WASHINGTON: The lawyers protesting against the imposition of emergency and demanding the restoration of pre-emergency judges in Pakistan have created a fund to support those lawyers and judges who are faced with financial hardship during their struggle against the emergency rule.
In a statement isssued on Wednesday, Iqbal Haider mentioned that the fund account is titled as ‘Legal Aid,’ ( in Habib Bank Ltd High Court Branch, Karachi) and will be operated by Justices Wajihuddin Ahmed, Nasir Aslam Zahid and Majida Rizvi together with Barrister Anwar Mansoor Khan and Iqbal Haider.
(Rana Fawad)
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
NYTimes.com: Back in Pakistan, Sharif Condemns Musharraf
INTERNATIONAL / ASIA PACIFIC November 27, 2007 Back in Pakistan, Sharif Condemns Musharraf By JANE PERLEZ Nawaz Sharif, the religiously conservative former prime minister, demanded an end to emergency rule.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Pakistanis to protest in London
LONDON: The Doctors Against Breaches of Human Rights in Pakistan has planned a protest demonstration opposite Downing Street in London on December 1 (Saturday) at 1:00 pm.
The protesters' agenda includes demands for restoration of the pre-PCO judiciary, release of all political prisoners, and restoration of democracy in Pakistan.
(Zulfiqar Ali)
The protesters' agenda includes demands for restoration of the pre-PCO judiciary, release of all political prisoners, and restoration of democracy in Pakistan.
(Zulfiqar Ali)
Musharraf Foe Threatens Protests
INTERNATIONAL / ASIA PACIFIC November 27, 2007 By JANE PERLEZ Former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, back from exile, said he would lead protests if his demands were not met... (The New York Times)
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Sharif gets a hero's welcome
Ten of thousands of supporters hail the deported leader's return to Pakistan as the politics get more complicated.
By Laura King
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
November 25 2007, 1:09 PM PST
LAHORE, Pakistan — Tens of thousands of cheering, chanting supporters showered former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif with rose petals as he triumphantly returned from exile today, posing a thorny new challenge not only to President Pervez Musharraf but also to the pro-Western opposition leader Benazir Bhutto.
The complete article can be viewed at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pakistan26nov26,1,5270818.story?coll=la-headlines-world
Visit latimes.com at http://www.latimes.com
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Next terror attack will be “postmarked Pakistan”: Republican candidate
WASHINGTON: According to a speech covered by the Baltimore Sun on Saturday, Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee remarked the next terror attack on the U.S. will be "postmarked Pakistan" but added “he believes that nation will continue to cooperate with American anti-terrorism efforts.” He was addressing a gathering in South Carolina.
Huckabee also commented, "If there is an imminent threat to the American people, then I think it is the responsibility of a president of this country to do whatever he has to do to protect you, me and the rest of us standing here." (Rana Fawad)
Huckabee also commented, "If there is an imminent threat to the American people, then I think it is the responsibility of a president of this country to do whatever he has to do to protect you, me and the rest of us standing here." (Rana Fawad)
Friday, November 23, 2007
Musharraf forewarned US about emergency plan
WASHINGTON: The Wall Street Journal on Friday reported that Musharraf and his officials warned the US diplomats in Islamabad about the emergency before its imposition on November 3. The paper says the ‘muted’ US response led the Musharraf regime to believe it could go ahead with the emergency plan.
“As his government battled democracy protesters and an Islamist insurgency, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf startled his countrymen this month by imposing emergency rule and jailing thousands of opponents. The move wasn't a surprise to the U.S.,” the paper reports. (Rana Fawad)
“As his government battled democracy protesters and an Islamist insurgency, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf startled his countrymen this month by imposing emergency rule and jailing thousands of opponents. The move wasn't a surprise to the U.S.,” the paper reports. (Rana Fawad)
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Aitzaz Ashan inches towards Cambridge doctorate
By Rana Fawad
WASHINGTON: President Pakistan Supreme Court Bar Association Ch Aitzaz Ahsan's name has been shortlisted for the Honorary Doctorate (LLD) by the Law Department of the University of Cambridge.
His name was proposed by the Cambridge Law Society. However, it still requires further approvals even outside the law department.
Ch Aitzaz Ahsan is a senior advocate as well as politician affiliated with the Pakistan Peoples Party. He successfully represented the deposed Chief Justice of Pakistan's Supreme Court Iftikhar Ahmad Ch during his first removal by President General Musharraf and was in the forefront of the popular movement.
He was elected President of the SCBA on October 27 by securing 864 out of 1,210 votes cast against his rivals' 175 votes.
Before the emergency rule was imposed and the SC judges were deposed, Aitzaz Ashan was arguing his case against President General Musharraf's eligibility to contest the presidential elections before November 3. He is behind bars ever since.
WASHINGTON: President Pakistan Supreme Court Bar Association Ch Aitzaz Ahsan's name has been shortlisted for the Honorary Doctorate (LLD) by the Law Department of the University of Cambridge.
His name was proposed by the Cambridge Law Society. However, it still requires further approvals even outside the law department.
Ch Aitzaz Ahsan is a senior advocate as well as politician affiliated with the Pakistan Peoples Party. He successfully represented the deposed Chief Justice of Pakistan's Supreme Court Iftikhar Ahmad Ch during his first removal by President General Musharraf and was in the forefront of the popular movement.
He was elected President of the SCBA on October 27 by securing 864 out of 1,210 votes cast against his rivals' 175 votes.
Before the emergency rule was imposed and the SC judges were deposed, Aitzaz Ashan was arguing his case against President General Musharraf's eligibility to contest the presidential elections before November 3. He is behind bars ever since.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Where We Went Wrong In Pakistan
The Washington Post's Op-Ed columnist Michael Gerson thinks, "Immediately after Musharraf's imposition of emergency rule this month, the options were also limited. The administration could have urged the Pakistani military to overthrow Musharraf -- or pressured him to get back on track by restoring civil liberties, taking off his uniform and conducting quick, fair elections. President Bush took the latter course..."
The Washington Post's Op-Ed columnist Michael Gerson thinks, "Immediately after Musharraf's imposition of emergency rule this month, the options were also limited. The administration could have urged the Pakistani military to overthrow Musharraf -- or pressured him to get back on track by restoring civil liberties, taking off his uniform and conducting quick, fair elections. President Bush took the latter course..."
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Emergency being lifted in Pakistan?
WASHINGTON: A Pakistani newspaper daily Express has claimed the government will lift the emergency rule and added that President General Pervez Musharraf will announce the decision after his arrival from Saudi Arabia.
The paper adds the decision seems to be the result of immense pressure from the US, Commonwealth and European countries.
The paper adds the decision seems to be the result of immense pressure from the US, Commonwealth and European countries.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Pakistan and security challanges
Pakistan and Afghanistan, however, are having increasing difficulty getting beyond
the personal animosity between their leaders and the legacy of hostility
they inherited, writes Teresita C Schaffer in 'Global Forecast: The Top Security Challenges of 2008' published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (Washington) last week
Please click on Perils of Pakistan to read the essay.
the personal animosity between their leaders and the legacy of hostility
they inherited, writes Teresita C Schaffer in 'Global Forecast: The Top Security Challenges of 2008' published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (Washington) last week
Please click on Perils of Pakistan to read the essay.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
US Army proposes to woo tribal leaders in Pakistan: NYT
WASHINGTON: According to a news story carried by the New York Times on Sunday (Nov 18), the US army has proposed a plan to seek direct support of Pakistani tribal leaders in an attempt to root out Al Qaeda from the Pak-Afghan border areas.
The paper reports that under the new strategy (if approved) the American army trainers’ presence, which stands at 50 at present, in Pakistan would increase to many dozens while militias willing to fight Al Qaeda would receive direct financial support.
The report mentions that the new proposed strategy is inspired from the success story of Anbar Province in Iraq . However, the paper questions the outcome in Pakistan without a heavy US Army presence.
For the NYT story, please click on ‘U.S. Considers Enlisting Tribes in Pakistan to Fight Al Qaeda’
WASHINGTON: According to a news story carried by the New York Times on Sunday (Nov 18), the US army has proposed a plan to seek direct support of Pakistani tribal leaders in an attempt to root out Al Qaeda from the Pak-Afghan border areas.
The paper reports that under the new strategy (if approved) the American army trainers’ presence, which stands at 50 at present, in Pakistan would increase to many dozens while militias willing to fight Al Qaeda would receive direct financial support.
The report mentions that the new proposed strategy is inspired from the success story of Anbar Province in Iraq . However, the paper questions the outcome in Pakistan without a heavy US Army presence.
For the NYT story, please click on ‘U.S. Considers Enlisting Tribes in Pakistan to Fight Al Qaeda’
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Remittances soared 41pc to $580m in Oct
The News (Pakistan) Sunday, November 18, 2007
By our correspondentKARACHI: Remittances sent home by overseas Pakistanis reached a record level of $580.24 million in October 2007 compared to $410.61 million in the same month last year, showing a jump of $169.63 million or 41.31 per cent.
The News (Pakistan) Sunday, November 18, 2007
By our correspondentKARACHI: Remittances sent home by overseas Pakistanis reached a record level of $580.24 million in October 2007 compared to $410.61 million in the same month last year, showing a jump of $169.63 million or 41.31 per cent.
Former Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif shares his views in The Washington Post
Pakistan's One-Man Calamity
By Nawaz Sharif
My country is in flames because of Musharraf's lust for power.
Friday, November 16, 2007
CSIS-MEI event (Part II)
'US turned a blind eye to Pakistan’s nuclear program'
By Rana Fawad
Another audience member Shuja Nawaz said though he could read only a small portion of the book due to the recent events [emergency declaration in Pakistan], he had doubts about the accuracy of certain points mentioned by the authors. He said the book made rather startling claim about Mushrraf teaming up with Usama bin Laden to sort out Shia in Gilgit. He told the authors that Musharraf at that time was a Brigadier in Khaarian (Punjab) and was not posted anywhere in the northern areas and this could be verified even from Musharraf’s own book.
Referring to the book’s claim regarding Hamid Gul’s statement that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and the Americans prevented him from becoming the next Chief of Army Staff and that Nawaz Sharif removed him from the army, Shuja said it was totally inaccurate. He added that Hamid Gul was removed by the then army chief and not by Nawaz Sharif and added, “Nawaz Sharif, in fact, supported him for the post of army chief.”
Shuja Nawaz said he was just concerned that picking up a lot of information from the web and including into the book could undermine the authenticity of the contents. He also commented that the authors could be accused of ‘hoovering’ instead of sifting through the contents and, “that’s the danger we all face when we try to collect so much information and try to make sense of it.”
Adrian responded by saying that the book is based on hundreds of face-to-face interviews while Catherine said that they collected material from many different sources.
To a question by Simon Henderson that since the authors quoted Peter Griffin saying he was always paid with a check from the Pakistan Military, did that include the work he was doing on the Libyan project post-2001, Catherine replied Peter told them he was still getting money through a private bank (Habib Bank) and he believed it was official money and not coming out of Khan’s private accounts.
She added that they did not believe everything what Peter said but in an effort to clear his name he gave them a lot of documents to show his role in the Libyan program.
When asked whether the authors paid Peter any money, because according to his own dealings with Peter, he would not give him anything without money, Catherine said they did not pay any money to Peter for getting information.
Responding to a question by an audience member that the American media hardly reported anything when Musharraf released 24 Taliban last weekend when he declared Martial Law, Catherine said that’s something he should ask the American media.
To a question that the authors are reinforcing a dangerous trend who has the right to posses as well as police nuclear weapons and who should not, Adrian replied that broadly speaking there was a system of nonproliferation in place, though there were exceptions to the standards like Israel which perhaps would be the subject of the next book. He said it was enormously difficult question. “I understand the motivation for the Pakistani program. India began the arms race in 1974 and Pakistan was reacting,” he added.
As for the enforcement, he acknowledged that the double standard was involved in the decisions made but it should also be looked into whether those decisions regarding the nonproliferation made the world safer or not.
A freelance journalist Agarwal commented that he was impressed by the descriptive analysis but in terms of Pakistan’s motivation was its 99 per cent focus on India not the West.
Catherine replied she agreed with the viewpoint that India was and would remain its enemy because in 1971 India with the help of the secessionist movement in East Pakistan, India was able to halve Pakistan’s territory in 16 days and the Pakistan Army, of which people like Musharraf were officers, was made to look absolutely enfeebled. She added that many times in his military career Musharraf had wanted to right that wrong in Kashmir.
Dr Poudel of National Advisory Council for South Asian Affairs asked what single advice the authors would like to offer to the people in the US to prevent Pakistan form doing such things in the future. Adrian commented that China was the key which was ignored so far. He said China was an extraordinary ally of Pakistan and had been providing it with political as well as technical assistance almost for nothing and sometimes no payment were made at all. He believed China could play its role as a broker as it did in the N Korean affair to bring N Korea back to talks.
He also observed that there was a willful ignoring of the philosophy of Pakistan's military. He said it was not Mushrraf or the Islamists but the equation was Musharraf and the Islamists. He said there was a pattern of manipulation of the Islamist factions and commented that Musharraf’s allies were those Islamists (MMA) who never had electoral success in the country.
He stressed for a correct analysis to understand what Pakistan needed to feel secure rather than guessing and misunderstanding the strategy.
To a question by David Isenberg (of the British American Security Information Council) that to what extent the elements of Dr Khan’s network or similar networks are still utilizing those illicit and clandestine channels, Catherine replied that there had been suggestions that some of the key figures of the Khan network were still operating but there was no evidence on that and there had been no prosecutions yet.
Co-host of the event, President MEI and former US ambassador to Pakistan Wendy J Chamberlin commented that she would not support cutting off aid to Pakistan as a result of Musharraf’s declaration of emergency because “our relationship is with the Pakistani people.”
She said the suspension of aid would hurt the fields of education, democratic capacity building, health, and some of the useful assistance along the border. She suggested the aid should be cut off to the big ticket items in the defense category and shifted to strengthen the judiciary and the building of community police force.
She said so far the question discussed was whether the world was safer with Pakistan’s nuclear program and the answer was certainly not. She pointed out that another question ‘was Pakistan safe’ should also be asked because Pakistan has nuclear arsenal which it used as a deterrent against India when India moved its nuclear devices close to the border as a result of an attack on the Indian Parliament in December 2001.
She told the audience that at that time she was ambassador in Islamabad and Musharraf had made it clear that he would use the nuclear bomb in response.
Adrian commented that Pakistan used the same deterrent in the opposite direction at least on three occasions in 1990 and 1999. He said certain experts believed that there was a state of mind building in Pakistan's military in 1999 to use this deterrent for adventurous play against India.
As for allegation that the US military aid was used for the purchase of F-16s, Larry Robinson clarified that the sale contained no aid component and F-16s were bought entirely by Pakistan’s own funds. He added that the military aid was being used for the counter insurgency mode only.
Analyzing the future of the Pak-US partnership, Dr Marvin Weinbaum commented that there was a growing realization here in Washington that Musharraf was no longer a part of any solution. He said Musharraf had become such a lightening rod himself that any stabilization of our relationship would have to be without him.
Concluded.
'US turned a blind eye to Pakistan’s nuclear program'
By Rana Fawad
Another audience member Shuja Nawaz said though he could read only a small portion of the book due to the recent events [emergency declaration in Pakistan], he had doubts about the accuracy of certain points mentioned by the authors. He said the book made rather startling claim about Mushrraf teaming up with Usama bin Laden to sort out Shia in Gilgit. He told the authors that Musharraf at that time was a Brigadier in Khaarian (Punjab) and was not posted anywhere in the northern areas and this could be verified even from Musharraf’s own book.
Referring to the book’s claim regarding Hamid Gul’s statement that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and the Americans prevented him from becoming the next Chief of Army Staff and that Nawaz Sharif removed him from the army, Shuja said it was totally inaccurate. He added that Hamid Gul was removed by the then army chief and not by Nawaz Sharif and added, “Nawaz Sharif, in fact, supported him for the post of army chief.”
Shuja Nawaz said he was just concerned that picking up a lot of information from the web and including into the book could undermine the authenticity of the contents. He also commented that the authors could be accused of ‘hoovering’ instead of sifting through the contents and, “that’s the danger we all face when we try to collect so much information and try to make sense of it.”
Adrian responded by saying that the book is based on hundreds of face-to-face interviews while Catherine said that they collected material from many different sources.
To a question by Simon Henderson that since the authors quoted Peter Griffin saying he was always paid with a check from the Pakistan Military, did that include the work he was doing on the Libyan project post-2001, Catherine replied Peter told them he was still getting money through a private bank (Habib Bank) and he believed it was official money and not coming out of Khan’s private accounts.
She added that they did not believe everything what Peter said but in an effort to clear his name he gave them a lot of documents to show his role in the Libyan program.
When asked whether the authors paid Peter any money, because according to his own dealings with Peter, he would not give him anything without money, Catherine said they did not pay any money to Peter for getting information.
Responding to a question by an audience member that the American media hardly reported anything when Musharraf released 24 Taliban last weekend when he declared Martial Law, Catherine said that’s something he should ask the American media.
To a question that the authors are reinforcing a dangerous trend who has the right to posses as well as police nuclear weapons and who should not, Adrian replied that broadly speaking there was a system of nonproliferation in place, though there were exceptions to the standards like Israel which perhaps would be the subject of the next book. He said it was enormously difficult question. “I understand the motivation for the Pakistani program. India began the arms race in 1974 and Pakistan was reacting,” he added.
As for the enforcement, he acknowledged that the double standard was involved in the decisions made but it should also be looked into whether those decisions regarding the nonproliferation made the world safer or not.
A freelance journalist Agarwal commented that he was impressed by the descriptive analysis but in terms of Pakistan’s motivation was its 99 per cent focus on India not the West.
Catherine replied she agreed with the viewpoint that India was and would remain its enemy because in 1971 India with the help of the secessionist movement in East Pakistan, India was able to halve Pakistan’s territory in 16 days and the Pakistan Army, of which people like Musharraf were officers, was made to look absolutely enfeebled. She added that many times in his military career Musharraf had wanted to right that wrong in Kashmir.
Dr Poudel of National Advisory Council for South Asian Affairs asked what single advice the authors would like to offer to the people in the US to prevent Pakistan form doing such things in the future. Adrian commented that China was the key which was ignored so far. He said China was an extraordinary ally of Pakistan and had been providing it with political as well as technical assistance almost for nothing and sometimes no payment were made at all. He believed China could play its role as a broker as it did in the N Korean affair to bring N Korea back to talks.
He also observed that there was a willful ignoring of the philosophy of Pakistan's military. He said it was not Mushrraf or the Islamists but the equation was Musharraf and the Islamists. He said there was a pattern of manipulation of the Islamist factions and commented that Musharraf’s allies were those Islamists (MMA) who never had electoral success in the country.
He stressed for a correct analysis to understand what Pakistan needed to feel secure rather than guessing and misunderstanding the strategy.
To a question by David Isenberg (of the British American Security Information Council) that to what extent the elements of Dr Khan’s network or similar networks are still utilizing those illicit and clandestine channels, Catherine replied that there had been suggestions that some of the key figures of the Khan network were still operating but there was no evidence on that and there had been no prosecutions yet.
Co-host of the event, President MEI and former US ambassador to Pakistan Wendy J Chamberlin commented that she would not support cutting off aid to Pakistan as a result of Musharraf’s declaration of emergency because “our relationship is with the Pakistani people.”
She said the suspension of aid would hurt the fields of education, democratic capacity building, health, and some of the useful assistance along the border. She suggested the aid should be cut off to the big ticket items in the defense category and shifted to strengthen the judiciary and the building of community police force.
She said so far the question discussed was whether the world was safer with Pakistan’s nuclear program and the answer was certainly not. She pointed out that another question ‘was Pakistan safe’ should also be asked because Pakistan has nuclear arsenal which it used as a deterrent against India when India moved its nuclear devices close to the border as a result of an attack on the Indian Parliament in December 2001.
She told the audience that at that time she was ambassador in Islamabad and Musharraf had made it clear that he would use the nuclear bomb in response.
Adrian commented that Pakistan used the same deterrent in the opposite direction at least on three occasions in 1990 and 1999. He said certain experts believed that there was a state of mind building in Pakistan's military in 1999 to use this deterrent for adventurous play against India.
As for allegation that the US military aid was used for the purchase of F-16s, Larry Robinson clarified that the sale contained no aid component and F-16s were bought entirely by Pakistan’s own funds. He added that the military aid was being used for the counter insurgency mode only.
Analyzing the future of the Pak-US partnership, Dr Marvin Weinbaum commented that there was a growing realization here in Washington that Musharraf was no longer a part of any solution. He said Musharraf had become such a lightening rod himself that any stabilization of our relationship would have to be without him.
Concluded.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
