U.S.’s long war in Afghanistan. The 46-year-old Pashtun is from the Khyber Agency, one of the seven Pakistani tribal sectors along the border with Afghanistan. He has a neatly trimmed salt and pepper beard and prefers to drape his rotund figure in a plain white shalwar kameez and a black vest. When he’s not too preoccupied, he wears a disarming smile. The only thing that makes him stand out from the legions of similarly dressed men on the streets of Peshawar are his dark tinted glasses and a cell phone that never stops ringing.

    ven Afridi wouldn’t have dreamed of such a life a decade ago. His grandfather started the family transport business in the 1960s, buying a few trucks to move melons, grapes, and wheat from the fertile lands of the Punjab in Pakistan to largely arid Afghanistan. Afridi inherited the business in the 1980s. In 1996 he added a few tanker trucks to his fleet after signing a contract with Pakistan State Oil to transport fuel from refineries in Karachi. When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and coalition forces moved in to occupy the landlocked country, Afridi’s business took off. He says he orchestrates a fleet of nearly 4,000 flatbeds and more than 3,000 fuel tankers that haul military supplies into Afghanistan.

    On a November morning, two days after the U.S. attack, Afridi rides around in a brand new black Toyota Hilux Vigo pickup. He’s just returned from the haj, the annual pilgrimage to Mecca, a prohibitively expensive ritual Muslims are required to do at least once in a lifetime—if they are able to afford it. Afridi says this year was his second haj. His first was in 2010.

    Despite the prosperity, there are times he wishes he had never become involved with the Americans. After all, he is bringing fuel and supplies to forces fighting Pashtuns like himself in a neighboring country. In Peshawar, where his business is based—and where the Pashtuns are a majority—he’s a man on the run, constantly looking over his shoulder. As Pakistanis increasingly see the U.S. as the real enemy in the conflict in South Central Asia, Afridi feels like a target for doing business with them. “Can you believe it? They won’t even let my guards carry their guns here anymore,” Afridi gestures to the two unamused looking men, with no obviously displayed firearms, who have hung near him like a shadow ever since they jumped out of the cargo bed of the pickup.

    The fallout from the Nov. 26 friendly fire incident means Afridi’s business is at a standstill, indefinitely. Still, he thinks the Pakistanis have done the right thing. He says he hates the sight of the American flag, and stands “shoulder to shoulder” with Pakistan’s army. “Your homeland is like your mother,” he says, pausing to turn off a ringing phone. “You can screw people here and there, that’s just business.” He peers over his dark glasses. “But you never, ever screw your mother.”

    Of Afghanistan’s neighbors, Pakistan has the longest border and has historically wielded the most influence. It also provides the nearest seaport to Kabul. To leverage Pakistan’s strategic position, the U.S. has poured more than $20 billion into the country over the past decade. The money is not simply to strengthen Pakistan’s democracy against the threat from militants, as diplomats sometimes suggest. It has also been a way to buy Pakistan’s loyalty, aimed specifically at luring Pakistan away from the Taliban. Most important, the money is also for the continued use of Pakistan’s highway network. “If we want to be successful in Afghanistan,” as General James L. Jones Jr., former National Security Advisor to President Barack Obama, said in recent congressional testimony, “the roads to that success have a lot to do with Pakistan.”

    The U.S. has worked hard to find an alternative. The Northern Distribution Network, running through Europe and Central Asia, was developed only in 2009. That was after the U.S. troop surge in Afghanistan had begun the previous year. Besides easing congestion on Pakistani ports and border crossings, it was also an opportunity to decrease dependence on Pakistan, which the U.S. increasingly suspected was collaborating with the Taliban inside Afghanistan and providing their fighters and leaders sanctuary in Pakistan. Today around half of U.S. military supplies to Afghanistan come in from the north, but the northern network comes with its own set of challenges. (About 10 percent to 20 percent of supplies are flown in.) Besides being very long and costing three times as much to use as the Pakistani route, it’s vulnerable to attack. Only days before the closure of the Pakistani Lines of Communication, a Russian news agency reported an explosion along the northern supply route in Uzbekistan.

    Russia’s sphere of influence spreads across much of the northern route, which can cause complications. In 2009, for example, after Kyrgyzstan threatened to eject the U.S. from the Manas Air Base, a key node in the supply chain, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Russia was “working against us.” Two days after the Pakistanis closed the supply route in November, and the U.S. was left with only the northern route, Russia’s NATO envoy made loosely veiled threats at closing off the northern supply line as well if NATO didn’t begin to rethink its European missile defense shield.

    Many countries along the northern route still don’t allow the passage of foreign military gear, so Pakistan was the only way for the U.S. to move nearly all of its combat equipment. At a congressional hearing in May, Lieutenant General Mitchell H. Stevenson, the U.S. Army’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, was asked what the “long term impact” would be if the supply route through Pakistan was “suddenly shut down.” After explaining that the Army kept a 45-day supply of reserve fuel on the ground in Afghanistan, the general said they could only “last several weeks” without any significant impact.

    This is what Pakistan’s calculation appears to have been from Day One. According to Abdul Sattar, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister from 1999 to 2002, the evening after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in 2001, General Pervez Musharraf, who then ruled Pakistan as an unelected Chief Executive, called a meeting at the military’s General Headquarters in Rawalpindi. He wanted to discuss his country’s response to the inevitable U.S. call for cooperation.

    Abdul Sattar, one of only two people at that meeting not affiliated with the military, says that by midnight the group had decided on the broad outlines of Pakistan’s official response to the U.S. in case of a war in Afghanistan. Sattar suggested a “Yes, but…” approach to Musharraf, meaning Pakistan should agree in principle to whatever reasonable demands the U.S. would make, then secure strategic advantages while negotiating the fine details.

    Sattar was soon sidelined though, as were many others, and decision-making shifted into an insulated and small circle of generals closest to the dictator. “I would not hear much after that, a memo here or there, months after the fact,” says Sattar, now retired and living in a quiet corner of Islamabad. The agreements the U.S. reached with Musharraf were never fully revealed, but information trickled out over the years.

    The most important part of Pakistan’s role in America’s war was impossible to conceal: The country’s highway network would be the route along which the U.S. military’s supply chain would run. On this issue, Pakistan had taken the “Yes, but…” path. The country did not allow American military vessels on its waters. The U.S. Transport Command handed out massive contracts to international shipping lines such as Singapore’s APL (NPTOF), the Danish company Maersk (AMKAF), and Germany’s Hapag-Lloyd. Since the beginning of the war, APL has received more than $700 million in defense-related contracts and has moved more than 300,000 shipping containers for the U.S. military. Maersk has won nearly $2 billion in contracts. The goods transported through Pakistan include everything from blankets and microwave dinners to armored Humvees and Kevlar vests, and even shipping containers full of frozen food.

    Getting all the overseas crude oil and other supplies to the port city of Karachi has proven to be the easy part. Once the cargo is unloaded in Karachi, however, the international shipping lines subcontract the job of getting it to Afghanistan to local agencies. Those agencies in turn hire local truckers like Shakir Afridi. And so the lifeline for one of the largest deployments of U.S. forces in American history falls into the hands of a loose association of truck drivers and owners from the tribal areas of Pakistan.

    The nerve center of the transport business in Karachi is in Shireen Jinnah Colony, a smoggy and rusty seaside neighborhood with an apocalyptic landscape. Flatbed trucks are assembled from scratch on the side of the road. These “jingle trucks” are painted in every color of the spectrum and decorated with hundreds of intricate metal, wooden, plastic, and glass trinkets. In the background, monstrous oil refineries pump thick smoke into the air. From a small room in an office block abutting the Port of Karachi, Muntazir Afridi, Shakir’s younger brother, deals with the southern end of the Afridi family business.

    The trucking industry in Karachi, which is as far away as you can get in the country from Afghanistan, is in the hands of the city’s large minority Pashtun population. Mostly immigrants from Peshawar and the tribal areas on the Afghan frontier, the Pashtuns arrived in the 1950s and ’60s in flocks, looking for jobs. Largely uneducated and unskilled, 1,000 miles from home, they slowly acquired transport contracts to supply Pakistan’s north. Their deep cultural ties to Afghanistan’s majority Pashtun population also made them favorites for transport jobs for Afghan trade. In a city where ethnic groups battle and bloody the streets over slices of the local economy, two tribes in particular have an unshakable grip on the trucking business: the Shinwaris and the Afridis.

    Muntazir Afridi’s office is sparse. Taped to the wall are photos of the holy mosque in Mecca and the prophet’s mosque in Medina. A desk sits in a corner, and on a rickety coffee table is an overflowing ashtray. “In Bombay they have their film industry,” Muntazir proclaims with a smile, while sipping his morning green tea on a stained couch. “In Karachi we have the trucking industry.”

    With NATO transport shut down, the office block, which houses logistics companies, trucking companies, insurers, and customs clearing agents, is quiet. In an adjacent room, a group of men, mostly truck drivers, lie on soft rugs watching a Pashto film on television. The smell of Afghan hash hangs thick in the air. Other men, clearly stranded, shuttle between offices in the block with fists of crumpled papers, asking for loans, food, and lodging.

    Muntazir is in his mid-20s and dressed, like his brother, in a plain white shalwar kameez. His beard is long and neat. He points outside at the sheer scale of the enterprise. Stretching for miles, from the walls of the office block below all the way to where the large cranes of Karachi’s port are visible through the smog, is a patchwork of hundreds of oil tankers and flatbed trucks in yellow and red and green. “On a regular day they would all be on the move like ants,” Muntazir says, but instead the trucks are parked, overflowing from the terminal lots. Lines of jingle trucks are parked, sometimes double parked, for miles along the roads of Karachi. The entire southern quarter of the city looks like it’s been invaded by trucks.

    The Afridi family is only one of hundreds that have enjoyed the boom from the steady flow of American military supplies through Pakistan after 2001. The real gold rush started with the troop surge in Afghanistan that began soon after Obama won the election in 2008. When he took office there were just over 30,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. By January 2010, the number had more than doubled to nearly 70,000. In May of this year, troop levels peaked at nearly 100,000.

    More troops naturally meant more supplies. Figures issued by the Pakistan Federal Tax Ombudsman illustrate the spike in traffic at Karachi’s port. U.S. military equipment received at the port rose from nearly 16,000 shipping containers in 2005 to more than 54,000 in 2009. Halfway through 2010 the U.S. military had already shipped nearly 30,000 containers to Karachi.

    In Pakistan the demand for trucks skyrocketed. “Everyone who had nothing to lose took out a loan and bought a truck,” Muntazir says. He invited many of his extended relatives from the tribal areas to come to Karachi and start driving. The local “third party vendor” transport companies, to whom the international shipping lines subcontracted, were so desperate for drivers that Muntazir says they began lending money to people they had just met, so they would buy a truck and get supplies moving. “There was just no way the companies would be able to deal with truckers,” Muntazir says. “They couldn’t keep track of a thing.” Entire truckloads started going missing. Drivers would take the wheel of a brand new truck and simply drive off, never to return. The supply chain was coming undone.

    This is where Shakir, the elder brother, began to do work he describes as “brokering,” placing himself between truck owners and the local transport companies. He takes responsibility for the cargo and ensures it gets to U.S. and other ISAF forces in Afghanistan. Acting as a guarantor, Afridi receives a cut from the logistics companies when the cargo is picked up and again when it’s dropped off. The work has proved so profitable that Afridi has sold his entire fleet.
    In November 2008, Hakimullah Mehsud, a commander of the newly formed Taliban Movement of Pakistan, invited the news media to Orakzai, a tribal agency in Pakistan, for his first press conference. Mehsud arrived riding in a brand new armored U.S. military Humvee. As he posed for photographs, he told reporters he had captured a few American vehicles after attacking and looting a military convoy traveling through Pakistan. He boasted he would increase these attacks.

    Such attacks started at the same time as the U.S. troop surge in late 2008. Fuel tankers began getting torched regularly and shipping containers were ripped open, looted, and left empty along highways. In the local press, Pakistani military officials told of groups in the tribal areas stealing helicopter parts. Militants who couldn’t get to the trucks took to bombing bridges and roads along the route, at times shutting the supply route for days.

    The supply line was not just vulnerable to militants. In the past several years, the Pakistani and American visions for Afghanistan’s future have diverged so far that the relationship has turned hostile. Pakistan first cut off NATO’s supplies in September 2008, in response to the first-ever reported incursion of U.S. troops into Pakistan. Two months later, after a drone aircraft targeted Pakistan’s “settled,” nontribal lands for the first and only time, 160 NATO trucks were burned in a nightlong rampage in Peshawar. Many believed the event was staged by the Pakistani military and meant to send a clear signal. Vice Admiral Mark D. Harnitchek, deputy commander of the U.S. Transportation Command, said in a 2009 speech that 12 percent of the freight bound for Bagram in December 2008 had disappeared.

    The supply line has been under consistent fire ever since. In 2009 there were 25 attacks on NATO supply lines in Pakistan, according to the South Asia Terrorism Portal, an online database tracking terror incidents in the region. In 2011, before the supply line was closed in November, there had already been a total of 111 reported incidents, destroying hundreds of supply vehicles. Even in times of relative calm, the Pakistani military has had its hand on the valve, as it alone decides how many trucks carrying U.S. military equipment to let through on any given day.

    The spike in attacks is partly because drivers and truck owners have jumped into the action. Drivers in particular, discouraged by the high risks involved, have taken to selling their loads of fuel on the black market, then setting fire to the tankers and collecting insurance money. They can earn a nice profit, even after paying off local collaborators. Though the scam is a pain for the brokers, Muntazir says he feels for the truckers. “These guys risk their lives, and they get what? Thirty thousand, maybe forty thousand rupees for a trip?” That’s about four hundred dollars. Peanuts, says Muntazir. “Anyway, you can’t blame them trying to make their little bit,” he adds. “The real money is being made by those guys dealing in dollars”—meaning Pakistani transport companies, the Americans, and others higher up the food chain.

    In June 2010, after an unsourced news report on Pakistani TV claimed that nearly 11,000 Afghanistan-bound shipping containers that had arrived in Karachi had gone missing, the Supreme Court of Pakistan asked another agency, the Federal Tax Ombudsman’s office, to investigate. The case landed on the desk of Shoaib Suddle. A career police officer, Suddle was Karachi’s police chief at the height of a war between several ethnic groups in the mid-1990s. He has a doctorate in white-collar criminology from the University of Wales and has also served as the chief of Pakistan’s Intelligence Bureau.

    When Suddle first began his investigation, he received little encouragement from his colleagues. It’s made-up news, people would say. How can thousands of shipping containers go missing without anyone noticing? Then he had a breakthrough. The Pakistani ports and customs authorities were not keeping track, but he found that private container terminals in Karachi were keeping detailed records of the exact time containers would depart and return. Some trucks would never check back in. But thousands of mostly empty trucks were coming back too soon, sometimes a few hours after departing for Afghanistan.

    “We found the mother of all scams,” Suddle said. In a report published by his office earlier this year, he described complex transnational networks bribing local customs agents and using crooked bureaucrats in Pakistan to forge documents and create fake companies. The intent of that corruption was to get goods labeled as Afghanistan-bound into the country, and then divert them for resale on the black market.

    In total, Suddle estimated that at least 7,992 shipping containers had never reached Afghanistan. The report called this “the tip of the iceberg.” A follow-up investigation, also ordered by the Pakistani Supreme Court, revealed that close to 29,000 cargo loads have gone missing in the country. There is no way of knowing precisely what disappeared. While many of these containers were loaded with commercial cargo destined for Afghanistan, military equipment for coalition forces accounts for nearly 40 percent of all trade to Afghanistan through Pakistan. Pakistan’s Federal Board of Revenue estimates that 3,300 shipping containers full of military equipment were among those missing.

    According to an agreement between the Pakistani and British ministries of defense, signed in June 2002 and made public only recently, Pakistan allows ISAF military equipment to arrive in Pakistan without inspection. The U.S. military is not even required to file a customs declaration form describing contents inside shipping containers. Much of the lost military gear finds its way into the Pakistani black market. Some of it might even make it across the border into Afghanistan—but into the wrong hands.
    In the Khyber Agency, not far from Peshawar, the hemorrhaging U.S. supply line stocks a long bazaar the locals call Karkhano Market. Among the haphazard corrugated-iron storefronts and randomly arranged merchandise, middle-aged women are shopping for “USA” branded oil and soap bars with the American flag printed on them. Crisply clothed young men in dark glasses who walk in and out of back doors make hushed deals with suppliers. Scruffy fighters drop in from Afghanistan to sample the latest in the military technology available on roadside tables.

    Alongside old British rifles and Soviet AK-47s, American military gear like Kevlar vests, boots, camouflage suits, night-vision goggles, and knives hang from hooks. Tall stacks of large boxes carrying ammunition and weapons parts will not be opened without a good reference. In the bargain bins, thrown in with used fleece socks and shrink-wrapped copies of The Book of Mormon, are U.S. military operation manuals that restrict distribution to “DoD and DoD contractors only,” and carry instructions to destroy “by any method that must prevent disclosure of contents or reconstruction of documents.” A large sign for a shop on the second floor reads, “Haji M. Ikhlas USA traders,” with crude paintings of a U.S. military helmet and army boots. In 2009 a U.S. military laptop that the U.S. Army’s 864th Engineer Combat Battalion used for diagnostics and maintenance of military weapons systems and vehicles was found in this same market. It contained restricted U.S. military information, as well as software for military platforms, the identities of numerous military personnel, and information about vulnerabilities in American military vehicles used in Afghanistan. All that for $650.

    Shopkeepers say that much of their stock comes from Afghanistan or is brought in from elsewhere in Pakistan—they don’t differentiate. From whatever direction, it’s clear that the stuff is stolen from the U.S. military supply chain, and here in the open black market it fetches a good price.

    This is an enterprise that none of the subcontractors in the U.S. military supply chain—the international shipping lines, the local logistics agencies, the truck owners and drivers, and brokers like Shakir Afridi—lose much sleep over. After all, it doesn’t affect their bottom line.
    Back inside the city limits of Peshawar, Shakir Afridi is attending a lunch at the house of a truck owner he represents. There are more than a dozen guests, some of whom introduce themselves as truck owners, others as drivers. There are local officials from towns along the supply route who might help out with paperwork in case of an accident, and reps from the transporters’ union, too.

    Afridi sits at the head of a decadent spread of goat meat and Kabuli pulao rice. “When I was in Mecca last month, I prayed and begged Allah to finish this war,” he says, sinking his teeth into a leg of goat, coated in dripping salty fat. A truck owner sitting next to him pours himself a glass of Pepsi and passes Afridi his phone. He wants to share a photograph of one of his drivers, whose eyes had been gouged out, he explains, by Taliban who attacked his truck as he drove along the western route to Kandahar. “This is a dirty, dirty business,” says Afridi shaking his head sadly.

    Afridi says he’s not worried about revenue should the war end. He’s confident other contracts will come through. After all, he’s been cooperating with Pakistan’s military for years now, “standing shoulder to shoulder.” He talks about the Central Asian “stans”—all landlocked, growing, and looking to trade. He thinks Pakistan will start moving goods into Central and East Asia. Most important, he is convinced that “Allah, not America, is the one who provides sustenance to man.”

    As Pakistan and the U.S. drift apart, Afridi’s prayers for an end to the war may soon be answered. As of Dec. 13, the supply route remains closed. President Obama has ordered a military investigation into the events of Nov. 26. In the meantime the blame game continues. While Obama has called President Asif Ali Zardari to offer condolences, the U.S. has yet to apologize. To the contrary, some U.S. officials are saying Pakistan was warned of the operation in advance. On Dec. 8, 32 oil tankers and 10 shipping containers full of NATO military supplies parked at a poorly protected terminal in Quetta were burned and destroyed. A day later the Pakistani Senate heard testimony about how the country had incurred nearly half a billion dollars in road damage over a decade because of NATO supply trucks. Pakistan’s government pulled out of the Bonn conference held to plan the last stages of the conflict in Afghanistan. Pakistan, it seems, wanted to make the point that while it is consistently asked to do more to help in the war in Afghanistan, it can do less, too.

    “America has been trying to get out of this for years now,” says Afridi as he pushes away his empty plate and sticks a toothpick in his mouth. Dessert and green tea are served. “We have them so badly hemmed in that they can’t go anywhere,” he chuckles. By helping supply the U.S. with enough to keep busy in Afghanistan, but not enough to win, Afridi believes he is killing two birds with one stone. He is turning a profit and bleeding the country he hates most in the world. “They want out, but we’re still not done with them yet,” he says as he dips a spoon into a bowl of custard. “There’s still a little more to go.”

    Mufti is a Bloomberg Businessweek contributor.

    Source : Business Week

    Syndicated from: Khudi.pk

    Comments (0)

    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    Islam Analysis (14): Planting seeds for a scientific revolution

    Posted on 19 December 2011 by Tea Server

    By: Athar Osama

    Published on SciDev.Net on 15 December 2011

     

    Arab Spring revolutionaries turning to governance must adopt knowledge and innovation as barometers for progress, says Athar Osama.

    As revolutions swept countries and shook governments across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region this year, they created opportunities for greater public voice in governance. Tunisia, for example, recently went through an election, and the Egyptian people are in the process of electing an assembly whose job is to write a new constitution.

    And as revolutionaries turn to governance, they will have to address the socioeconomic and cultural challenges facing tens of millions of people: poverty with no prospect of prosperity, a burgeoning young population, poor employment opportunities, a culture of entitlement, and growing radicalism. These will be the real test of their leadership.

    Science and innovation must feature high on their agendas. There are promising signs, such as Tunisia’s $16.5 million science and technology boost, and the pronouncements of Egypt’s caretaker government that it will open Zewail City of Science and Technology, a new science city named after Egyptian Nobel Laureate Ahmed Zewail.

    But the capability of the revolutionaries and their countries is questionable in one key area. Can they nurture the science needed to create entrepreneurial opportunities and jobs?

    Deploying science and innovation to bring prosperity will require deep and long-lasting changes in the way society views science and conducts everyday business.

    Looking back

    MENA countries are sailing through troubled and uncharted waters, and a peek at other countries’ histories could bring some useful insight. The recent experience of post-war Iraq is one example. There, a revolution led from outside has sapped the resources needed to invest in science and innovation.

    And there is the not-so-recent experience of neighbouring Iran, where a political revolution created an Islamic republic that allows science to flourish — as evidenced by a 2011 report, produced by the UK’s Royal Society, that found Iran had the world’s fastest-growing number of papers published in international journals.

    Pakistan’s history could provide the best model. Between 1989 and 1999, the longest period of civilian rule in Pakistan’s history, research and development funding as a percentage of GDP declined from 0.27 to 0.11 per cent. It then increased from 0.11 per cent in 1999 to 0.59 per cent in 2007 under the military rule of General Pervez Musharraf.

    While a complex set of factors may have led to these results, it is clear that science and technology flourished more under stable military rule than volatile and populist civilian governments.

    The revolutionaries in the MENA region must learn from this. Rather than depend on the benevolence of a dictator to fund science, they must create mechanisms to build grassroots support and secure political buy-in for the policies, institutions and governance that will generate science-based solutions for social problems.

    A scientific revolution

    Ultimately, a scientific revolution of sorts will be needed to redeem the promise of prosperity through science and knowledge. This can co-exist with religion, but it must embrace certain crucial elements of a society that values scientific knowledge and learning.

    Writing in the journal Science, editor-in-chief Bruce Alberts, who is also one of Barack Obama’s science envoys to the Islamic World, identified a strong culture of meritocracy as one such element.

    As Alberts points out, at the very heart of the dysfunction in Muslim societies is a lack of accountability, undue deference to age or social standing, and using one’spersonal connections as professional currency.

    To bring about a scientific revival, the Muslim world must start by developing a culture that permits — and in fact encourages — critical inquiry, free thinking and questioning of authority. It must create the conditions for evidence-based and open debate — not blind subservience to religious, political or scientific orthodoxy.

    The newly ‘liberated’ societies of the MENA region cannot hope to benefit from knowledge, science and innovation unless their barometers of progress are not who you are and who you know, but rather how much you know and how innovative you are.

    Seeds for change

    Some countries are beginning to take steps in the right direction. In Pakistan, for instance, the age-old process of determining faculty salary based on seniority is being gradually replaced with a merit- and performance-based tenure track process.

    However, there are potential pitfalls, such as high-powered incentives — payment for publishing papers, for example. A carefully crafted policy must also seek to balance this kind of stimulus by appealing to the intrinsic reward of producing quality science.

    Another step in the right direction would be more emphasis on creating institutions. For too long, a preference for personality cults over institution-building has stifled meritocracy and open discourse in Muslim societies. The MENA revolutionaries could do much good by making a deliberate attempt to seed institutions with appropriate safeguards that nurture these attributes.

    Creating such a scientific society will require a much deeper sociocultural and political revolution than anything we have seen so far — perhaps a different kind of Arab Spring that will lead to the flowering of knowledge and innovation. The work, however, must begin today, with small steps in the right direction.

    Athar Osama is a London-based science and innovation policy consultant. He is the founder and CEO of Technomics International Ltd, a UK-based international technology policy consulting firm, and founder of Muslim-Science.com.

    Syndicated from: Muslim-Science.Com

    Comments (0)

    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    Obama calls Iran to give back downed US drone

    Posted on 13 December 2011 by Tea Server

    Obama calls Iran to give back downed US drone

    President Barack Obama is pressing his request that Iran return the U.S. surveillance drone captured by the country’s armed forces.

    Obama said he wouldn’t comment “on intelligence matters that are classified.” But, he said during a White House news conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that the U.S. wants the top-secret aircraft back. “We have asked for it back. We’ll see how the Iranians respond,” Obama said.

    Iran TV reported earlier Monday that Iranian experts were in the final stages of recovering data from the RQ-170 Sentinel, which went down in Iran earlier this month. Tehran has cited the capture as a victory for Iran and displayed the nearly intact drone on state TV  U. S officials say the aircraft malfunctioned and was not brought down by Iran.

    Comments (0)

    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    US vacates Pakistan airbase

    Posted on 11 December 2011 by Tea Server

    The United States has vacated a Pakistani airbase
    following a deadline given by Islamabad in the wake of anger over NATO
    air strikes last month that killed 24 soldiers, officials said.

    Pakistan’s
    military said in a statement that the last flight carrying US personnel
    and equipment had left Shamsi airbase, in the south-western province of
    Baluchistan, completing a process that began last week.
    Islamabad’s
    fragile alliance with the United States crashed to new lows in the wake
    of the November 26 NATO air strikes that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers
    and which the Pakistan military called a deliberate attack.
    The
    base was widely believed to have been used in covert CIA drone attacks
    against the Taliban and Al Qaeda commanders in north-west Pakistan’s
    tribal areas, which border Afghanistan.
    “The control of the base has been taken over by the Army,” the statement from Pakistan said.
    A
    senior security official requesting anonymity earlier told AFP: “The
    Americans have vacated the Shamsi air base and it has been handed over
    to the Pakistani security forces.”
    Another official in Baluchistan confirmed that the last batch of US officials left in two flights on Sunday.
    Following
    the November air strikes, Pakistan closed two border crossings to
    Afghanistan to US and NATO supplies and gave American personnel until
    Sunday to leave Shamsi airbase.
    US ambassador to Islamabad, Cameron Munter, told a Pakistan television channel last week: “We are complying with the request.”
    A
    security official said the US aircraft left the Pakistani airfield on
    Sunday afternoon with the remaining group of 32 US officials and
    material.
    US president Barack Obama last Sunday expressed
    condolences to Pakistan’s president Asif Ali Zardari for the soldier
    deaths and said the NATO air strikes that killed them were not a
    “deliberate attack.”
    But the incident has rocked Washington’s
    alliance with its counter-terrorism ally Islamabad, though officials say
    neither country can afford a complete break in relations.
    US
    officials and intelligence analysts have said the covert drone war would
    not be affected by the closure of the base as Washington could fly
    Predator and Reaper drones out of air fields in neighbouring
    Afghanistan.
    But the Shamsi air base was supposed to be particularly useful for flights hampered by poor weather conditions.
    Islamabad
    has tacitly consented to the covert US drone campaign, which many
    Pakistanis see as a violation of their country’s sovereignty.

    Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-12/us-vacates-pakistan-airbase/3724976

    Syndicated from: PAKISTAN DEFENCE BLOG

    Comments (0)

    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    Pakistan army believes NATO attack planned: reports

    Posted on 10 December 2011 by Tea Server


    (Reuters) – A
    senior Pakistani military officer said a NATO air strike killing 24
    Pakistani troops on the Afghan border last month was pre-planned and
    warned of more attacks, comments likely to fuel tension with the United
    States.

    Major General Ashfaq Nadeem, director general of military operations, was also quoted by newspapers on Friday as saying that Pakistan, a strategic U.S. ally, would deploy an air defense system along the border to prevent such attacks.
    Nadeem
    made the remarks to a Senate committee on defense on Thursday. Senator
    Tariq Azim, who attended the briefing, confirmed to Reuters that Nadeem
    had made the comments.
    The Daily
    Times said Nadeem described the attack as a plot. Another newspaper
    quoted him as saying it was a “pre-planned conspiracy” against Pakistan.
    “We can expect more attacks from our supposed allies,” the Express Tribune quoted Nadeem as saying at the senate briefing.
    U.S. and Pakistani officials have offered differing initial accounts of what happened.
    Pakistan
    said the attack was unprovoked, with officials calling it an act of
    blatant aggression — an accusation the United States has rejected.
    Two
    U.S. officials told Reuters that preliminary information from the
    ongoing investigation indicated Pakistani officials at a border
    coordination centre had cleared the air strike, unaware they had troops
    in the area.
    Nadeem ruled out the
    possibility that NATO forces may have thought they were firing on
    militants, who often move across the porous frontier and attack Western
    troops.
    One newspaper reported that
    he told the Senate committee that militants do not leave themselves
    exposed on mountain tops, like the ones where the Pakistani border posts
    were located.
    Senator Azim also
    quoted Nadeem as saying that NATO helicopters singled out one army major
    as he was crossing from one border post to another after losing
    communications, and this also led the military to conclude the attack
    was planned.
    Pakistan responded to the attack by suspending supply routes to NATO forces in Afghanistan.
    Idle
    drivers of trucks carrying fuel and other supplies to the neighboring
    country fear being attacked by Pakistani Taliban militants who oppose
    cooperation with NATO.
    Militants
    fired a rocket-propelled grenade at such trucks in the southwestern city
    of Quetta in Baluchistan province on Thursday night, setting fire to 29
    vehicles, police officials said.
    Washington,
    which sees Pakistan as critical to its efforts to stabilize Afghanistan
    ahead of a combat troop pullout in 2014, has tried to sooth fury over
    the NATO incident.
    President
    Barack Obama called Pakistan’s president to offer condolences over the
    strike that provoked a crisis in relations between the two countries. He
    stopped short of a formal apology.
    Pakistan boycotted an international conference in Germany on the future of Afghanistan because of the NATO attack.
    U.S.-Pakistani ties were already frayed after the secret U.S. raid in May that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

    Syndicated from: PAKISTAN DEFENCE BLOG

    Comments (0)

    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    Pakistani truckers back Nato supply route blockade

    Posted on 10 December 2011 by Tea Server

    CHAMAN: Sleeping in a freezing cab, running out of money and
    worried about militant attacks, Ghulab Jan is one of thousands of truck
    drivers stranded as a result of Pakistan’s blockade of the Afghan border
    to Nato and US war supplies.

    But they and the
    businessmen who run what has been a lucrative trade for most of the last
    decade say they support the decision to shut the frontier in
    retaliation for coalition air strikes almost two weeks ago that killed
    24 Pakistani troops in two remote border outposts.
    ”We risk our
    lives and take these supplies to Afghanistan for Nato, and in return
    they are killing our soldiers,” said Jan, whose fuel truck is parked in a
    terminal in the dusty, dangerous border town of Chaman in southwestern
    Baluchistan.
    “This is unacceptable, and we unanimously support the government over closing the border.”
    Given
    the current anti-US sentiment in Pakistan, drivers might not want to
    call publicly for the border to reopen. There is broad anger throughout
    the country over the attack, and the US faces a challenge in repairing a
    relationship critical to its hopes of ending the Afghan war.
    ”I
    hope Allah grants my prayer that this Nato supply ends permanently,”
    said Ghaza Gul, a 45-year-old driver who has been in the trucking
    profession since was he was 10, when he washed the vehicles and made
    tea. ”I would rather die of hunger than carry these shipments,” he said,
    sitting on a dirty mat with other drivers at a terminal in Karachi, the
    port city where the supplies are unloaded.
    Despite such
    declarations, the drivers have remained with their vehicles. That
    suggests the trucking companies believe the stoppage will be temporary.
    The trucks are currently parked at terminals close to the border, some
    in large towns in the area.
    Pakistan closed its two Afghan
    crossings in Chaman and Torkham, in the northwest Khyber tribal area,
    almost immediately after Nato aircraft attacked two army posts along the
    border on November 26. The supply lines account for 40 per cent of the
    fuel, clothes, vehicles and other ”non-lethal” supplies for the Afghan
    war.
    President Barack Obama and other American officials have
    expressed their condolences for the deaths and promised a full
    investigation into what they have said was an accident. But this has
    done little to assuage anger in Pakistan, where the military has
    continued to describe the attack as a deliberate act of aggression.
    The
    government, needing to show a firm response to placate critics who have
    long protested its alliance with Washington, has also retaliated by
    demanding that the US vacate an air base used for CIA drones and by
    boycotting an international conference aimed at stabilising Afghanistan.
    Many
    analysts believe Pakistan and the US want to avoid a total rupture of
    their difficult relationship because of its mutual strategic importance.
    Pakistan needs American aid and cannot afford diplomatic isolation;
    Washington wants Islamabad’s help with Afghanistan.For that reason, most
    people think the trucks will start rolling again soon, likely within a
    few weeks.
    ”It won’t be much longer,” said Imtiaz Gul, director of
    the Center for Research and Security Studies in Islamabad. ”They can’t
    sustain it indefinitely. It would alienate the whole world,” he said,
    referring to the many countries that have troops in the coalition. Nato
    officials have said the coalition has built a stockpile of military and
    other supplies that could keep operations in Afghanistan running at
    their current level for several months even if the route through
    Pakistan remains closed.
    The coalition has reduced its dependence
    on Pakistan over time by developing alternative routes that enter
    Afghanistan through Central Asia. Nato could seek to expand those
    routes, but that would make the coalition heavily dependent on Russia at
    a time when ties with Moscow are increasingly strained.
    Last
    year, Pakistan kept the Torkham crossing closed for 11 days after US
    helicopters accidentally killed two Pakistani troops. It reopened the
    route along the fabled Khyber Pass after Washington formally apologised.
    Militants
    and criminals, some reportedly working with trucking companies engaging
    in insurance scams, took advantage of the situation to carry out
    near-daily attacks against trucks stacked up in poorly guarded terminals
    and roadside rest stops. The attacks killed several people and
    destroyed about 150 vehicles.
    Authorities have taken stronger
    steps to protect the trucks this time around. Many of the vehicles were
    ordered to drive south away from the militant-infested border areas in
    the northwest, said truck owners and drivers. Those that remained were
    prohibited to park along the road, where they were most vulnerable, and
    were instead put in terminals that may not be 100 per cent safe but at
    least have some security.
    Syndicated from: PAKISTAN DEFENCE BLOG

    Comments (0)

    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    Borders and Buddhism

    Posted on 09 December 2011 by Tea Server

    Events last week illustrated that the true fault line in India-China relations remains the 60 year-old acrimony over the Tibetan frontier.

    From India’s increasing presence in the disputed waters of the South China Sea to the duel over diplomatic influence in Myanmar, developments in recent months amply illustrate how India and China will bump into each other as they grow in power and aspiration. But events last week illustrate that the true fault line in bilateral relations remains the 60 year-old acrimony over the Indo-Tibetan frontier. The border area was the site for the month-long war between the countries in 1962, as well as serious military crises in 1967 and 1987. It is the only place where the outbreak of armed conflict is a realistic possibility, as well as the focus for much of India’s expansive plans for military modernization. And the chances are good that the frictions here will only intensify in the years ahead.

    The border was to be the stage for an act of India-China cooperation last week, when high-level talks were to convene in New Delhi aimed at managing the increasing quarrels along the Himalayan boundary. The meeting was also intended to prepare the way for a visit to India early next year by Xi Jinping, China’s vice president who is heir apparent to Hu Jintao. But the Chinese side abruptly pulled out of the talks after failing to persuade New Delhi to prevent the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader who is much reviled in Beijing as a separatist, from giving the valedictory address at an international Buddhist conclave that was meeting in the Indian capital at the same time.

    The border talks will likely be rescheduled in the coming weeks. Both governments were circumspect in their official comments about the postponement. Notably, the Global Times, a Beijing-based tabloid that is an unfailing tribune of bemusing jingoism including recent fulminations aimed at New Delhi, reacted cautiously. In an editorial titled “China and India mustn’t go for the throat,” it counseled that:

    “Both sides must keep the border issue from worsening by focusing on keeping good will talks alive and being mindful of the consequences of a sudden breakdown.”

    A high-level defense dialogue between the two countries will also go ahead as scheduled in New Delhi this week. With the United States becoming more strategically assertive in East Asia – punctuated by President Barack Obama’s tour in the region last month – Beijing has high incentive to stabilize relations with India while it turns its attention to the challenges raised by Washington. The Global Times underscored this priority when it noted that even though India “appears to be highly interested in facing off with China,” the rivalry with New Delhi “is not the primary focus of Chinese society.”

    With its own plate piled high with economic and governance challenges, not to mention the multiple insurgencies underway in its northeastern region, India also is keen to tamp down border ructions. Indeed, in deference to Chinese sensitivities, Pratibha Patil, India’s president who was supposed to inaugurate the Buddhist assembly, cancelled her participation, while Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, also scheduled to make an appearance, likewise stayed away.

    But events are conspiring to upend each side’s preferences. As last week’s contretemps demonstrate, the border dispute is not simply a matter of contested claims over real estate. It also is bound up with the increasingly volatile issue of Tibetan nationalism. It is no coincidence that Beijing in recent years has turned up the volume about its territorial claims on the northeastern Indian states of Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh (the latter of which China has taken to calling “South Tibet”) at the same moment that the ethnic Tibetan population inside China has become more restive. Beijing views the agitations as the handiwork of the Dalai Lama, who has been especially effective in making Tibet an international cause célèbre, as well as the Tibetan government-in-exile. Both the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan exile core are based in Dharamsala in northern India.

    Adding to the combustible mix is the location of Tawang Monastery, a revered site in Tibetan Buddhism that is just inside the Indian side of the contested border. The monastery is close to the birthplace of a 17th-century Dalai Lama who remains an immensely popular historical figure among Tibetans. Its significance has greatly increased after the current Dalai Lama stated that he might be reincarnated outside of Chinese-controlled territory and that the selection process for his successor might break with precedent, such as being hand-picked by him or chosen by popular acclaim. With Tawang likely to play an important role in the selection, Beijing is keen to assert control over it.

    Beijing’s apoplexy over the Dalai Lama, once again on display last week in New Delhi, is a measure of its insecurity on the Tibet issue. This hypersensitivity has impelled the People’s Republic, officially an atheistic party-state, to entangle itself in deeply into the affairs of Tibetan religious institutions, including absurdly banning the current Dalai Lama from being reborn anywhere but inside China and insisting that it alone has the definitive word on the selection of his successor. It drove Beijing in 1995 to kidnap a six year-old Tibetan boy who the Dalai Lama proclaimed as the Panchen Lama, the second-ranking figure in Tibetan Buddhism. The boy’s fate remains unknown; Beijing has promoted its own candidate as the true Panchen Lama. While many Tibetans see this person as a pretender, he provides Beijing a key opening to manipulate the selection for the next Dalai Lama, since the Panchen Lama traditionally has a central part in the process.

    China has also embarked on a charm offensive (here and here) to win the hearts and minds of the international Buddhist community, including plans to build a multi-billion dollar pilgrimage and tourism complex at the Buddha’s birthplace in Lumbini, Nepal, which is right on the border with India. New Delhi is counter-punching by sponsoring Buddhist gatherings, including the one last week that raised Beijing’s ire and which in one of its final acts decided to create an International Buddhist Confederation that will be headquartered in the Indian capital.

    Given the volatility of the Tibetan issue, one could envision without much imagination scenarios that result in a military confrontation along the frontier. One might involve the outbreak of serious unrest within Tibet, leading to a Chinese crackdown that spills into India. Beijing could bring military pressure on New Delhi to clamp down on the Dalai Lama and his compatriots in Dharamsala, setting off a dangerous spiral of misperception and miscalculation. Alternatively, the passing of the Dalai Lama, who is now 76, could spark a tumultuous search for his successor, leading China to seize Tawang so it can control the outcome.

    Unfortunately, there is ample historical precedent for such scenarios. Indian support of the abortive Tibetan uprising in 1959, for example, colored Beijing’s perceptions in the lead-up to the 1962 border war. And in the mid-1980s, an isolated incident in the Sumdurong Chu Valley in Arunachal Pradesh led to a serious military stand-off in early 1987. As one of the WikiLeaks dispatches from the U.S. embassy in Beijing reported, some Chinese observers believe that policy on Tibet is even more inflexible than toward Taiwan, where Beijing at least tolerates some U.S. interference. And concern among Chinese leaders over internal discontent is rising.

    A New York Times article has called Tawang “the biggest tinderbox” in relations between India and China. Expect to hear more about it in the coming years.

    (An earlier version of this post appeared at http://www.usinpac.com)

    Comments (0)

    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    Virginia Man Admits Conspiring With Pakistan Spy Agency

    Posted on 08 December 2011 by Tea Server

    By Tom Schoenberg for Bloomberg Businessweek

    A Virginia man admitted to aiding what prosecutors said was a “decades-long” operation by Pakistan’s spy agency to influence U.S. policy on Kashmir through unregistered lobbying and campaign contributions to members of Congress.

    Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai, 62, pleaded guilty today in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, to one count of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and one count of impeding the administration of tax laws. He faces as long as eight years in prison when he’s sentenced on March 9. U.S. District Judge Liam O’Grady agreed to let Fai remain free until sentencing.

    Fai admitted to helping funnel at least $3.5 million from Pakistan’s government through the Washington-based Kashmiri American Council to sway the attitudes of U.S. lawmakers on the disputed territory with campaign contributions and other lobbying activities.

    The council, which was headed by Fai at the time of his arrest in July, is “actually run” by elements of the Pakistani government, including Pakistan’s military intelligence service, the Inter-Services Intelligence Agency, or ISI, prosecutors said.

    Pakistan and India, which have split control of the territory since 1948, fought wars over Kashmir in 1965 and 1999.

    ‘Paid Operative’

    “For the last 20 years, Mr. Fai secretly took millions of dollars from Pakistani intelligence and lied about it to the U.S. government,” U.S. Attorney Neil MacBride said in a statement. “As a paid operative of ISI, he did the bidding of his handlers in Pakistan while he met with U.S. elected officials, funded high-profile conferences, and promoted the Kashmiri cause to decision-makers in Washington.”

    Fai, a Pakistani immigrant and U.S. citizen living in Fairfax, Virginia, was charged in July with conspiracy to violate the Foreign Agents Registration Act and lying to federal agents. He was charged along with Zaheer Ahmad, 63, a U.S. citizen who remains at large, according to prosecutors. The pair failed to disclose their affiliation with Pakistan’s government as required by law, prosecutors said.

    On Nov. 23, the government separated Fai’s case from Ahmad’s and added the charge of impeding the Internal Revenue Service.

    As part of his plea, Fai agreed to pay about $200,000 to the IRS and forfeit about $143,000 the government seized from five bank accounts in Virginia and Washington, according to court papers. Fai also agreed to cooperate with any federal investigation.

    Fai’s Admission

    Fai said little during today’s plea hearing. He answered “No sir” when O’Grady asked if he disagreed with any of the information contained in the statement of facts submitted by the government outlining the conspiracy and his ties to the ISI.

    Fai admitted that during an interview with Federal Bureau of Investigation agents in July, he “falsely denied” that he or the council received money from the ISI or the government of Pakistan, according to the statement of facts.

    A search of Fai’s home, office and a storage facility turned up documents detailing the council’s Washington strategies, including budget requirements for contributions to members of Congress and trips to Kashmir for lawmakers, money for opinion pieces distributed to the media, as well as money for seminars and conferences, prosecutors said in a court filing. One document found in the search called for $100,000 for contributions to members of Congress in 2009, prosecutors said.

    Annual Budget

    Fai, who admitted the conspiracy took place from 1990 until July 18, said he submitted annual budget requests of about $500,000 to $700,000 to officials of the government of Pakistan, including the ISI.

    Since the mid-1990s, Ahmad, an American living in Pakistan, has moved government funds through a network he ran to Fai and the council, which also has offices in London and Brussels, prosecutors said.

    The council’s goal is to build support for Pakistani interests in Kashmir and offset lobbying by India over the disputed territory, the U.S. said in court papers.

    Fai has donated more than $10,000 to federal politicians in the past five years, according to data compiled by the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics.

    Among his political contributions, Fai, in 2008 and again in 2010, gave $2,000 to U.S. Representative Dan Burton, an Indiana Republican, according to the center. He also gave $5,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 2006, followed by a $1,000 contribution in 2008. He gave $250 to President Barack Obama’s campaign in 2008 and $250 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in 2009.

    The case is U.S. v. Fai, 11-00561, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria).

    Filed under: American Muslims, Pakistan, Pakistanis, United States, US-Pakistan Relations Tagged: Foreign Agents Registration Act, Inter-Services Intelligence Agency, Kashmiri American Council, Pakistan, Pakistani-American, Pakistanis, Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai, U.S. v. Fai, United States

    Syndicated from: Pakistanis for Peace

    Comments (0)

    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    Pakistan President Zardari in Dubai For Treatment as Coup Rumors Intensify

    Posted on 07 December 2011 by Tea Server

    By Saeed Shah for The Guardian

    Pakistan’s embattled president, Asif Ali Zardari, has been hospitalised in Dubai with a heart condition, triggering speculation that it could be used as an excuse for him to step down amid growing pressure from the military.

    A government adviser said Zardari had suffered a “minor heart attack”, but this was at odds with the official spokesman for the president, who said the president had gone for routine tests for a pre-existing heart condition.

    Rumours of a coup or a resignation forced by the military consumed the media and the internet, fuelled by a report in Foreign Policy magazine that said Zardari was “incoherent” on Monday night during a telephone conversation with Barack Obama.

    Zardari’s son and political heir-apparent, Bilawal, met prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani in Islamabad, adding to media hysteria about imminent change. Bilawal is chairman of the ruling Pakistan Peoples party.

    The speculation hit a receptive, febrile political atmosphere, rocked by a diplomatic scandal and the recent jolt to relations with the US over the deaths of Pakistani soldiers at a border checkpost.

    Pakistan has been ruled for half its existence by the military, and the armed forces have pulled the strings the rest of the time, meaning that the threat of coups are ever present .

    Zardari’s aides said he would not resign. The president is deeply unpopular with Pakistan’s military establishment, which is widely believed to be behind repeated attempts to oust him.

    “He had a minor heart attack on Tuesday. He flew to Dubai where he had an angioplasty. He’s in good health now. He will come back tomorrow. There’s no question of any resignation,” Mustafa Khokhar, the government’s adviser on human rights told the AFP news agency.

    However, Farhatullah Babar, the president’s spokesman, dismissed media speculation, saying “Zardari is in a Dubai hospital for medical tests and checkup as planned”.

    The president is under pressure from the “memogate” scandal in Pakistan, where he is accused of being behind a written offer delivered to the US military leadership in the days after the raid on Osasma bin Laden in May this year.

    The anonymous memo offered to rein in the Pakistani military, in return for US support. Pakistan’s former US ambassador and close Zardari aide, Husain Haqqani, has already been forced to resign over the issue and faces possible treason charges.

    Ali Dayan Hasan, of Human Rights Watch, the international campaigning group, warned against any military intervention. “Constitutional rule of law must be followed and civilian supremacy must be maintained,” he said. “Governance must be through genuine periodic elections.”

    Filed under: Afghanistan, Democracy, Freedoms, Pakistan, Pakistan Army, Pakistanis, President Obama, United States, US Army Tagged: Asif Ali Zardari, Bilawal Zardari, Husain Haqqani, Memogate, Pakistan, Pakistanis, President Barack Obama

    Syndicated from: Pakistanis for Peace

    Comments (0)

    Register your blog:

    Enter your blog address below to become a part of the TeaBreak network.

    About TeaBreak:

    TeaBreak.pk is a blog aggregator that syndicates pakistani blogs and categorizes them appropriately. Our mission is to give our readers a break from work and let them enjoy their blog time. And we are doing this by bringing all the popular blogs of Pakistan on one platform.