US President Obama today is appointing Todd Park as the new U.S. Chief Technology Officer, with the important task of applying the newest technology and latest advances to make the Federal government work better for the American people.   For nearly three years, Todd has served as CTO of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, where he was a hugely energetic force for positive change. He led the successful execution of an array of breakthrough initiatives, including the Continue Reading

Out of all the problems we faceas a country, Energy seems to be the one that annoys us all the most. It’s notthat other issues are not important or are somehow less annoying; it is justthat every single person in Pakistan uses energy in one form or another andhence is directly affected by it at a very personal level. So last week when Iwas invited as an expert delegate to the PML N’s energy conference I waspleasantly surprised that our political parties had finally started showingsigns of maturity and started talking issues.

The conference itself was anunusually serious affair where actual experts sat through a grueling 6 hourdiscussion session on the draft PML N Energy Plan. It was for the first time Ihave seen an actual alternative workable policy being presented and discussedby a political party with stakeholders such as academia, power producers andenergy experts. All in all it was a great platform and serious discussion tookplace that can potentially lead to a solid energy strategy. I was later toldthat PTI was holding an energy conference of its own and would be presentingtheir draft plan as well. I am yet to see the detailed PTI draft plan, but the vision document they have floated is pretty weak given their big talk and prep.

Let me start off by saying that,it is nice to see our political parties finally getting their acts together andactually presenting policies instead of talking about presenting policies. Eventhough I would have personally preferred the perspective economic plans to beput forward first but a start on an issue like energy strategy seems to bepretty good too. This is a national issue and we need all the alternativepolicies we can get to finally craft a solid national policy and in that regardpolitical parties putting forward their workable strategies is something thepeople have longed for. 

• ReplacingThermal Power Fuel:  Pakistanproduces about 81% of its electricity through Oil and Gas which costs us aboutUSD 9.4 Billion. To put it in other terms, that is about 53% of our totalexports and is the biggest cost on our import bill. Now given that our relianceon thermal power is so large, we cannot just simply dismantle it and magicallymove to hydro power. But what we can do is change the fuel used to gain thermalpower. Instead of using Oil and Gas, both of which are getting more expensiveand have volatile international prices, we can move to using coal. But not theThar Coal, I will explain why later, but imported Coal. If we were to importclean coal and use that as a fuel instead of Oil and Gas, it would cost us lessand the price of coal is more stable than that of Oil and Gas in theinternational market. This can bring some sort of price stability in ourelectricity prices that keep changing due to changes in international market prices.
• Movingpast the myth of Thar Coal:  Yes there iscoal in Thar. But assuming that it can be used immediately or it will solve allour energy problems is a myth propagated by a few people and political partiesfor their personal gains. Experts agree that Thar Coal is highly unstable andeven gasification of it is not without risks. The problem is because it is sounstable, it is very difficult to transport from location A to B. So the onlyoption left is Gasification on location, which again requires heavy investmentand even then might have practical difficulties due to the unstable nature ofthe coal deposits. So instead of wasting time and effort on this, for now weshould be focusing on importing coal to at least start replacing the everincreasing oil and gas bill.
• ImprovedEnergy Mix:  Energy Mixrefers to what sources of energy do we utilize in Pakistan to fulfill ouroverall energy needs. I need to give credit to the PML N on this one as theyare the first ones to talk of the holistic energy mix and not just the CNG orthe Electricity crisis. The fact is all our energy is interdependent. I havepreviously advocated that we need to move off CNG as we simply do not haveenough of it to supply the commercial, industrial and home users. It is nowtime that any future energy strategy Pakistan is supposed to have comes with aproper energy mix to solve our issues. As mentioned earlier, we need to moveoff Oil and Gas for Power generation. We need more Hydel Plants and RenewableEnergy projects. In the next 5 years we need to aim at getting 5% of our totalpower supply from Renewable sources. In addition to that we need to use theNuclear Power we are so proud of to supply electricity. Right now we are atabout 3% power generation from nuclear sources, which have to go up to at least5%. So an overall improved energy mix is what can solve our issues in the longrun.
• Standalone Power Projects:   This is asuggestion that I gave at the conference and I am advocating it now again.About 40% of Pakistan is off the National Grid. That means they effectively getto no electricity. Now thing is the way our grid operates, it is alreadysuffering from heavy line losses and other technical issues. So it is extremelyhard and very expensive to get 40% of Pakistan on to the National Grid. Butthere are solutions to this. We can work on and finance independent stand alonepower projects that can function in areas where there no national grid. Thisway the local communities and businessmen can set up their own energy solutionswithout taking prior permission from NationalElectric Power Regulatory Authority like they have to now. That wouldmean they can set up small scale Solar Panels and Plants in their communitiesand sell that electricity locally. In addition to that small wind farms can beused in such area given they are close to a wind corridor. The bottom line is,in areas that do not come under the National Grid, let people do what they canto supply themselves with electricity without any government involvement.
• Dismantlethe National Grid:   This is asuggestion I have already presented to the PML N and I am putting out there forevery other party as well. The National Grid needs to be dismantled andprovincialised. I say this due to a few reasons. Under the 18^thamendment, the profits of power generations to go the province that isproducing the power, so its profits according to source for power generations.That means, if electricity is being produced at Tarbela, royalties of that arebeing paid to KP Government by all other provinces. But what happens is theysell it to the National Grid and then the National Grid sells it down to theDistrict Electrical Supply Companies, who further sell the power to theconsumers. This way if there is a shortfall, National Grid chooses theelectricity supply patterns and hence decides which areas suffer outages themost. What I am saying is this, if we dismantle the National Grid and changethe electricity supply in to an open market, where Provincial Grids can buyenergy directly from source it would improve the power supply and would be morefinancially beneficial for the power producing province. This way the provincesthat have the most issues with electricity supply can simply outbid the othersto get enough for their local demand. This would not be privatization butprovincialization and this would encourage provincial governments to startdoing more for their people instead of relying on the Federal Government. Thiscan eventually lead to provinces working harder to upgrade their grids andreduce their line losses as their people would know exactly who to blame if thepower goes out. I think it is time we started thinking on these lines giventhat the 18^th amendment has already passed and provincial autonomyis our future.

Rehman Malik Relied on Punjab Police Report on Bhutto Murder Briefing Sindh Assembly

NADEEM MALIK

It seems as though not much has been achieved in the Benazir Bhutto murder case as Interior Minister Rehman Malik on Tuesday not only admitted that planners of the murder are still at large, but also insisted that more time is required to collect further evidence.
Malik shared this and other details of the investigation of the former prime minister and Pakistan People’s Party chairperson’s murder case while briefing the Sindh Assembly session. He blamed Baitullah Mehsud, the Haqqani network and the banned Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) for planning the murder and said 27 terrorist groups helped in executing the plan. (Dawn)

Reported News Details of the CID Reports
The United Nations Inquiry Commission, headed by Heraldo Munoz, was informed by the CID officials of Punjab Police during the course of its investigations that the assassination of Benazir Bhutto had been masterminded by the slain Ameer of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) Commander Baitullah Mehsud and the bomber, who exploded himself outside the Liaquat Bagh in Rawalpindi, was one Saeed alias Bilal, a resident of South Waziristan Agency.
According to official documents provided to the UN Inquiry Commission by the CID Punjab, a group of 12 militants was actually dispatched to the garrison town of Rawalpindi, a day prior to Benazir Bhutto’s December 27, 2007 election rally, to physically eliminate the PPP leader, who was touring Punjab in connection with her party’s election campaign. The FIR of the Benazir Bhutto murder case was registered by the Rawalpindi police under sections 302/324,435,436,120-B/4/5ESA,7/ATA while investigations were carried out by the Additional Inspector General CID Punjab Chaudhry Abdul Majeed.
According to the CID documents, four of the 12 militants tasked to kill Benazir Bhutto belonged to Madrassa Haqqania in Akora Khattak near Peshawar, which is also referred to as Darul Uloom Haqqania. The Madrassa is being run by Maulana Samiul Haq, the pro-Taliban Ameer of his own faction of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam. Three of the 12 TTP militants have been shown in the CID documents as already killed, including the suicide bomber. Of the remaining nine accused, five have already been arrested by police while the remaining four are still at large.
Additional Inspector General of the CID Punjab, Malik Mohammad Iqbal, when asked if the Punjab CID still owns its findings into the Benazir Bhutto murder case, said the assassination inquiry was actually conducted by a Joint Investigation Team (JIT), which was headed by the then additional DIG CID and representatives of the Rawalpindi police.
He said it was a joint probe on the basis of which the challan of Benazir Bhutto murder case had been submitted with a Rawalpindi anti-terrorism court, which still holds ground and the trial of the arrested accused is still on.
The three accused shown as already dead include the human bomb Saeed alias Bilal (r/o Waziristan), Nadir alias Qari Ismail (r/o Madrassa Haqqania, Akora Khattak) and Nasrullah r/o Madrassa Haqqania, Akora Khattak). Four other accused in the Benazir Bhutto murder, who are still at large and have already been declared proclaimed offenders include Ikramullah r/o South Waziristan, Abdullah alias Saddam r/o Mohmand Agency, Faiz alias Kiskit, an ex-student of Madrassa Haqqania, Akora Khattak and Abdur Rehman alias Noman alias Usman, an ex-student of Madrassa Haqqania.
The remaining five accused already in the custody of the Rawalpindi police and being tried for the Benazir Bhutto murder include Rafaqat, Hasnain Gul, Sher Zaman, Rasheed Ali and Aitzaz Shah.
According to the findings of the CID, Baitullah Mehsud had given Rs 400,000 to one Qari Ismail, who subsequently dispatched a group of suicide bombers and shooters to Rawalpindi to kill Benazir Bhutto.
The UN Commission was told by some senior CID officials that the TTP militants had planned to target Benazir Bhutto in different cities, wherever she was going in connection with her campaign, until she was finally killed.
According to the CID narrative, 15-year-old Aitzaz Shah from the Mansehra district of the NWFP, and his co-accomplice Sher Zaman, reportedly trained at Miramshah, were the first ones to be arrested after the Benazir Bhutto murder from Dera Ismail Khan by a joint investigation team of the Punjab police, headed by Chaudhry Abdul Majeed. Two more suspects, Hasnain Gul and Rafaqat, were later arrested from Rawalpindi. Rasheed Ali was the last one to be nabbed but Aitzaz was the first one to have furnished some vital information to his interrogators pertaining to the Benazir murder.
As the police obtained physical remand of the arrested accused and broadened the scope of investigations, it was learnt that Aitzaz Shah had actually obtained Jihadi training from a well known Deobandi religious school in Karachi — Jamia Binoria, also referred to as Jamia Islamia and known for its pro-Taliban leanings. As per the CID report, after being brainwashed and trained to kill, Aitzaz was sent to South Waziristan from where he had travelled to Darul Uloom Haqqania Madrassa in Akora Khattak. Afterwards, Aitzaz was taken to a Jihadi training centre in Akora Khattak – Wali Mohammad Markaz and tasked with the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.
According to the CID findings, Baitullah had provided Rs 50,000, a suicide jacket and other necessary items to someone else, but he could not attack Benazir Bhutto. After his suicide bombers’ failure to hunt down the PPP chairperson in Karachi, Peshawar and other places, Baitullah Mehsud had assigned Qari Ismail of Akora Khattak and given him Rs 400,000 to execute the Benazir assassination plan. After reaching the Rawalpindi bus stand on December 26, the assailants had stayed at a Quaid-i-Azam colony house. In the evening, they visited the Liaquat Bagh site in a taxi and decided after surveying the area to hit their target from different directions during or after the public meeting.
As per the assassination plan, Saeed alias Bilal was to carry out the suicide attack in case he failed to shoot down Benazir while Ikramullah was to detonate himself if Saeed failed. Both Saeed and Ikramullah were provided logistics by Hasnain Gul, including an explosive-laden suicide jacket, a pistol and an optical device.
The assailants had reached the Committee Chowk in a taxi and later gone to the Liaquat Bagh via Iqbal Road and College Road. An unarmed militant went inside the Liaquat Bagh to give his accomplices updates about the movement of Benazir Bhutto, especially about her arrival and departure from the venue of the rally. As per the CID claims, the assailants had first attempted to enter the Liaquat Bagh to carry out a suicide attack close to the stage, but they had failed in their designs, chiefly due to foolproof security arrangements.
The UN Commission was further informed that several suicide bombers and sharp shooters were waiting for the PPP leader at the crime scene outside the Liaquat Bagh after their failure to enter the venue. Going by the CID account, the assailants had started chasing Benazir Bhutto as soon as she came out of the Liaquat Bagh and it was none other than the fearless PPP chairperson, who actually provided them with a golden opportunity to target her, when she decided to come out of her bullet proof vehicle Toyota Land Cruiser from its sunroof to wave to her cheerful supporters. That was the time gunshots were fired, aiming at Benazir Bhutto. As Saeed alias Bilal failed to hit Benazir Bhutto, he blew himself up, killing the PPP leader and 23 others, mostly on the spot. However, the Dopatta, which Benazir Bhutto was wearing at the time of the blast, could not be traced despite frantic efforts by the investigators.
Narrating the motivation of the crime, the CID findings say the accused had said during interrogations that they were annoyed over the pro-West approach of Benazir Bhutto who had returned to Pakistan at the behest of some foreign powers and, therefore, they feared a strong government action against the militants if she was allowed to come to power after the elections.
However, the fact remains that much before coming to power after the 2008 general elections; the PPP leadership had rejected the confession made by Aitzaz Shah and his other accomplices about their involvement in the Benazir Bhutto murder.
The then PPP spokesman and now presidential spokesman Farhatullah Babar had described Aitzaz’s confession a cock and bull story intended to reduce pressure on the Musharraf regime, saying the arrested youth, who has already been declared a juvenile by the court, had been made to narrate exactly the kind of things the Pakistani authorities wanted to hear, backing up their earlier conclusions reached within hours of the Benazir Bhutto killing.
The trial of the five accused in Benazir Bhutto murder case was deferred on August 22, 2009 by the Rawalpindi anti-terrorism court following a federal government request to transfer the case to the Federal Investigation Agency so as to enable it to arrive at a definitive conclusion. Subsequently, on August 25, 2009, the federal government had formed a high-level team to re-investigate the Benazir murder.
The Special Investigation Group of the FIA was assigned the task to fix criminal liability on the assassins and planners of the gun-and-bomb attack on Benazir Bhutto. It was announced that the SIG’s investigation would be parallel to the probe being carried out by the United Nations Inquiry Commission.
“The main reason for the fresh probe is that the inquiry report to be prepared by the UN Commission can’t be presented before any court of law as desired by the UN. The government requires a separate investigation report for a proper trial against the criminals in the court”, a senior FIA official had said on August 25 in Rawalpindi, adding that the United Nations report would have no legal standing and it could not be used for prosecution.
When this correspondent tried to take version of Jamia Binoria, Karachi, no responsible person was found. However, the person present there termed the Punjab police-CID report malicious and baseless. Expressing similar sentiments, a person in Madrassa Haqqania, Akora Khattak, said this report is part of the campaign to discredit religious schools.

Islamabad Tonight – 27th December 2011 Senator Dr. Safdar Ali Abbasi PPP and Naheed Khan PPP in fresh episode of Islamabad Tonight

Islamabad Tonight – 4th November 2010 :5 Ws of Benazir Bhutto’s Assassination 5 Ws of Benazir Bhutto’s Assassination – such as Who, What, Why, Where, How, When Naheed Khan and Safdar Abbasi in Islamabad Tonight with Nadeem Malik

UN report on Bhutto murder finds Pakistani officials ‘failed profoundly’

15 April 2010
Security arrangements by Pakistan’s federal and local authorities to protect assassinated Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto were “fatally insufficient and ineffective” and subsequent investigations into her death were prejudiced and involved a whitewash, an independent United Nations inquiry reported today.The UN Commission of Inquiry, appointed last year by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon at the request of the Pakistani Government, reached no conclusion as to the organizers and sponsors behind the attack in which a 15-year-old suicide bomber blew up Ms. Bhutto’s vehicle in the city of Rawalpindi on 27 December 2007.

But it found that the Government was quick to blame local Taliban commander Baitullah Mehsud and Al-Qaida although Ms. Bhutto’s foes potentially included elements from the establishment itself.

“A range of Government officials failed profoundly in their efforts first to protect Ms. Bhutto and second to investigate with vigour all those responsible for her murder, not only in the execution of the attack, but also in its conception, planning and financing,” the Commission said.

“Responsibility for Ms. Bhutto’s security on the day of her assassination rested with the federal Government, the Government of Punjab and the Rawalpindi District Police. None of these entities took necessary measures to respond to the extraordinary, fresh and urgent security risks that they knew she faced.”

General Pervez Musharraf was president at the time of the suicide bombing in Rawalpindi. The report said the then federal Government lacked a comprehensive security plan, relying instead on provincial authorities, but then failed to issue to them the necessary instructions.

“Particularly inexcusable was the Government’s failure to direct provincial authorities to provide Ms. Bhutto the same stringent and specific security measures it ordered on 22 October 2007 for two other former prime ministers who belonged to the main political party supporting General Musharraf,” it stated.

“This discriminatory treatment is profoundly troubling given the devastating attempt on her life only three days earlier and the specific threats against her which were being tracked by the ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence agency),” it added, stressing that her assassination could have been prevented if the Rawalpindi District Police had taken adequate security measures.

Turning to the immediate aftermath of the attack, the Commission found that police actions and omissions, including the hosing down of the crime scene and failure to collect and preserve evidence, inflicted irreparable damage to the investigation.

“The collection of 23 pieces of evidence was manifestly inadequate in a case that should have resulted in thousands,” it said. “The one instance in which the authorities reviewed these actions, the Punjab (provincial) committee of inquiry into the hosing down of the crime scene was a whitewash. Hosing down the crime scene so soon after the blast goes beyond mere incompetence; it is up to the relevant authorities to determine whether this amounts to criminal responsibility.”

It also found that City Police Officer Saud Aziz impeded investigators from conducting on-site investigations until two full days after the assassination and that the Government’s assertions that Mr. Mehsud and Al-Qaida were responsible were made well before any proper investigation had started, pre-empting, prejudicing and hindering the subsequent investigation.

“Ms. Bhutto faced serious threats in Pakistan from a number of sources,” the Commission said. “These included Al-Qaida, the Taliban and local jihadi groups, and potentially from elements in the Pakistani establishment. Notwithstanding these threats, the investigation into her assassination focused on pursuing lower-level operatives allegedly linked to Baitullah Mehsud.”

It stressed that investigators dismissed the possibility of involvement by elements of the Pakistani establishment, including the three persons identified by Ms. Bhutto as threats to her in her 16 October 2007 letter to General Musharraf. It also noted that investigations were severely hampered by intelligence agencies and other Government officials, which impeded an unfettered search for the truth.

“The Commission believes that the failures of the police and other officials to react effectively to Ms. Bhutto’s assassination were, in most cases, deliberate,” it declared.

The three-member panel, which was headed by Chilean Ambassador to UN Heraldo Muñoz and included Marzuki Darusman, former attorney-general of Indonesia, and Peter Fitzgerald, a veteran official of the Irish National Police, urged the Government to undertake police reform in view of its “deeply flawed performance and conduct.”

It also recommended the establishment of a fully independent Truth and Reconciliation Commission to investigate political killings, disappearances and terrorism in Pakistan in recent years in view of the backdrop of a history of political violence carried out with impunity.

Ms. Bhutto’s widower, Asif Ali Zardari, is the current Pakistani President.

In a statement issued by his spokesperson, Mr. Ban commended the commissioners and their staff for completing their challenging nine-and-a-half month-long task “expeditiously and in a professional manner.”

In a later news conference today, Mr. Muñoz stressed that the Commission interviewed more than 250 interviews with Pakistanis and others both inside and outside Pakistan, reviewed hundreds of documents, videos, photographs and other documentary material provided by federal and provincial authorities in Pakistan and others.

In the report, the Commission said it was “by the efforts of certain high-ranking Pakistani Government authorities to obstruct access to military and intelligence sources” but during an extension of its mandate until 31 March it was able eventually to meet with some past and present members of the Pakistani military and intelligence services.

Press Release

8 February 2008

BEGINS

SCOTLAND YARD REPORT INTO ASSASSINATION OF BENAZIR BHUTTO RELEASED

The findings of a Scotland Yard inquiry into how Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto died after being attacked during a political rally in Rawalpindi were presented to the Government of Pakistan today.

The conclusions of the inquiry were outlined in a detailed report handed over to interim Interior Minister Hamid Nawaz by Detective Superintendent John MacBrayne, accompanied by a senior official from the British High Commission, during a meeting in Islamabad.

The text of the executive summary of the report is as follows:

On the 27th December 2007, Mohtarma Benazir BHUTTO, the leader of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), died as a result of being attacked in Rawalpindi, Pakistan.

Following discussions between the Prime Minister and President Musharraf, it was agreed that officers from the Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorism Command (SO15) should support the investigation into Ms Bhutto’s death. The primary focus of the Scotland Yard team was to assist the Pakistani authorities in establishing the cause and circumstances of Ms Bhutto’s death. The wider investigation to establish culpability has remained entirely a matter for the Pakistani authorities.

The SO15 team was led by a Detective Superintendent Senior Investigating Officer, and comprised two forensic experts, an expert in analysing and assessing video media and an experienced investigating officer. The team arrived in Pakistan on 4th January 2008 and spent two and a half weeks conducting extensive enquiries. During the course of their work, the team were joined by other specialists from the United Kingdom.

The UK team were given extensive support and co-operation by the Pakistani authorities, Ms Bhutto’s family, and senior officials from Ms Bhutto’s party.

The task of establishing exactly what happened was complicated by the lack of an extended and detailed search of the crime scene, the absence of an autopsy, and the absence of recognised body recovery and victim identification processes. Nevertheless, the evidence that is available is sufficient for reliable conclusions to be drawn.

Within the overall objective, a particular focus has been placed on establishing the actual cause of death, and whether there were one or more attackers in the immediate vicinity of Ms Bhutto.

The cause of death

Considerable reliance has been placed upon the X-rays taken at Rawalpindi General Hospital following Ms Bhutto’s death. Given their importance, the x-rays have been independently verified as being of Ms Bhutto by comparison with her dental x-rays. Additionally, a valuable insight was gained from the accounts given by the medical staff involved in her treatment, and from those members of Ms Bhutto’s family who washed her body before burial.

Ms Bhutto’s only apparent injury was a major trauma to the right side of the head. The UK experts all exclude this injury being an entry or exit wound as a result of gunshot. The only X-ray records, taken after her death, were of Ms Bhutto’s head. However, the possibility of a bullet wound to her mid or lower trunk can reasonably be excluded. This is based upon the protection afforded by the armoured vehicle in which she was travelling at the time of the attack, and the accounts of her family and hospital staff who examined her.

The limited X-ray material, the absence of a full post mortem examination and CT scan, have meant that the UK Home Office pathologist, Dr Nathaniel Cary, who has been consulted in this case, is unable categorically to exclude the possibility of there being a gunshot wound to the upper trunk or neck. However when his findings are put alongside the accounts of those who had close contact with Ms Bhutto’s body, the available evidence suggests that there was no gunshot injury. Importantly, Dr Cary excludes the possibility of a bullet to the neck or upper trunk as being a relevant factor in the actual cause of death, when set against the nature and extent of her head injury.

In his report Dr Cary states:

• “the only tenable cause for the rapidly fatal head injury in this case is that it occurred as the result of impact due to the effects of the bomb-blast.”
• “in my opinion Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto died as a result of a severe head injury sustained as a consequence of the bomb-blast and due to head impact somewhere in the escape hatch of the vehicle.”

Given the severity of the injury to Ms Bhutto’s head, the prospect that she inadvertently hit her head whilst ducking down into the vehicle can be excluded as a reasonable possibility.

High explosives of the type typically used in this sort of device, detonate at a velocity between 6000 and 9000 metres per second. This means that when considering the explosive quantities and distances involved, such an explosion would generate significantly more force than would be necessary to provoke the consequences as occurred in this case.

It is also important to comment upon the construction of the vehicle. It was fitted with B6 grade armour and designed to withstand gunfire and bomb-blast. It is an unfortunate and misleading aspect of this case that the roof escape hatch has frequently been referred to as a sunroof. It is not. It is designed and intended to be used solely as a means of escape. It has a solid lip with a depth of 9cm.

Ms Bhutto’s injury is entirely consistent with her head impacting upon the lip of the escape hatch. Detailed analysis of the media footage provides supporting evidence. Ms Bhutto’s head did not completely disappear from view until 0.6 seconds before the blast. She can be seen moving forward and to the right as she ducked down into the vehicle. Whilst her exact head position at the time of the detonation can never be ascertained, the overwhelming conclusion must be that she did not succeed in getting her head entirely below the lip of the escape hatch when the explosion occurred.

How many people were involved in the immediate attack?

There has been speculation that two individuals were directly involved in the attack. The suggestion has been that one suspect fired shots, and a second detonated the bomb. All the available evidence points toward the person who fired shots and the person who detonated the explosives being one and the same person.

• Body parts from only one individual remain unidentified. Expert opinion provides strong evidence that they originate from the suicide bomber.
• Analysis of the media footage places the gunman at the rear of the vehicle and looking down immediately before the explosion. The footage does not show the presence of any other potential bomber.
• This footage when considered alongside the findings of the forensic explosive expert, that the bombing suspect was within 1 to 2 metres of the vehicle towards it rear and with no person or other obstruction between him and the vehicle, strongly suggests that the bomber and gunman were at the same position. It is virtually inconceivable that anyone who was where the gunman can clearly be seen on the media footage, could have survived the blast and escaped.

The inevitable conclusion is that there was one attacker in the immediate vicinity of the vehicle in which Ms Bhutto was travelling.

In essence, all the evidence indicates that one suspect has fired the shots before detonating an improvised explosive device. At the time of the attack this person was standing close to the rear of Ms Bhutto’s vehicle. The blast caused a violent collision between her head and the escape hatch area of the vehicle, causing a severe and fatal head injury.

John MacBrayne QPM

Detective Superintendent

Counter Terrorism Command

1st February 2008

Filed under: CURRENT AFFAIRS

As I mentioned in my recent post, Decreasing Child Labor in 2012, child labor continues to hold some 215 million children in its firm grasp. While the fight to this practice has received increased attention, it is a long and hard battle. One of the largest and most public arenas where the fight against child labor is waged is in agriculture.  According to the International Labor Organization (ILO), two-thirds of children aged 5-17 work in agriculture.  Two massive consumer industries that continuously profit off the backs of child laborers are the cocoa/chocolate, and cotton/garment industries.

Rather than learning and dreaming of a brighter future in classrooms where they belong, thousands of children are working long and laborious hours in harsh and often dangerous conditions with little hope of a prosperous future, let alone a fair and decent wage- if any wage at all.

Child Labor in the Cocoa Industry

The global cocoa industry often traffics children to work as slaves. According to UNICEF, in West Africa 200,000 children are living in conditions of forced labor and slavery on cocoa farms.  One company that has been under heavy pressure to remove child labor from their supply chains is U.S. chocolate leader Hershey; however, the years of pressure by consumers and the media, not to mention the industry itself, have largely passed with little impact.  The Hershey Company has been aware that their products are tainted by slavery and child labor since at least 2001, when along with the other major chocolate companies, Hershey made a commitment to end child and forced labor in their cocoa supply chains.  In September 2001, chocolate and cocoa industry representatives signed the Harkin Engel Protocol, developed by Senator Tom Harkin and Representative Eliot Engel, in an effort to eliminate child labor in the industry. The protocol has a six-point approach to solve the problem, including a time sensitive process to establish credibility and eliminate the use of child slavery. The protocol was signed by the industry’s large cocoa producing companies and set forth an action plan to eliminate the worst forms of child labor and forced labor from cocoa farms worldwide by 2005.

However, Hershey’s has continued to produce their products undaunted by the knowledge that their profits come with a high human cost. They continue to source cocoa from the Ivory Coast, which according to the International Labor Organization (ILO), produces 43% of the worlds cocoa, without ensuring that child labor exploitation does not occur in the production of the cocoa they use.  However, it seems that 2012 is the year Hershey will finally opened their eyes and fall to pressure, mostly thanks to the International Labor Rights Forum and the public campaign “Raise The Bar“, aimed directly at the company’s failure to act.  The ILRF contacted Hershey to let them know of their plans to air an ad about Hershey’s child labor issues on a jumbo-tron at the Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis for the Super Bowl.  Suddenly Hershey’s was ready to speak up and issued a statement that, by the end of 2012, they pledged to use only Rainforest Alliance certified cocoa for its  Bliss chocolate line. Rainforest Alliance Certified farms have three pillars of sustainability: environmental protection, social equity and economic viability.  Hershey’s also stated they they plan to invest $10 million in West Africa, to encourage economic initiatives and to reduce child labor and improve cocoa supply (Huffington Post).  While this is great news, it is not yet time to celebrate, as it is a small step in the long road to freedom for millions of children victimized by child labor.

Children in the Cotton Fields

Over the past few years, the media has highlighted the case of Uzbekistan, a major global supplier of cotton to the garment industry.  Estimates say some 1.5 to 2 million schoolchildren between the ages of 10-16 years-old have been forced to pick cotton each year from September-November. However, despite an international outcry, and ban against cotton from Uzbekistan by many Western companies the previous year, little changed for Uzbek children last year, as they continued to be pulled from the classrooms and forced to work in the cotton fields (EurasiaNet). Sadly, Uzbekistan is not the only country utilizing child labor to harvest their precious ’white gold’; India is also a large producer of both raw cotton and processed materials. Yet unlike the children of Uzbekistan they have not found themselves under the heavy scrutiny of investigators or the public media.  “According to one Indian campaigning organization, around a third of workers in the cotton-producing industry are children. The number of child cotton workers across the country as a whole could be as much as half a million.” (SOS Children’s Villages)

This past month, retail giant and one of the top consumers of fair-trade cotton, Victoria’s Secret, under the parent company Limited Brands Inc., was thrust into the spotlight due to reports of child labor practices by a supplier from which they purchase fair-trade fiber harvested in Burkina Faso each year.  “Under regulations separate from those being examined by homeland security, the U.S. Department of Labor had determined the problem of forced child labor in Burkina Faso’s cotton sector was serious enough to ban its fiber from the federal government’s procurement system. It’s one of just 29 products from a total of 21 countries that U.S. agencies are forbidden from buying under those rules.” (Bloomberg)

Are we doing enough?

The case against cotton from Burkina Faso highlights that bans in themselves do not solve the problem. The same is true in Uzbekistan, whose suppliers simply found new buyers in Russia and China.  In both the cotton and cocoa industries,  there is an need for increased monitoring of suppliers and prosecution of cases of labor violations. However, countries must cooperate with investigations, making regulation difficult.  It is clear that we need to strengthen both domestic and international legislation and cooperation to allow the prosecution of acts involving child and forced labor.  Until every child is out of the fields, mines, factories, fishing boats, etc. and in a classroom, we are not doing enough.  Yes, it is a long road, but there is an end in sight and we must not stop until we reach it.

To end child slavery the pressure and willingness to rid it from each level of the supply chain must come from every direction.  This means not only governments and large scale corporations, but consumers.  When the price seems too good to be true, it usually is, and when your not paying for it someone else, perhaps a child, is paying the price for you.  Remember that while it is difficult to know each step of the supply chain producing your products, you can still be an active and educated consumer by purchasing items that are certified fair-trade.  Please also see previous posts on Child Trafficking, Child Labor and fair trade such as, Fair Trade Trick-or-Treating, Become a Conscious Consumer this October for Fair Trade Month and Impact Children, and don’t forget to check out the following resource pages: Fair Trade and Slave Free Links and Fair Trade Book List.  You can hear stories from the children who work in cocoa fields from the International Cocoa Initiative here.  For more info on the campaign to end child labor and cotton visit Environmental Justice Foundation here.

Look for my follow-up post on fair-trade chocolate and learn how to ensure that your Valentines treats are child labor and slave free.

Fuel Prices Pumped Up..

ISLAMABAD– Cash-starved government in a desperate bid Tuesday added to the miseries of the already overburdened consumers by increasing the prices of POL products up to six per cent while a surcharge up to Rs 14.70 per mmbtu was also imposed on CNG with immediate effect.Though Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (Ogra), in a bid to benefit the consumers, has recommended the government to maintain the POL prices by reducing the petroleum levy, yet the Finance Ministry, turning down the recommendations of Ogra, has approved further hike in the already sky-high prices of POL products from three to six per cent. Similarly, Ogra had recommended no increase in gas prices but were overruled by the Federal Government.According to Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority’s notification pertaining the prices of petroleum oil and lubricants (POL) for the current month, a further hike of Rs 5.37 per litre in motor gasoline (petrol), high octane blended component (HOBC) Rs 6.29 per litre, high speed diesel (HSD) Rs4.64 per litre, light diesel oil (LDO) Rs 3.43 per litre and kerosene Rs 2.78 per litre has been given this time. Moreover, Finance Ministry has jacked up the ratio of petroleum levy (PL) on HSD by Rs 1.32 per litre. Resultantly, the PL on HSD has reached a high level of Rs6.50 per litre.It is to note here that in accordance with upward trend of oil prices in the international market, the price of HSD was likely to go up by Rs3.11 per litre. After this recent surge, new price of petrol has reached at Rs 94.91 per litre, HOBC Rs 118.20 per litre, HSD Rs 103.46 per litre, kerosene oil Rs 92.02 per litre and the per litre price of LDO has touched Rs 90.21 per litre.Meanwhile, petroleum ministry has issued a notification of imposition of 10 per cent gas infrastructure development surcharge on compressed natural gas (CNG) with effect from today (1st February).Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority has issued a notification pertaining to the revised prices of the CNG after the issuance of notification from ministry of petroleum and natural resources with effect from start of the February. According to the notification of the ministry, a surcharge worth Rs 14.70 per mmbtu has been imposed on the regions of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Balochistan and Potohar while Rs 7.90/mmbtu has been decided to impose on Sindh and Punjab regions. In this way, with an increase of 71 paisa, the price of CNG in the region one has touched a record high level of Rs74.29 per kilogram while after this hike of 36 paisa for region two, CNG will be available at Rs 69.60/kg in this region.It is worth mentioning that government had reduced 10 per cent surcharge on 4th January succumbing to the pressure of CNG association’s countrywide strike.

How can you not love California if you’re an environmentalist?  I’ve lauded the Golden State a few times here for its forward-thinking, smart, and economically advantageous approach to power, transportation, planning, building and curtailing greenhouse gases.  The federal government has so many times taken California’s lead, most recently in pumping up the Corporate Average Fuel Economy required for cars sold in the U.S.  We were talking in one of my classes the other day too about how California has made energy efficiency a priority and controlled its electricity consumption since the mid-1970s far beyond what has happened in the rest of the country.

California has taken another giant leap for mankind with the adoption of its new Advanced Clean Cars program.  The LA Times reports here that “By 2025, one in seven new autos sold in California, or roughly 1.4 million, must be ultra-clean, moving what is now a driving novelty into the mainstream.”  What is ultra-clean?  Electric vehicles, cars powered by fuel cells, and plug-in hybrid vehicles.  Californians will be once again setting the pace.

Meanwhile, the state has also tried to move forward with a low carbon fuel standard (LCFS).  The Washington Post explains here that “The new standards assign carbon intensity values to roughly 250 types of crude (higher carbon) along with other fuels — including ethanol, electricity and hydrogen, all lower carbon— that power cars and trucks.”  The aim is to reduce the carbon content of the fuel over time.  U.S. law, not incidentally, takes it a step further in barring all purchases by the federal government of any fuel that exceeds the greenhouse gas footprint of conventionally sourced oil.  This is embodied in Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.  The Sierra Club is pursuing a case in court now to enforce this rule.  The European Union is taking a similar approach with its Fuel Quality Directive which would, if fully implemented and enforced, bar Canadian tar sands oil from use.

California is being held up because of a court case in which a federal judge has barred the rule from coming into effect.  However, the WaPo article notes that Mary Nichols, head of the California Air Resources Board, has said that amendments that the Board has made recently will satisfy the court’s concerns.  See a video on the program at the LCFS web page and how it is integrated into the overall approach the good people of California are taking to maximize health and prosperity while minimizing the costs, environmental and economic, of business as usual.

PT Report Gilgit, January 26:  After a delay of seven month, the Kashmir and Gilgit – Baltistan Division (KANA) has released 8 million rupees for payment of salaries to staff members of the Mother and Child Health Care project, run by the federal government. According to details up to 129 mid-wives and 60 other staff [...]

PESHAWAR: The Federal Government has agreed in principal to rename Peshawar International Airport after the name of Khudai Khidmatgar Khan Abdul Ghaffar alias Baacha Khan in recognition to his services for the Muslims of sub continent and struggle as preacher of non-violence. The jubilant President of Awami National Party Asfandyar Wali Khan announced this at [...]

Constitution of Pakistan has been amended seventeen times since its promulgation in 1973; however the ninth and eleventh amendment bills were not passed. The importance of legislation is incontestable; it is the prerogative of parliament to set the rules of business but does it make any difference for a commoner either President has more power or Prime Minister. What matters for him is good governance, availability of basic needs with in affordable price. 

Below are all amendments in a summarized form 1974 onwards…

First Amendment May 04, 1974

• Article 1 – Amendment revised units, provinces and territories of the federation
  
• Article 17 – Amendment allowed citizens other than those in service of Pakistan to form political party and every political party to account for the source of its funds by law.
  

This amendment had become necessary as East Pakistan had emerged as a new independent state “Bangladesh” and Pakistan had officially recognized it.

Second Amendment September 17, 1974

• Article 106 – Quadiani group or the Lahori group (who call themselves ‘Ahmadis’)” was declared minorities.
  
• Article 260 – the definition of a Muslim was made part of constitution which is, ” A person who does not believe in the absolute and unqualified finality of The Prophet hood of MUHAMMAD (Peace be upon him), the last of the Prophets or claims to be a Prophet, in any sense of the word or of any description whatsoever, after MUHAMMAD (Peace be upon him), or recognizes such a claimant as a Prophet or religious reformer, is not a Muslim for the purposes of the Constitution or law.”
  

Third Amendment February 13, 1975

• Article 10, 232 – the amendment addressed the issues of preventative custody by curtailing the rights of detainee and by conferring more powers for detaining authority.
  

Fourth Amendment November 21, 1975

• Articles 8, 17, 19, 51, 54, 106, 199, 271, 272, 273, First schedule and Fourth Schedule. The amendment added 6 reserved seats in National Assembly, curtailed the powers of High Courts for cases related to preventative detainment, Land reforms, economic reforms and several regulations promulgated by President prior to Constitution were made part of constitution.
  

Fifth Amendment September 16, 1976

• Articles 101, 160, 175, 179, 180, 187, 192, 195, 196, 199, 200, 204, 206, 212, 260, 280 and First Schedule. The amendment established the rules for appointment of Governors, Chief Justices and the discretionary powers of the High Courts and Supreme Courts, abolished joint High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, constituted separate high court for each province.
  

Sixth Amendment December 13, 1976

• Articles 179, 195, 246, 260 – The Amendment extended the appointment of the Chief Justices of Supreme Courts and High Courts beyond their retirement age limit for when they have not completed the term of office.
  

Seventh Amendment May 16, 1977

• Articles 101, 245 – New Article 96 A inserted which was supposed to stay in force till September 30, 1977 Amendment suggested to hold a referendum to seek vote of confidence for the Prime Minister by General Public.
  

Eighth Amendment November 9, 1985

• Articles 48, 51, 56, 58, 59, 60, 75, 91, 101, 105, 106, 112, 116, 130, 144, 152 A, 270 A and addition of new Schedule, the Sixth Schedule, The constitution restored to the position of July 5, 1977 with amendment which conferred the powers upon the President to nominate Prime Minister, appointing the services chiefs, other key state positions and dissolve the National Assembly and Governors could dissolve provincial assemblies.
  

Ninth Amendment Bill 1985 (It was not passed and still remains a bill)

• In consonance with the provisions of Article 2 and 227 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, which respectively offer that Islam shall be the State religion of Pakistan and that all laws shall be brought in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam, as also the Objectives Resolution, this Bill seeks to amend Articles 2, 203B and 203D of the Constitution so as to provide that the Injunctions of Islam shall be the supreme law and source of guidance for legislation and policy making and to empower the Federal Shariat Court to make recommendations for bringing the fiscal laws and laws relating to the levy and collection of taxes in conformity with the said injunctions.
  

Tenth Amendment March 25, 1987

• Articles 54 and 61 Amendment curtailed the working days of National Assembly and the Senate from 160 to 130 per year.
  

Eleventh Amendment Bill 1989 (It was withdrawn by the movers.)

• Article 51 the amendment bill was moved in Senate suggesting the restoration of 20 Women Seats in the National Assembly. It was withdrawn by the movers after government assurance.
  

Twelfth Amendment July 28, 1991

• New Article inserted: 212 B Provisions amended: Fifth Schedule. Amendment allowed constitution of special courts for heinous crimes as well as increase the salaries of Judges.
  

Thirteenth Amendment April 3, 1997

• Article 58, 101, 112, 243 – Amendment was to withdraw Eighth Amendment powers of the President and Governors to dissolve National and Provincial assemblies, the Prime Minister was conferred the powers to appoint Services Chiefs and other key position.
  

Fourteenth Amendment July 3, 1997

• New Article inserted 63A Amendment to provide disqualification of a member of Parliamentary party on the ground of defection, floor crossing, abstaining or refraining from vote or voting against the party policy.
  

Fifteenth Amendment August 28, 1998

• Insertion of Article 2B in view of the fact that the Objectives Resolution is now substantive part of the Constitution, it is necessary that Quran and Sunnah are declared to be the supreme law of Pakistan, and the Government is empowered to take necessary steps to enforce Shariah.

Sixteenth Amendment August 5, 1999

• Insertion of Article 27 which safeguards against discrimination in services, Quota system was extended till 2013.
  

Seventeenth Amendment August 21, 2002

• New Article Inserted 41, 58, 112, 152A, 179, 195, 243, 268 and 270AA Amendments were made to the constitution for the approval of Gen. Musharraf to stay President in uniform, his coup on October 12, 1999 and inclusion of the Legal Framework Order (LFO) into the constitution which empowered President again.
  

Eighteenth Amendment April 19, 2010

• Articles amended or substituted 1, 6, 17, 25, 27, 29, 38, 41, 46, 48, 51, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 63A, 71, 73, 75, 89, 90, 91, 92, 99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106, 112, 116, 122, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 139, 140, 142, 143, 144, 147, 149, 154, 155, 156, 157, 160, 161, 167, 168, 170, 171, 172, 175, 177, 193, 194, 198, 199, 200, 203, 203D, 209, 213, 215, 216, 218, 219, 221, 224, 226,228, 232, 233, 234, 242, 243, 260, 268, 270A, 270AA, 270B
  
• Articles inserted 10A, 19A, 25A, 140A, 175A, 267A, 267B, 270BB
  
• Articles omitted 71 and Omission of sixth and seventh schedule
  
• Summary: Parliament declared the 17th Amendment to the Constitution and the Legal Framework Order (LFO) given by a dictator as without any legal authority. NWFP renamed as ‘Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa’. Good Governance by restricting the size of the Cabinet in to 11 per cent of the members of Parliament and respective Provinces. Four seats, one from each province, to be allocated in the Senate for the minorities to increase their strength. Education to each child up to the age of 16 years made compulsory. Formation of the council of common interests revised with prime minister as its chairman. The council should meet at least once in 90 days besides abolition of the Concurrent List. Prime Minister shall keep the president informed on all matters of internal and foreign policy and on all legislative proposals the federal government intends to bring before the Majlis-e-Shoora (parliament). President could use the power of dissolution of the National Assembly when a vote of no-confidence having been passed against the prime minister, no other member of the National Assembly commands the confidence of the majority of the members of the National Assembly, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, as ascertained in a session of the National Assembly for the purpose. For the determination of his civil rights and obligations or in any criminal charge against him, a person shall be entitled to a fair trial and due process. Under-representation of any class or area in the service of Pakistan may be redressed in such manner as may be determined by an act of Majlis-e-Shoora (parliament). Restriction imposed on the attorney general for doing private practice. Inexpensive and expeditious justice should be ensured to the people as also the right of access to information without any hurdle. The prime minister shall, in consultation with the leader of the opposition in the National Assembly, forward three names for appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner to a parliamentary committee for hearing and confirmation of any one person. The parliamentary committee, to be constituted by the speaker, shall comprise 50 per cent from the opposition parties, based on their strength in Parliament to be nominated by the respective parliamentary leaders. In case there is no consensus between the prime minister and the leader of the opposition, each shall forward separate lists to the parliamentary committee for consideration, which may confirm one name. The total strength of the parliamentary committee shall not exceed 12 members out of which one-third shall be from the Senate. Provided that when the National Assembly is dissolved and a vacancy occurs in the office of the chief election commissioner, the parliamentary committee shall comprise the members of the Senate only. There shall be no restriction on the number of terms for the offices of the prime minister and chief ministers. Prime minister would advise the president on appointment of the chairman of the chiefs of staff committee and chiefs of three armed forces. The Senate shall consist of 104 instead of 100 members with the addition of one minority member from each province. Working days of the Senate have been increased from 90 to 110. Restriction on a person who has been dismissed from the service of Pakistan, service of a corporation or office set up or controlled by the federal government or the provincial government on ground of misconduct has been lifted. According to this amendment, a person could be elected as MP, three or five years after dismissal from the service. A person shall be disqualified from being elected or chosen as, and from being, a member of parliament if he has been dismissed from the service of Pakistan or service of a corporation or office set up or, controlled, by the federal government, the provincial government or a local government on ground of misconduct, unless a period of five years since his removal or dismissal; or unless a period of three years has elapsed since his removal or compulsory retirement. The restriction on a person being elected as member of parliament, who has been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction for propagating any opinion, or acting in any manner, prejudicial to the ideology of Pakistan, or the sovereignty, integrity or security of Pakistan, or integrity or independence of the judiciary of Pakistan, or which defames or bring into ridicule the judiciary or the armed forces of Pakistan, unless a period of five years has elapsed since his release. Chairman of the Federal Public Service Commission would be appointed by the president on the advice of the prime minister. Similarly, chairmen of the provincial public service commissions would be appointed by the governors on the advice of chief ministers. Proclamation of emergency in the province due to internal disturbances would require a resolution from the provincial assembly. If the president acts on his own, the proclamation of emergency shall be placed before both houses of parliament for approval by each house within 10 days. On dissolution of the assembly or completion of its term, or in case it is dissolved under Article 58 or Article 112, a caretaker shall be selected by the president in consultation with the prime minister and the leader of the opposition in the outgoing National Assembly. Similarly, a caretaker chief minister will be appointed in consultation with the chief minister and the leader of the opposition in the outgoing provincial assembly. Proclamation of emergency of the fourteenth day of October, 1999, the Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) No 1, the Oath of Office (Judges) Order, 2000, Chief Executive Order No 12 of 2002, Chief Executive Order No 19 of 2002, the amendments made in the Constitution through LFO, 2002, (Chief Executive Order No 24), the LFO (Amendment) Order, 2002, Chief Executive’s Order No 29 of 2002) and the LFO (Second Amendment) Order, 2002 (Chief Executive Order No 32 of 2002), notwithstanding any judgment of any court, including the Supreme Court or a High Court, are hereby declared as having been made without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Judges of the Supreme Court, High Courts and Federal Shariat Court who were continuing to hold the office of a judge or were appointed as such, and had taken oath under the Oath of Office (Judges) Order 2000, shall be deemed to continue to hold the office as judge or appointed as such as the case may be, under the Constitution and such continuance or appointment, shall have effect accordingly. Appointment of judges to the Supreme Court, there shall be a judicial commission. For appointment of judges of the Supreme Court, the commission, headed by the chief justice of Pakistan, shall also consist of two most senior judges of the apex court, a former chief justice or a former judge of the Supreme Court to be appointed by the chief justice in consultation with two member judges for a period of two years, federal minister for law and justice, Attorney General for Pakistan, and a senior advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan to be nominated by the Pakistan Bar Council for a period of two years. The judicial commission for the appointment of High Court judge, headed by the chief justice of the High Court, would also include two most senior judges of the High Court, provincial law minister, a senior advocate to be nominated by the provincial bar council. For appointment of judges of the Federal Shariat Court, the judicial commission shall also include the chief justice of the Shariat Court and the most senior judge of that court as its members. Article 58-2(b) should be repealed and substituted with “Dissolution of the National Assembly”. The substitution clause says that the president shall dissolve the National Assembly if so advised by the prime minister, and the National Assembly shall, unless sooner dissolved, stand dissolved at the expiration of forty-eight hours after the prime minister has so advised. Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause 2 of Article 48, the president may also dissolve the National Assembly in his discretion where, a vote of no-confidence having been passed against the prime minister, no other member of the National Assembly commands the confidence of the majority of the members of the National Assembly in accordance with the provision of the Constitution, as ascertained in a session of the National Assembly summoned for the purpose. Passing of the bills: Recommended substitution in Article 70 with “introduction of passing of bills”, adding that a bill with respect to any matter in the Federal Legislative List may originate in either house and shall, if it is passed by the house in which it originated, be transmitted to the other house and if the bill is passed without amendment by the other house also, it shall be presented to the president for assent. Bills presented in the house but not passed within 90 days of lying in the House shall be considered in a joint sitting of parliament. Islamabad High Court established and the judges of the Islamabad High Court should be taken from the federal capital and four provinces.
  

Nineteenth Amendment January 1, 2011

• Articles 81, 175, 175A, 182, 213, 246 – Amendment introduced a new system for appointments in the superior courts; the amendment also raised the number of senior judges as members of the Judicial Commission to four. Under the amendment, recommendations for the appointments of ad hoc judges in the superior courts will be made by the Chief Justice of Pakistan in consultation with the Judicial Commission. Moreover, in case of the National Assembly’s dissolution, members of the parliamentary committee will be from the Senate only.
  

Husain Haqqani: Pawn in a larger game?

There are numerous issues besides ‘Memogate’ that directly affect the people, like the shortage of gas, electricity, clean drinking water, housing, healthcare, employment and so on. But the issue gains significance because so far, no democratically elected civilian government in Pakistan has ever been allowed to complete its tenure and hand over power to the next one through democratic elections (as I outlined in this paper). There were hopes that this government would be the first to do so – a critical step towards the continuation of a democratic political that is necessary to move the country away from the military-dominated politics of the past – something, as it is now all too apparent, is not a thing of the past after all. In this context, it’s important to understand the current situation and its dangers. Myra MacDonald sums it up in an analysis for Reuters. Some insights were posted to this blog earlier (here and here). Additional facts are laid out in a document received today (reproduced below) that outlines some facts about Husain Haqqani and ‘memogate’. Also read this important article, ‘Treason? Under what Constitution? in the New Pakistan blog, which dissects the ‘memo’ contents and notes that each item in the document falls under the constitutional purview of the federal government…

Issue at hand: Former Ambassador of Pakistan to the US, Husain Haqqani, is currently a virtual prisoner as his life is under danger both from the extremists and from the security agencies. He is residing for his own safety at the Prime Minister’s residence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan imposed a travel ban on him on December 1, 2011 restricting him from leave the country. His wife, Member of Pakistan’s Parliament, Farahnaz Ispahani’s life is also in danger, which is why she is currently in the US where she had come for medical checkups.

This situation arose after the false allegations by an American businessman of Pakistani origin, Mansur Ijaz, who claimed that the Ambassador and President Zardari had sought American help to prevent a military coup in Pakistan. Ambassador Haqqani has flatly denied these allegations. Further, Ambassador Haqqani knew Admiral Mullen very well and could have contacted him directly anytime; it defies understanding why he would need Ijaz to convey a message to Admiral Mullen.

A history of false claims: Mansur Ijaz is well-known over the years for self-promotion and false claims. During the mid-1990s he claimed that he had close ties to the Sudanese government and would be able to help the Clinton administration get Osama Bin Laden. However, both Clinton NSA Sandy Berger and the 9/11 Commission that interviewed Ijaz found no credible evidence in what he said. In 1999 Ijaz claimed to be the American envoy to India and Pakistan to help resolve the Kashmir dispute but in the end neither side found him credible or someone who could deliver. In 2004 Ijaz claimed that chemical warheads were being smuggled into Iraq for an attack on American troops which he later denied.

The ‘memo’: Former US national security advisor General Jim Jones conveyed Ijaz’s memo to then Chairman US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen. Gen Jones in an affidavit has sworn that he believes Ambassador Haqqani had nothing to do with the memo. According to General Jones the language of the memo was akin to what Ijaz wrote.

Ijaz claims that soon after he wrote an OpEd about the ‘memo issue’ on October 10, 2011, Pakistan’s ISI chief, Lt Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha flew to London, met him and examined the evidence and found it credible. However, Admiral Mullen has stated that when he received the memo from Gen Jones, he did not find it credible and took no action on it.

Threats: Asma Jahangir, leading human rights advocate and counsel to Ambassador Haqqani, has stated that Ambassador Haqqani is under threat from his own intelligence-security agencies. In this context Admiral Mullen in one of his final testimonies stated that Pakistan’s intelligence service, ISI, and the Pakistani military have often lied to the Americans, and provide support to the extremist groups, including those who kill Americans.

Action required: Ambassador Haqqani needs to have his passport returned to him and have his name taken off the Exit Control List (ECL) so he can travel. The due process of law must be applied.

Background: The government’s opponents – in the media, political parties, military-intelligence establishment – have used this opportunity to attack the government and try to make Ambassador Haqqani a scapegoat. Some worrying facts:

• Opposition leader Nawaz Sharif (who in 1999 had Ambassador Haqqani imprisoned and tortured for writing OpEds against his regime)  is the leading petitioner before the Supreme Court.
• • The Supreme Court took up Mr Sharif’s petition instead of sending it to a trial court first.
• The Supreme Court ignored due process of law and immediately placed a travel ban on Ambassador Haqqani without letting him or his counsel appear before court.
• The head of the ISI himself conducted a forensic investigation and the army chief and head of ISI have stated in their affidavits that they believe the ‘memo’ was genuine – which points to an attempt to frame the Ambassador by institutions that have never agreed with his views.
• A political-media trial and witch-hunt has been ongoing since Ijaz’s OpEd first appeared in the Financial Times.

Detailed Background and Information

Background of Memo: The origins of the memo are in dispute. On October 10, 2011 an American businessman of Pakistani descent, Mansur Ijaz, wrote an OpEd in Financial Times alleging that in the aftermath of the Osama Bin Laden raid of May 2, 2011, he was approached by a senior Pakistani diplomat to pass on a memo to enlist the US military’s help to head off a feared military coup, in exchange for overhauling the country’s powerful top security leadership. He said he gave the memo to former NSA Gen (retd) Jim Jones who passed it on to then Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen.

In the ensuing weeks Ijaz claimed that Amb Husain Haqqani was that senior diplomat and that he and Amb Haqqani corresponded by Blackberry messenger messages, phone conversations and emails.

Amb Haqqani flatly denied these allegations. Admiral Mullen stated that he had received a memo but he did not find it ‘credible.’ According to Mullen’s spokesman “I have said this before and am saying again today. Nothing about that letter had the imprimatur on the Pakistani Government. It was not signed. And the contents of it Admiral Mullen did not find credible. So he took no action on it.” (November 22, 2011)

Amb Haqqani returned to Pakistan on November 19 and tendered his resignation in order to ensure a free and fair inquiry into the issue. The civilian government, while supporting Amb Haqqani’s account accepted his resignation. His passport was confiscated upon his return to Pakistan.

Supreme Court action: December 23, former Prime Minister and leader of the main opposition party, PML-N, Nawaz Sharif filed a petition in the Supreme Court of Pakistan (SCP) claiming that under article 184(3) of the Constitution, the SCP could take up any issue of public importance which relates to fundamental rights. SCP accepted the petition along with other petitions.

On December 1, 2011 the Pakistan Supreme Court placed former ambassador Husain Haqqani on the Exit Control List (ECL) barring him from being able to leave the country, without giving the former ambassador or his lawyer to appear before the court. So due process of law was not followed and Mr Haqqani’s fundamental rights were violated.

Gen Jones in his affidavit to the Pakistan Supreme Court stated that while he did pass on the memo he does not believe Amb Haqqani had anything to do with the memo.

On December 30, Pakistan’s Supreme Court set up a 3-member judicial commission to investigate the issue. According to the SCP judgment a petition seeking an investigation into the affair had “succeeded in establishing that the issues involved are justiciable.” The court also upheld the travel ban on Amb Haqqani. Further, the court has ordered the attorney general of Pakistan, Foreign Ministry and the Pakistani High Commissioner in Canada to approach the parent company of Blackberry, Research In Motion (RIM).

The government maintains that since Pakistan is a parliamentary democracy the correct forum for any such inquiry should be the parliament. The Parliamentary Committee on National Security was already looking into the case and that should be the proper venue not the Supreme Court.

Counter arguments by Amb Haqqani’s lawyer, Asma Jahangir: According to Ambassador Haqqani’s lawyer, leading human rights advocate, Asma Jahangir, the verdict was the “darkest day for the judiciary because the apex court has subjected fundamental rights to national security.”

Terming the court’s judgment ‘disappointing’, she said, “today we feel that the military authority is superior to the civilian authority. Today, the struggle for the transition to democracy has been blocked.” And, “I am forced to think if it is the judiciary of the people or the judiciary of the establishment.” Ms Jahangir also expressed her deep regrets and said she was totally unprepared for this reward of sacrifices rendered by lawyers’ fraternity, as the Court ‘dimmed even a fraction of ray of hope’, while providing the petitioner with relief beyond what they had sought.

Ms Jahangir said the decision was against the rule of law and had compromised a citizen’s right to justice. The verdict reflected undue supremacy of national security and integrity over human rights. “When order came on 1st December, Husain Haqqani was not heard. He did not even have a lawyer,” she said. “Saying that there is a memo and linking it with Husain Haqqani are two different things, it’s more of a media trial that got hyped after Supreme Court’s order”.

DG ISI Shuja Pasha and Gen. Kayani: quick to accept Mansoor Ijaz's claims

Amb Haqqani’s lawyer and others have pointed to the role of Pakistan’s security services, especially its intelligence agency. Both the head of Pakistan’s intelligence service, ISI, Lt. Gen. Ahmad Shuja Pasha and Pakistan’s army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, submitted petitions before the Supreme Court insisting they believed the memo was genuine and needs to be investigated. Significantly, according to Mansur Ijaz, Lt Gen Pasha travelled to London in October and ascertained that the memo was genuine. Why was Lt Gen Pasha so eager to travel to London and agree with what Ijaz said? Whose permission did he obtain before doing so? Is he the person who should perform a forensic investigation? Mr Ijaz also alleged in an interview in December that soon after the Bin Laden raid Lt Gen Pasha travelled to the Gulf to muster support for a military coup.

Imminent danger to Mr Husain Haqqani: A media trial has been ongoing since Mansoor Ijaz’s OpEd published in FT in October. The involvement of opposition parties and their leaders in this political-media witchhunt.

The judiciary seems to be ruling on the basis of national security ideology instead of constitution and law.

All those individuals who are speaking out in Pakistan for democracy and human rights are being silenced one by one. Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, former Governor Salman Taseer, former Minister Shahbaz Bhatti were assassinated. Former Amb Haqqani and his lawyer have received serious death threats.

On January 1, 2012, Ms Jahangir announced that she was quitting the case as she did not have faith in the commission been set up by the Supreme Court. According to Ms Jahangir, the Supreme Court’s decision on the petition was a victory for the country’s establishment, and it was being used to transform the country into a ‘security state.’

Ms Jahangir further stated that her client, Mr Haqqani, was under threat from the security agencies. She feared that the security forces-intelligence agencies would try to coerce a statement out of Mr Haqqani. That is why he first stayed at the President’s House and is currently residing at the Prime Minister’s residence.

(ends)

The purpose of the media is an easy one to understand. The dissemination of factual information on issue relevant to the citizenry. This entails (or should entail) a research and effort to uncover the truth, as well as a responsibility to uphold principles of free speech, adequate voice (as absolute voice and impartiality is impossible) and a separation to some extent from the control of politics. Thus the media has always been imagined as a ‘watchdog’ in its role in politics. This is what it was traditionally meant to be, thus its freedom was protected (like during the American Revolution when printing presses came in vogue) and thus its is critiqued today based on how free it is and how free it lets itself be (like Chomskys critique of the role of the media during the War on Terror). But who watches the watchdog?

Recently Deputy Chairman Planning Commission Nadeem Ul Haque was asked by a reporter on him speaking at the National Defence University (NDU) on December 26 against the nuclear program. In fact the reporter had his story wrong. It seems his “facts” were based on what he thought usually goes on at the NDU and he was oblivious to what the expertise of Nadeem Ul Haque was. Haque was actually scheduled to speak on the Planning Commission’s New Growth Framework, but the event had been cancelled due to lack of interest.

Thus Haque raised an important question in this article he wrote after the interaction with that reporter: “Why should such reform not get media space? Whose fault is this?”

He went on to say: “I know they want a headline against the current establishment. Consequently, all governments regardless of creed and origin have avoided serious governance/civil service reform. All have failed to change the paradigm on market competition. No government has attempted to use public service delivery to underpin our governance approach. No government has reviewed our current approach to urban development that produces a sprawl… Our intellectuals’ efforts, evident in the media, display little interest in these crucial issues. Countries seeking development spend a far larger proportion of their public debate on crucial development issues than we do.”

If the media does not pick up on issues that actually require policy reform, it will never signal the politicians and policy makers to reform nor will it create space for a debate on the issues that really matter.

As this Pak Media Watch article puts it: “If reporters are hunting for headlines against the government with utter disregard to whether their stories are factual or in any way useful to the country, they are failing in an important responsibility as journalists.”

This brings us to the second issue. Where have all the honest journalists gone? A narrow focus on specific types of stories is one thing but blatant lies and corruption is another. This story is just one example of the decay of the media profession itself. Najir Nazi in 2009 caught himself in a plot scandal (had it been today it would be sensationalized ridiculously as “plotgate”). A reporter called him and asked about illegal allotment of plots by the federal government and got a dose of expletives, and the established journalist unabashedly told the reporter to even record his words that would put PTA to shame.

Our watchdogs are certainly not above the dirty game the rest of the country is playing, heavily ties into local politics. Why would the media then talk about things like a New Growth Framework or public service delivery, when kicking the opposition in the shin and then using it as a headline is what can bring them closer to a G-8 plot allotment? (Read about it here)

Media to an extent is always funded and influenced by politics. However, in well function democracies, the media thought not unbiased, takes a position and provides information on policy, business, economy and development rather than only infotainment and vapid critiques of individual politicians that has no bearing on the conditions of the masses. A cursory look at Pakistani media takes us so far way from the ideals that this essay started off with that one feels dirty. If only the media felt it too.