Check out our latest addition to the Movie Poster Warehouse series featuring Sherry Rehman.

Afia Siddiqui case is alone enough to say that ISI is like a truck of filthy garbage and must be grounded for sure. They have got too much authority to sell the country and its people. These morons are good for nothing. The best scenario for Pakistan will be if these feudal-corporatist and Khaki ruling elite keep fighting with each other and destroy each other. Then a new Pakistan can emerge out of it , more free, more justice-loving and more prosperous.

Below is a news report stating some shameful things which also tells us about the hypocritical justice system of United States of America. The details may be a bit exaggerated or some of the details might not be as they are but over all context is disturbing about her condition and her family facing problems to find details about her. But the main culprit is ISI as I don’t expect miracles from USA marines or security institutions.

We hope that people with sense of justice and humanity will stand up in United States of America and will raise their voice against this injustice.

Dr Afia Siddiqui gets pregnant, contracts cancer in US jail

By     Shahid Abbasi -

Karachi: Pakistani scientist Dr Afia Siddiqui, who is serving 86-year imprisonment in a US prison cell, has contracted cancer and allegedly become pregnant as a result of sexual abuse during her confinement.

Talking to The News Tribe, her sister Dr Dr Fouzia Siddiqui said she had come to know through Pakistani Consul General in Houston that Dr Afia Siddiqui had been diagnosed with a cancer. She added that earlier there were reports that the Pakistani scientist had become pregnant due to alleged sexual abuse during imprisonment. However, the Pakistan Embassy has not playing its role in either confirming or rejecting the reports.

She said that former Pakistan Ambassador to US Hussain Haqqani was called back the next day when he told us the condition of Dr Afia.

She quoted Pakistan Consul General Aqil Nadeem as saying that he was requesting the jail authorities for providing medical facilities to the Pakistani scientist.

Dr Fouzia said keeping in view the reputation of the Roswell jail and the nature of her sister’s disease the request was insufficient.

She urged the Pakistan Embassy to arrange a team of physicians comprising doctors from jail as well as from private sector for Dr Afia Siddiqui.

Dr Fouzia said that newly-appointed Pakistan Ambassador to US Sherry Rehman had assured her all possible help before leaving for America to take up her new assignment. However, despite making contact with her, the envoy has not given any response in this regard.

Speaking about the reports of Dr Afia’s alleged pregnancy, she said that her family was told about it after the Pakistani scientist showed some symptoms in the women jail.

Dr Fouzia appealed to the US and Pakistani authorities to arrange a telephonic conversation of her mother with Dr Afia.

Earlier, British journalist and human rights activist Yvonne Ridley had declared the long punishment of Dr Afia as just ‘one step away from death’. 

Talking about attitude of Pakistani politicians being adopted on the Dr Afia issue, she said that she would not believe in their statements until and unless her sister returns to Pakistan. Dr Fouzia complained that the politicians had only exploited the Dr Afia issue just to gain political mileage.

She said that the Pakistani scientist had been provided substandard food, which led to health problems at the jail as she had complained of it during her earlier telephonic conversations.

According to Pakistani TV anchor Aamir Liaquat Hussain, he had received information from his friends in the US that Dr Afia had contracted cancer and will be killed during confinement.

The renowned anchor said that the Pakistani scientist can be brought back through diplomatic efforts.

In a video uploaded on Youtube, Hussain said that Dr Afia had become pregnant as a result of sexual abuse in jail.

The News Tribe, a UK-based bilingual news website has approached Pakistan Ambassador to US Sherry Rehman through an email to get her point of view on the issue but received no response till the filing of this news.

Source : http://www.thenewstribe.com/2012/01/21/dr-afia-siddiqui-gets-pregnant-contracts-cancer-in-us-jail/#.Txq0L3KsQyA

My recent article for Viewpoint Online, published Jan 7, 2012:

Salmaan Taseer: The political context of a ‘religious’ assassination

Enforce rule of law, expose hypocrisy of the Taliban mentality

Just over a year ago, Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer was assassinated in the most cowardly manner by a government-assigned security guard. Mumtaz Qadri, a member of the Punjab Elite Force assigned to protect the Governor, pumped 27 bullets into his victim’s back as he headed to his car on the afternoon of January 4, 2011.

The sensational murder was no spontaneous act by an enraged fanatic. It was a well-thought out, cold-blooded plan. Was the executor acting alone, motivated only by ‘religious fervour’ as projected, or is there more to the issue than meets the eye? And even if his act was purely altruistic, should the law of the land not be applied to punish him?

The Governor was already a target of the ‘hate-filled organisations’ as he termed them, well before they saw an opportunity to (ab)use the ‘blasphemy law’ to unite their own until then divided ranks. For this, they needed a target. The opportunity arrived when a trial court sentenced a Christian woman, Aasia Bibi, to death on Nov 8, 2010, for ‘blasphemy’.

A few facts to put this situation in context:

• The ‘religious parties’, historically divided amongst themselves, have never made any significant headway in electoral politics in Pakistan. A democratic dispensation does not suit them.
• Although Pakistan under Gen. Musharraf officially cut ties with the Taliban regime in Afghanistan after 9/11 (reluctantly, the last country to do), it continued to allow the ‘home grown jihadis’ to operate, seeing them as useful to keep the fire smouldering in Indian administered Kashmir.
• In Feb 2008, a democratically elected government replaced Gen. Musharraf’s military regime. The new government eschewed the earlier policy of using non-state actors to achieve its foreign policy objectives – but the security establishment remained wedded to the outdated paradigm of ‘strategic’ depth (i.e. Pakistan’s continued influence in Afghanistan because of a perceived threat from India).

What does all this have to do with Salmaan Taseer and the politics behind his assassination?

Everything. The mindset and political ideology disguised in the rhetoric of religion is furthered by a security establishment that sees its duty as being to protect not just Pakistan’s physical frontiers but also its ‘ideology’, developed along conservative religious lines since the 1965 war with India. This ideology was strengthened during the Afghan war of the 1980s, when a national war of liberation was converted into a ‘holy war’ (as Dr. Eqbal Ahmad pointed out in his talk on ‘Terrorism, theirs and ours’, 1998).

Pakistan’s ‘religious’ organisations flourished and gained strength with Saudi and American backing during the Zia years (1977-1988). They were allowed to function freely during the military-dominated ‘musical chairs’ years in which no government could complete its tenure (1988-1999). As mentioned above, they also had a free rein during the Musharraf years (1999-2008) even after 9/11.

Since the end of the first Afghan war, these organisations have been targeting and killing religious minorities and progressive minded people in Pakistan. The genie released during the Zia years and nurtured under Musharraf was not going to go tamely back into the bottle.

Governor Taseer was already in their sights for his outspoken and rational views on religion and human rights. He had no qualms naming the organisations he suspected to be behind the May 2010 massacre of worshippers in an Ahmedi mosque in Lahore, where over 80 people were killed and scores of others injured.

“These hate-filled organisations – Sipah-e-Sahaba, (Lashkar-e-) Jhangvi — they all have same ideology – Taliban, Al Qaeda…,” he said during his condolence visit.

“They should be prosecuted in the courts,” he said. “Don’t let them off. There should be zero tolerance towards them. No political alliance is possible with these organisations, you can’t go around having them at your political meetings, the Punjab government should prosecute them”.

Five months later the religious parties found a way to unite their ranks by conflating the ‘blasphemy’ issue with the issue of the ‘honour of the Prophet’ (peace be upon Him), when there were protests against the death sentence of Aasia Bibi. The ‘religious’ organisations came out in full force calling for her death because she had allegedly said something derogatory against the Prophet (peace be upon Him).

For some years the ‘blasphemy’ issue had lain somewhat dormant. Now, after many years, a court handed down a death sentence for such a case. Protests against the sentence by human rights and Christian organisations led to counter protests by ‘Islamic’ groups that used the issue to build up their political strength.

The situation was reminiscent of the early 1990s when there was a surge of ‘blasphemy’ cases, and the first ‘blasphemy murder’ was committed. Between 1986, when the law came into effect, and 2010, 1,081 people were charged under it, including 138 Christians, 468 Muslims and 454 Ahmadis, according to the National Commission for Justice and Peace (NCJP). In all cases investigated by human rights groups, motivations for these cases have been invariably rooted in rivalries or disputes related to money, property or other jealousies.

The High Courts and the Supreme Court have so far not upheld any death sentence passed by a lower court, although several defendants have been extra-judicially killed after being accused of ‘blasphemy’. In the early 1990s this was the scenario:

The frenzy had been building up. Masked gunmen had opened fire after a court hearing in April 1994, wounding Salamat and killing Manzoor Masih, one of the co-accused in the blasphemy case. Glossy, full-colour stickers and posters cropped up all over Lahore, calling for “believers” to find and kill (Asma) Jahangir. In July, a mob outside the Lahore High Court attacked her car. Luckily, she was not in the vehicle but her driver was assaulted and the car smashed. It was a few days later that the letter vowing to hunt down and kill Jahangir was delivered to her office. (Zarteef Khan Afridi: The tribesman who showed the way)

There was no case registered against Governor Salmaan Taseer but the propaganda against him was amplified by the proliferation of the 24/7 television channels and social media. Taseer was publicly projected as a blasphemer. The aggression of one particularly vitriolic television talk show host led the Governor to rebuke her: “You are acting as I am guilty of blasphemy” (watch the programme here and here).

Sunni Tehrik and other extremist organisations held rallies and demonstrations against clemency for Aasia Bibi and against proposed procedural amendments to the ‘blasphemy laws’ that PPP MNA Sherry Rehman sought to table. Put on the defensive, the government as well as opposition figures who had agreed to support the amendments, backtracked, leaving Rehman high and dry, her life under threat.

Zaid Hamid, Hanif Qureshi and others: preachers of hate misleading youth

Mumtaz Qadri was a known figure at such rallies where emotions were being whipped up. He even recited ‘naat’ at some of them – like at this one, just three days before he killed the man he was supposed to be protecting.

These questions arise:

• How was a man who attended such gatherings, who was already known for his extremist views (he had been earlier removed from the Special Branch because he was perceived as a security threat) inducted into the Elite Force in the first place?
• How was such a man assigned guard duty to a high profile target like the Governor Punjab?
• Why did the other guards not expose Qadri or get him arrested when he told them what he was going to do and asked them not to open fire, as he would surrender (as he said in his confession after his arrest)?
• Given that the other guards did not open fire, according to standard operating procedures in VIP guard duty, why were they not charged as accomplices to the murder, even though Qadri said he was acting alone?

Citizens for Democracy (CFD), an umbrella group of several professional and activist organisations formed on Dec 19, 2010 in Karachi, raised such questions in its statement of January 7, 2011. “We reiterate our stand that no one has the right to take the law into their own hands and kill anyone, regardless of whether they are accused of blasphemy or any other crime,” said the statement, endorsed by nearly 70 organisations.

But such voices were drowned in the din of ‘religious’ righteousness.

Qadri’s fellow guards who were detained after Governor Taseer’s assassination were released without being charged, as was the cleric whose inflammatory sermon convinced Qadri to pull the trigger.

Salmaan Taseer’s murder was followed just two months later by the murder of the Minister for Minority Affairs Shahbaz Bhatti, a Christian by faith, who had also been outspoken about the blasphemy issue. No one has been arrested for that murder. The trial court judge who sentenced Mumtaz Qadri to death has fled Pakistan for his own safety. Qadri’s supporters are calling for the death sentence to be commuted, which is somewhat puzzling given that Qadri has stated he is willing to die for his faith and he believes he has done right.

Pakistan has many pressing problems – including the perennial ones of clean drinking water, healthcare, education, shelter and so on that directly impact the people. But on a larger level, there is also clearly an urgent need to enforce the rule of law — charge, try and prosecute the guilty without fear or favour — and to expose the hypocrisy of the Taliban mentality that is tearing the country apart.

“Heroism is not the measure of how gloriously one fights and dies; rather, it is the value of the deeds and events which drove the person to their final end.”

A year has passed us by, and much has changed.

I don’t want to dwell too much on history, for much will be written about that today, capturing the bravery and martyrdom of Salmaan Taseer.

I rather want to focus on his legacy. The legacy which many seem to forget in favour of the more sensationalist diatribes that help get more hits, more clicks and more comments, particularly when the monologue gets sidetracked (on purpose) to focus more on Islam, Qadri, the black law and the pivot of it all: Asia Bibi, the Christian Pakistani woman who was jailed for allegedly blaspheming against the prophet of Islam, Muhammad (PBUH).

No, my focus is on the here and now.

On January 4, 2011, after that fateful moment, Pakistan woke up. It may have woken up in shock, like someone after a nightmare at 4 am, cold sweat dripping down their necks, but it woke up nonetheless.

You see, up until that moment everything related to minority issues and persecution was just a by-line. The news would once in a while show a new report here, a quote from a politician there, and that was it. Even poor Asia Bibi was sidelined, apart from a few months before Taseer’s assassination, when him and Sherry Rehman were more vocal in their support for her.

Enter the assassination, followed by Sherry’s own quieter stance, and Shahbaz Bhatti’s assassination some time later.

Suddenly, the rafters were flooded, the media up in arms and the general public finally no longer sitting on the fence. You were either vocally abhorring the blasphemy law, Asia Bibi’s detention, Taseer’s assassination and the state of minorities in Pakistan or you were waiting in line to shower Qadri with more rose petals.

The lines had finally been drawn.

Things have changed, whether we admit to it or not. Sure, we still aren’t out on the streets protesting in the thousands against Qadri or demanding Asia Bibi’s release. We aren’t bombarding the courts or the government with requests for leniency or release. We aren’t even coming out in force demanding the media in Pakistan cover this issue. All of the above has more to do with the liberal stance of voice over violence than mere complacency.

We ARE however very aware of the situation now. The media’s coverage of minority issues is now a daily feature, with every day bringing to light a new persecution, shedding new light over issues long forgotten.

If one reads the comments section of most major news portals in Pakistan, one feels a sense of joy that the youth of Pakistan are showing a rarely seen desire for justice and for the support of Taseer’s efforts to provide a voice for the persecuted. It begs a round of applause for those in the new generation who are proving to have more integrity flowing through their veins than those who are meant to teach them integrity in the first place. While the older folk go about sipping their teas and nodding their beards to the whispers of Qadri’s ghairat, the youth are thumping their chests at a new dawn of understanding and reconciliation.

Shahbaz Bhatti was further a victim of the brutality of some who use a few verses to turn what was one man’s guidance into a divine mandate, and closely following his assassination was the abduction of Taseer’s son, Shahbaz. All of us continue to pray for his safe return. Let no one be fooled by this blog of mine that I may be making light of such a henious crime. I am not, I continue to pray for Shahbaz’s safety. However I owe it to Mr. Taseer as a minority myself to give him the ode he deserves.

I would never have been active on Twitter if it wasn’t for Mr. Taseer. My voice would have been lost in the stream of the mundane, but his selfless act made me realise I am here on earth for a greater purpose. I have a voice. How I use it is what I learnt from him.

Pakistan is awake again. And we have only one man to thank for this. One man who woke us all up in his life and in his death.

Rest in peace, Salmaan Taseer. Pakistan is poorer for losing you. But at the same time, it is richer, because your legacy will reap a future of harmony. This, I truly believe.

 Raza Habib Raja
This article tries to evaluate the politician Benazir Bhutto and the way she affected her party and the Pakistani political landscape. Since the article tries to adopt a CRITICAL approach therefore it points her weaknesses besides appreciating her strengths.

Cult of personality which has become somewhat of a rarity in the West is an integral part of the political culture here. Such personality cults form around Political leaders, particularly famous ones, in our part of the world. Strong political leaders are not merely the reflection of the society but are often strong enough to affect it. Late Benazir Bhutto was one of such political personalities. Charismatic personalities are often riddled with contradictions and like all such personalities she also had her strengths and weaknesses.

Benazir Bhutto though it is not often acknowledged was in many ways Pakistan’s only true liberal leader. Compared to her charismatic father who was ready to manipulate religious sensitivities to extract political mileage, Benazir Bhutto knew where to stop. Yes, she was pragmatic and like all politicians acted in rational self interest-Politics is after all realpolitiks- but she did not try to whip religion for that purpose.

Those who believe in a secular, liberal and plural Pakistan, like to remember Jinnah for his 11th August speech; likewise I would like to remember Benazir Bhutto through a statement she made in early 1990s when she said “Insanoon ke hath Paon Katne munasib Nayee Samajte. Khuda Zalim Nayee Hai. Zalim Quaneen ko Islami nayee manti” (We do not think amputating hands and legs of human beings is an appropriate thing to do. God is not cruel. I do not think that harsh laws can be Islamic). This statement, though now rarely quoted caused quite a stir in early 1990s. In fact the Imam of Badshahi Mosque even issued a fatwa against her. Other than her, I have never heard ANY politician utter such a statement. I wish that this statement had started a wave where people could have mustered enough courage to actually start a critical discourse on religious laws and on the role of religion in their lives. Sadly it merely created short term controversy and print media of those days lapped on it for creating sensational headlines. The statement could not define her legacy but nevertheless is an important indication of the stuff Benazir Bhutto was made of.

Benazir Bhutto inherited the party from Bhutto but in many ways she earned her title. After all when her brothers chose to stay outside and indulge in militant tactics she decided to adopt the political course and tried to engage with the supporters of her party. Even legacy politics need charismatic inheritors who can engage with the masses. It is that kind of mass populism which acts as a cancelling agent to religious fervour and its political manifestation at the mass level. Benazir Bhutto could do it brilliantly despite the fact that her Urdu was not as fluent as her father’s.

Her biggest achievement for the PPP was that she was able to glue the party after him. Her stature which was underpinned by much more than her blood linage ensured that unity prevailed. While it helped the party in the transitory phase as it needed a strong leader but in the longer run has proven counterproductive as legacy politics has become too entrenched.

In legacy politics the direction of a political party is often controlled by the cultish leader. PPP’s direction from 1986 owed largely to her vision and political outlook. PPP changed with times and Benazir while holding on to the legacy politics was very willing to embrace newer ideas. As socialism waned globally, Benazir was quick to reform her party’s ideological outlook and PPP started to transform from a centre left to economically conservative and socially liberal party. In fact the privatization program started with her tenure. She was also extremely keen on bringing in foreign investment and her second stint as Prime Minister witnessed huge investments in the power sector as several Independent Power Projects (IPPs) were set up. The move which was severely criticised by subsequent Nawaz Sharif government as being “unfair” to Pakistan, ultimately proved one of the most beneficial economic decisions taken by her government. As Pakistan suffered from terrible electricity shortages, the situation would have been virtually catastrophic if there were no IPPs.

Politically she was a realist though knew how to balance the pragmatism with ideological stance of the party. Her pragmatism emanated from her experience as a Prime Minister particularly her first tenure. She quickly realized that in Pakistan the “deep state” held all the keys and if her party aspired to have power, it could not go totally against the so called establishment. Therefore when Nawaz Sharif conspired to remove her from power in 1990, she returned him the favour in 1993 when she supported Ghulam Ishaq Khan in his efforts to remove him.

Moreover despite having liberal outlook she had no stupid romantic notions about militant parties like MQM. She was firmly behind the 1995-96 operation and understood that action was needed to eradicate militancy. She was pretty firm and did not yield to blackmailing tactics even when the killings mounted. At one time, corpses were being daily found in bags with chits attached to chest stating “Naseer Ullah Baber ke liey Tuhfa” (A gift for Naseer Ullah Baber).

I think it was her administrative quality which perhaps was her weakest trait. Her second tenure was riddled with severe controversies and in fact it alienated her core support which was reflected in 1996 elections. Although it is often claimed that in 1996 establishment rigged the elections but the reality was that PPP voter simply did not come out to vote. In fact throughout Punjab and NWFP, its candidates were getting less than 10,000 votes per constituency in the elections for national assembly seats.

It was the controversies of that tenure which continued to cast a deep shadow over the rest of Benazir’s life. All of the infamous cases are related to that period.

Despite going into exile in late 1990s, Benazir continued to have a lot of influence on the local politics and once Nawaz Sharif was again removed, her popularity witnessed resurgence. PPP became a key party after 2002 elections and in the last years of Musharraf regime was the most sought after party by the establishment and US alike for tackling rising extremism and for ensuring trouble less continuance of the battle against Islamic militants.

Things started to move in an uncontrollable direction after the lawyers movement started. Although now the PPP tries to call the movement “reactionary” but the fact is that during her life Benazir never publicly criticized it despite the fact that she knew that from pragmatic point of view, the movement though weakening Musharraf could also adversely affect her leverage. In fact PPP selectively supported the movement. An intelligent person like Benazir would have never supported the lawyers’ movement if it was totally “reactionary” particularly at that point. Of all the politicians, she was the best in striking a balance between political necessity and ideological orientation. In fact the fact that PPP in post Benazir time adopted delaying tactics allowed the right wing elements to literally hijack the movement. Had she been alive, things would have taken a better turn as she was far more astute than her successor.

Her death has obviously been a big blow to Pakistan’s prospects of becoming a more tolerant and moderate political entity. Religious extremism in fact benefited the most from her tragic death.

Moreover her tragic death also solidified the legacy politics as her successor had to be from her nearest relatives to keep the party intact. Dynasty politics became further entrenched and even Bilawal had to be renamed as Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. It is claimed by the PPP that BB Sahiba nominated the current Joint Chairman, Asif Ali Zardari. By following him, they are actually following her desires. And yet the ones who were near to Benazir during her lifetime and even her final moments like Sherry Rehman, Naheed Khan and Amin Fahim are now out of the limelight. If her wishes were that dear to PPP then people on whom Benazir had trust should not be given such treatment.

To be fair to the current chairman, PPP led government has tried to reach out to various ethnicities and tried to adopt reconciliatory approach. In some constitutional matters the party has fared quite well and has successfully brokered an improved NFC award. Provincial autonomy has also improved. However the quality of governance remains a problematic area.

It has to be understood that eventually people judge a government not merely on its ideological orientation but also on its actual performance in economic and administrative realm. And yes there will always be those who despite ideologically agreeing with a liberal party will nevertheless assess the actual performance and vote against it. In USA the registered Democrats far outnumber the registered Republicans and yet there have been Republican presidents and legislatures. Even in the recent midterm elections the conservatives make a strong comeback.

Merely calling the critics as “Pseudo Liberals” or members of naive “chattering classes” or “closet conservatives” will not do the trick. Pakistan Peoples Party has to improve its governance and since it is the mainstream liberal party it is critical that it improves. Likewise whipping Benazir’s and Bhutto’s name won’t make the issues with it disappear. A Shaheed may act as a powerful rallying force in one election but cannot deliver performance. Post Benazir PPP needs to realize that.

An image released by Pakistan's Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) on Nov. 30 shows smoke rising apparently after a cross-border NATO air strike on Pakistani border posts on a mountain in the Mohmand tribal district on Nov. 26, 2011.

Amid rising anger, Pakistan’s military has released a set of images which it says show the remote border posts attacked by NATO helicopters and fighter jets on Saturday in an incident that has soured relations between Pakistan and the United States.

Faisal Mahmood / Reuters

Young supporters of Jamaat-e-Islami, a religious and political party, yell anti-American slogans while protesting in Islamabad against a NATO cross-border attack along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, Nov. 27. Pakistan buried 24 troops killed in a NATO cross-border air attack that has pushed a crisis in relations between the United States and an ally it needs to fight militancy towards rupture.

The word “shaheed,” or martyr is written on the caskets of soldiers killed in a cross-border attack along the Pakistan-Afghan border, as their bodies are being carried for funeral prayers in Peshawar, Nov. 27.

 

Khuram Parvez / Reuters

A roadsign shows the distance to cities in Afghanistan and trucks parked along the roadside after traffic was halted at the Pakistani border town Torkham, Nov. 27. Pakistan blocked vital supply routes for U.S.-led troops in Afghanistan and demanded Washington vacate a base used by American drones after coalition aircraft allegedly killed 24 Pakistani troops.

Athar Hussain / Reuters

A Shi’ite cleric speaks to protesters after clashes between two religious sects of Islam in Karachi Nov. 27. Two people were killed and two others wounded in an exchange of fire between militants from majority Sunni and minority Shi’ite communities in the southern city of Karachi. Angry mobs set fire to several cars and motorcycles.

Athar Hussain / Reuters

Drivers, some of whom were carrying fuel for NATO forces in Afghanistan, sleep on top of their trucks at a fuel terminal in Karachi Nov. 26.

Faisal Mahmood / Reuters

Pakistani Army Chief General Ashfaq Kayani, left, speaks beside Chinese General Hou Shusen, the deputy chief of general staff of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA), during a news conference after joint military exercises in Jhelum, in Pakistan’s Punjab province, Nov. 24.

B.k.bangash / AP

Pakistan’s former Information Minister Sherry Rehman talks to reporters in Islamabad, Nov. 23. Pakistan appointed democracy activist Sherry Rehman, who has faced militant death threats, as its new ambassador to the United States, moving quickly to replace the old envoy who resigned after upsetting the country’s powerful military in a scandal dubbed “memo-gate.”

Arshad Arbab / EPA

Local residents look at the debris of a girls school after it was bombed by alleged Taliban militants on the outskirts of Peshawar. Nov. 13. Hundreds of educational institutions including dozens of girls schools have been bombed by the Taliban militants in past months in country’s militancy-hit north-west region.

B.k.bangash / AP

Pakistani children takes ride during at a local park during the last day of the religious festival Eid-al- Adha in Islamabad, Nov. 9.

Published in Tehelka.

Filed under: Pakistan

In a society where everybody’s guilty, the only crime is getting caught; in a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. That, some would say, sums up the world in which Husain Haqqani lost his job as Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States.

The swift action to replace Haqqani with Sherry Rehman will probably limit the fallout in Islamabad. But the brouhaha about Haqqani’s alleged guilt should not obscure the compulsory introspection about Pakistan’s relations with the outside world and with itself – both of which are clearly not working.

In the last week as the memo scandal has raged and obsessed the press in Pakistan, the US has been conspicuous only by its silence. “I have nothing to say on this specific issue,” said the state department spokesperson. After Haqqani’s resignation, the deputy spokesman also refused to comment, saying it was Haqqani’s personal issue with Pakistan’s sitting leadership that had appointed him and the US had nothing to do with it. Most recently, US ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron Munter, also made it clear that Pakistan was on its own: “We just leave it to the Pakistani authorities…Whatever [the] solution…that’s for Pakistan to decide.”

For a country that has so often been characterised as the world’s policeman; that has used the bully pulpit of ‘democracy promotion’ to palaver, browbeat and sometimes even to cheat; that has changed the very definition of “foreign policy leadership” from being about leading the American people in the formation and execution of national policy to the US leading other nations in the international arena, is this sudden, convenient ‘it’s not my tail to wag’ attitude believable?

Washington has through the decades ‘led’ people around the world by helping them remove their ‘inauthentic’ leaders, the so-called enemies of freedom even when the people chose them. In a similar vein, it has also helped protect those it has valued for whatever reason. Was Haqqani, then, as precious to the Americans as he imagined? By extension, should president Zardari, the most important ally in the war against terror, be worried?

For an administration that doesn’t give a toss about anything but cutting a deal in Afghanistan and which has a short timeframe to get this done, what’s a Haqqani? What’s a Zardari?

Not to overstate the point, but that is perhaps the most awkward aspect of the Memogate controversy: that a two-term chairman joint chiefs of staff, Mike Mullen, considered the braggadocio of a unlaundered loudmouth, Mansoor Ijaz, worthy first of a denial and then a confirmation – followed by not a squeak out of anyone in the US administration as the noose was tightened around Haqqani’s neck. Let’s not forget this is the same guy the US has hailed as being a relentless pro-democracy activist, the man who had “an answer to everything,” the only ambassador with the authority to stand in place for his sovereigns.

But in the words, again, of Ambassador Munter: Pak-US relations are stronger than any memo. Which is just another way of saying Pak-US relations are stronger than Husain Haqqani. Which probably comes as a surprise to the former ambassador who was his own one-man PR machine for being the last of few trusted go-betweens in a relationship reduced to bruising political sparring in recent times. And yet, there he was, left holding the bag, abandoned to the storm by his friends in high places. The hardest-working man in Washington left jobless, just like that.

A wise man cured of ambition by ambition itself; or a wise man who wasn’t wise enough to realise he was being set up at multiple levels?

And while we’re on the question of being set up: why did Mansoor Ijaz out a process that, by his own admission, was highly confidential, for which he and the ambassador used fictitious email addresses and code to communicate with each other and about which he has publically admitted to understanding “God forbid this information gets public…”

But there’s more: one conversation with Ijaz and it becomes clear how much premium he purportedly puts on friendship. “When an old friend comes to me and says I got a problem, I go and make sure that problem gets solved.” That’s the kind of great friend Ijaz says he is. The kind who understands that outing the memo would mean outing everyone involved in the chain of delivery, including ‘one of my closest friends,’ General Jim Jones.

So did Ijaz break the one thing fundamental to any friendship – trust – by outing the memo and with it his friends, in passing, in an op-ed? Or did he tell his friends what he was going to do and they gave him the go-ahead, with a full understanding of the implications not just for Haqqani and civilian ascendency in Pakistan but also for the US administration that would inevitably get dragged into the mess, given that Mullen’s fingerprints were all over it?

These are questions better dealt with penseroso than allegro. For now, all we know is that after the Memogate scandal, we are left with an already cuckolded civilian leadership further weakened, the defences of an army unwilling to brook criticism further buttressed – and the ultimate question: has the US abandoned its Pakistani dogs to the storm?

If diplomacy is the art of saying ‘nice doggie’ until you find a rock, has the US found its rock?

(From The News, Pakistan)

Related articles

• Haqqani leaves for Pakistan over secret memo (nation.com.pk)
• ‘Memogate’ Fallout: Pakistani Ambassador to U.S. Resigns (abcnews.go.com)
• What’s behind the furor in Pakistan? (cnn.com)
• Haqqani wants Ijaz’s records probed (thehindu.com)
• Pakistani Ambassador to U.S., Husain Haqqani, Is Forced Out (nytimes.com)

© 2011, Mehreen Zahra-Malik. This article may not be reproduced in any form without providing an active attribution link/ reference to The Pakistan Forum. All attribution links within the article must also be retained.