US: TERROR POLITICS?

Why Osama will be...!
Alive! There are reasons to kill Osama, and there are reasons to keep him alive; Pakistan, and the US, look decisively tilted towards the latter

May 11, 2010: In context with the failed attempt of the Times Square bombing, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warns that Pakistan would face “severe consequences” if a future terrorist attack on US soil was traced back to Pakistan and said, “…Pak officials know where bin Laden, al Qaeda, Mullah Omar and the Afghan Taliban leadership are.” A few days later, she reiterates her warning (albeit in a relatively softer tone) and said, “There is more that Pakistan must do to face what is now a common enemy…” May 12, 2010: The US Defence Secretary Robert Gates bellows, “The relationship between the two anti-terror allies [aka, USA and Pakistan] has improved significantly over the last two years.”

In the two statements above, which are obviously contradictory, the usage of word “ally” does raise critical concerns. When one juxtaposes this with the latest leakage of thousands of secret US military records by a whistle-blowing site WikiLeaks, which proves Pakistan’s deep complicity in terrorist activities, US pro-Pak political intentions suddenly become suspiciously dangerous, as the US and especially Barack Obama ostensibly are still not convinced enough to declare Pakistan as a terrorist state, amazingly turning a blind eye to what seems crystal clear to the rest of the world!

But wait! Barack’s bent clearly must be a put-on, in his efforts to get Pakistan’s assistance to catch Osama bin Laden, right? At least initially, it seemed so. But of late, Barack’s double entendres just can’t be ignored. While Barack announced that his administration would stick with pulling out US troops from Iraq (down from a peak 150,000 to 50,000 by the end of this month), he has concurrently increased the deployment of US soldiers in Afghanistan (up from 68,000 to 100,000). With a shrewd redeployment, it’s quite clear that the US is simply gaining avenues to increase its influence over Central Asia. Without the excuse of hunting down Osama bin Laden and Taliban, the US would surely have faced global admonition on troop deployment.

On the other side of the coin, the presence of Osama and the controlled nurturing of Taliban and anti-India elements allows Pakistan to keep receiving spectacularly humungous aid from the US, most of the moneys going to the personal pockets of local bureaucrats and politicians in Pakistan, a handful of who – by some accounts – are now close to becoming billionaires. Pre-Osama, from 1991 till 2000, Pakistan received $434.2 million as economic and military assistance aid from the US. Post Osama (9/11), from 2001 till 2009, Pakistan has received a shocking $15 billion from the US; and Obama had deftly announced another hollering $7.5 billion in October 2009! 

Newsweek reported late last year that officials at the US embassy in Islamabad alleged that “Pakistan misspent some 70% of the US funds!” Pakistan is also accused of “running a double game with the money, keeping the Taliban at bay just enough to persuade American benefactors to keep their wallets open.” Not that this was a State secret; but the benign nature of Barack Obama’s response – or lack of it – is astounding! On August 2, 2010, Obama commented that Pakistan is beginning to “take the fight to violent extremists within its borders.” That sounds as far from the truth as possible.

Thomas Friedman writes in this week’s issue of The Sunday Indian, “The 9/11 attack was basically planned, executed and funded by radical Pakistanis and Saudis.” Fareed Zakaria confirms, “70 percent of the terror plots uncovered in the past decade can be traced back to Pakistan,” a country which, Zakaria adds, is “the epicentre of Islamic terrorism!”

Is Barack Obama blind or are we plain nutty? The practice of keeping anti-social elements alive for political and economic benefits is not just a western phenomenon. In the Asian continent, the most famous case was of a forest brigand cum smuggler in Southern India, called Koose Muniswamy Veerappan, who – in spite of being charged of murdering 184 people, poaching around 200 elephants, smuggling ivory and sandalwood worth $24,600,000, kidnapping the who’s who of the political and entertainment world – never saw the local government ordering swift action against the criminal, mainly because a considerable amount of money flowed into the territory due to his staying alive and in action.

Similar is the case with bin Laden. His living means more to Pakistan than to any other entity. Barack’s refusal to call a spade what it is, will go down in history as perhaps the worst two-faced moves ever made. Friedman quotes, “If you are in a poker game and you don’t know who the sucker is, it’s probably you!” Obama, ever wondered why Chelsea never invited you for her wedding?

Pakistan: unending betrayal

Why India must humiliate Pakistan!

Pakistan openly continues sponsoring terrorist activities against India. Why should India even talk with Pakistan then?

“The P word!” TIME magazine’s Bobby Ghosh quotes a top counterterrorism official, “When I hear of a terrorist plot, I can count back from 10, and before I get to zero, someone will bring up the P word.” P stands for Pakistan, a country, as Fareed Zakaria confirms, is “terrorism’s supermarket” –  70% of terror plots identified by the UK government have been “traced back” to Pakistan. Yet, US advises India to resume its diplomatic talks with Pakistan. How more churlish could that be?

The acrimony between India and Pakistan is decades old, and it doesn’t require a rote numbskull Jane’s defence analyst (or the sophomore upstart Ms. Clinton, if you please) to understand that Pakistan is no Castro loving Trotskyite bent on ensuring India’s social betterment. Pakistan is what Pakistan has been for the past many years – an incendiary anarchist nation, which unfortunately has a like-minded arsonist government establishment that promotes, funds and implements well-planned terrorist and extremist activities against India, and of late, the West too. While India for ages had pleaded with the international community to recognise Pakistan as a terrorist state, the West had daftly rejected the proposition time and again – and more because they were not the addressed recipients of Pakistan’s loving infatuation communiqués. They are now.

Given that, it is extremely wrong that India can be forced by the US to resume talks with Pakistan. In fact, this should have been the moment when India – and the international community – should have openly humiliated the Pakistani establishment, bringing them to task in the same manner as has been done in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.

India has received a spate of betrayals and hollow promises from Pakistan. After nearly every other attack within India by Pakistan-backed terror groups, the Pakistani government has come up with highly promising compendiums of support, with a specific objective of buying time for the next attack. Some nuggets:

February 1999: Pakistan signs the ‘historic’ Lahore Declaration, promising to work towards a peaceful and bilateral solution to the Kashmir issue.

May 1999: Pakistan army clandestinely attacks and takes over Kargil. India retaliates and takes back lost territory.

July 2001: Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf (considered the Kargil mastermind) comes to India for the Agra Summit, peddled by Pakistan as peace talks.

December 2001: The Indian Parliament is attacked by a well trained set of terrorists, funded by agencies within Pakistan. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf promises to crack down on terrorist groups. It is found  that Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI) was the one funding the attack.

January 2002: Musharraf promises again that “no organisation will be allowed to indulge in terrorism in the name of Kashmir.” This is immediately followed by several terror attacks, topped in May 2002 by a terrorist attack on an army camp in Kashmir, which kills at least 30 people.

July 2006: Terror strikes in Mumbai local trains in July 2006. Prime suspects – SIMI, Lashkar-e-Toiba and ISI.

July 2008: Indian embassy destroyed in Kabul by terrorist attack, killing 58. New York Times confirms ISI involvement. Pakistan denies all accusations.

November 2008: Terrorists land on Mumbai shores from Pakistan and randomly fire at and bomb various targets, killing 173. One terrorist captured alive confirms Pakistan establishment’s complete involvement. Pakistan denies everything, and promises (again) to handover gangster Dawood Ibrahim and terrorist leader Masood Azhar if India provides “evidence.” India does, Pakistan doesn’t!

The list of Pakistan’s hellhound extremist orientation is clearly unending, yet what remains unbelievable is America’s continued financial support to this failed state – on December 2009, in the latest tranche,  Pakistan received a $7.5 billion US aid package to ostensibly strengthen counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations. Much of this will be used against India; some against US too.

If US representatives, on May 3, 2010, can humiliate Iran (a country that has no intentions of becoming a nuclear armed state; and one that openly denounces terrorist activities) by walking out of the UN assembly when Iranian President Ahmedinejad starts speaking, then why shouldn’t India too openly humiliate Pakistan (a certified nuclear armed state, openly supporting terrorism) by walking out of nonsensical peace talks? On May 7, 2010, Hillary Clinton commented, “Somewhere in the Pakistan government are people who know where Osama bin Laden is.” Good morning Ms.Clinton, the Ambien seems to be wearing off finally. 

Pervez Musharraf - dictator in democracy

Give me my legal right this time - The Return of the Last Samuri...

Ex-President Pervez Musharraf’s desire to enter Pakistan’s politics, again, has some good and some bad with it. However, the good seems to surpass the bad at the moment

Few were ready to denote General Pervez Musharraf’s Presidential exit and his unannounced exile as his walk into the sunset; the general view was that he would return to fight another day. It seems that the time has come, as he seeks the company’s top post again, albeit via the democratic route this time. In his address on Feburary 16, 2010, to the Chatham House think-tank, he said, “I love my country and I would do anything for Pakistan. However, it is for the people of Pakistan who need to decide… I have to come through the political process, through the process of elections. But I think it’s very good, it’s very good because I think I will have that legitimacy, which I never had…” This remark of Musharraf shows that he still lives in the belief that this reign (rather eight year long dictatorial regime) was the most successful political period in the history of Pakistan. In addition, he expects the Pakistani people to now vote for him and bring him back to power. And as he admits himself, being a dictator wasn’t helping his cause either.

There is no denial to the fact that Pakistan, today, is in a process of utter disintegration. A brief recall of Pakistan’s past will make it clear that the ground for Pakistan’s disintegration was all set during Musharraf’s presidency. It was actually during Musharraf’s time that corruption found its new highs within the whole bureaucratic hierarchy. Today, Musharraf stays in one of London’s most expensive areas. Covertly and overtly supporting terrorist and extremist blocks and even manipulating their actions against India, Musharraf is an excellent example of how shrewd scheming and manipulation can be diplomatically window dressed in hyperbole words.

Musharraf has himself admitted boldly that the Kashmiri insurgency was fathered in Pakistan. But in the same voice, he also says that the Indian Muslim youth are increasingly feeling alienated. Strangely, one doesn’t hear him commenting on Pakistani Muslim youth that much. While stating his desire to return to power – and commenting that the Pakistani people need to decide on the issue – Musharraf forgets that it’s the same people who want him to be punished for the mammoth money laundering case that is still pending against him.

But then, Pakistan also saw something remarkable in Musharraf’s time. Between 1999 to 2007, Pakistan’s economy, revenue, per capita income, exports grew by 100% while foreign reserves, stock exchange, foreign direct investment grew by a jaw dropping 500%. The country also saw marked reductions in poverty and illiteracy levels. In 2006, Pakistan was the 3rd fastest growing economy of the world and a preferred destination for investment and also saw its ranking in almost all international lists improving. This dictator also gave licenses to almost 50 TV channels to operate.

But then, the current gloomy future of Pakistan is not safe for India’s internal security. Undoubtedly, if Pakistan disintegrates, the probability of the power and nuclear weapons falling into the hands of extremists will be quite high. In the given situation, would Musharraf be a good choice for India to support as the President? That’s a choice between the Devil and the Deep Sea, as India stands a loser whichever way the Pakistani cookie crumbles. Irrespective of any person in power in Pakistan, India would be seen as a legacy enemy and a violator of the rights of Kashmir. To that end, the American hold over Pakistan – however managed – is not only to India’s benefit, but to the whole region as well.

A joke in Pakistan goes like this. With 50% of Pakistani citizens illiterate, at any given moment only half of them make sensible statements. Musharraf qualifies on that statistic pretty well. He makes sense only half the time.