Monday, August 27, 2007

Benazir Bhutto's 2nd Interview with Newsweek

Benazir Bhutto's Interview with Newsweek Sept. 3, 2007

It looks like Pervez Musharraf's days as president of Pakistan may be numbered if he does not change course. With one rival, former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, threatening to return to Pakistan, Musharraf has been meeting with another former archenemy, Benazir Bhutto, about a possible power-sharing arrangement. Bhutto, twice prime minister of Pakistan and currently leader of the popular opposition PPP party, is on the verge of deciding whether to strike a deal with Musharraf. Either way, she expects to leave her family shortly and go back to Pakistan. NEWSWEEK's Lally Weymouth sat down with Bhutto last week in New York. Excerpts:

WEYMOUTH: Some say that if you make a deal with President Musharraf to return to power, it will diminish your popularity.

BHUTTO: Many in my party have been urging me to distance myself from General Musharraf. They say his popularity ratings are down. But I am trying to convince them that the international community and the armed forces have confidence in Musharraf, and therefore we need to work out a solution [with him]. Now we are at a critical point where I am being tugged between those in my party who believe in dialogue and those who think that time is running out.

What have you asked Musharraf to do?

There is a package: we want a balance of power, reforms for a fair election, lifting of the ban on a twice-elected prime minister, as well as immunity for all holders of public office [in cases] where there are unproven charges that go back for a decade or two.

Did you tell Musharraf that he would have to step down as Army chief of staff if you enter into a partnership with him?

I told him that we could not have a working arrangement with the chief of Army staff. His term finishes either this November or December, so we are concerned that there should not be an extension of it.

What issues stand between you and Musharraf?

One is the power of the president to sack the Parliament at his discretion. This power was used in the '90s to destabilize democracy. In 10 years we had 10 governments. We believe this was actually done at the request of the security services. The political parties were discredited and the militants grew in strength. What stands between us right now is [the absence of] confidence-building steps which were promised and which we want done by the end of the month.

Such as?

Lifting the ban on a twice-elected prime minister. He said yes to that in July. And also immunity to holders of public office from 1988 to 2000. He said yes to that in January of this year.

In exchange for your support?

He doesn't want our support, but he doesn't want us going out in the streets and agitating against him.

What are the Americans saying?

Their message is: we want the stability of Pakistan, fair elections, and General Musharraf is our ally.

Can Musharraf get elected without your party?

Yes, [but] I advised him that it was better not to seek election from this assembly. He has a different perspective.

What do you say to critics who say you cannot control the Army?

I say that I controlled the Army better than any of the others: when I was prime minister, the tribal areas were part of Pakistan. Now their control has been ceded to militants and pro-Taliban forces.

If your deal materializes, will Musharraf control the Army?

Yes, but I don't want the security services to disagree with my attack on internal militancy and get him to sack the Parliament once again. Which is why the president must give up the power [to fire the Parliament]. In a perfect situation the prime minister should have the power over the armed services. But in this transition period, if Musharraf is still commander in chief of the armed forces, he will still appoint the Army chiefs.

Have you heard from him lately?

Yes. He's getting back to me by the end of the month. He has to decide. The person stopping him is [Muslim League president] Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain. He is telling Musharraf to go with the religious parties, and [saying that] we can get you re-elected and we don't need the PPP.

Can you make an alliance with Nawaz Sharif?

If our negotiations with Musharraf fall apart, we can always turn to the other political party.

So will you return to Pakistan?

I'm planning to go back between September and December. I need be there to strengthen my party and the moderate forces.

Are you worried you will be arrested?

I understand he may try to use state forces to stop me. There is a risk, but I am prepared to take it.

Sunday, August 12, 2007

Pakistan's Disappeared by CBC

Watch here a heart-rending news report by CBC about Pakistan's Disappeared. Click Here

Tuesday, August 07, 2007

Ambassador Interview

Pakistani Ambassador in US Mahmud Ali Durrani's Interview With The Newsweek

Pakistan Ambassador Blasts U.S. Intel

Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States blasts Barack Obama and the National Intelligence Estimate conclusion that Pakistan is a safe haven for Al Qaeda.

By Michael Hirsh Aug 6, 2007

Pakistani Ambassador Mahmud Ali Durrani, a scholar and former general, says the government of President Pervez Musharraf is being unfairly blamed for the failure of U.S. intelligence to locate Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri. In an interview last week with NEWSWEEK’s Michael Hirsh at Pakistan’s Embassy in Washington, Durrani attacked as erroneous the recent National Intelligence Estimate that concluded Al Qaeda has “regenerated key elements” of its ability to attack the United States. The ambassador also argued that the agreement that Musharraf signed with North Waziristan’s Pashtun tribes in September 2006, which gave pro-Taliban tribal elders full control in the Pakistani region, is still intact, even though senior U.S. officials such as Homeland Security Adviser Frances Fragos Townsend say it hasn’t worked. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: Critics say Pakistan is not doing all it can to take out the Taliban and Al Qaeda. What’s your response?

Mahmud Ali Durrani: When [U.S. forces] act there’s often more collateral damage than killing the bad guys. We cannot afford that. Second, many times [American] information is faulty. It’s not timely. It’s inaccurate. It’s the same intelligence you’ve been getting in Iraq. People here [in Washington] take it as the gospel truth. We challenge that very seriously.

Why is the United States getting such bad information?

I don’t know. Sometimes the warlords will use you. There are many people in Afghanistan for whom continued violence and debstabilization works for them.

What about the National Intelligence Estimate and what it says about safe havens for Al Qaeda in North Waziristan?

It’s absolutely incorrect. There are no safe havens. Now, what is the definition of a safe haven? It is a place where they can stay and plan and operate from, and there is a kind of tacit approval by the government of Pakistan. This is preposterous. We will agree there may be odd people in hideouts. But there are no safe havens. And whenever we get information we take them out. Five or six times we’ve gone into Waziristan and Bajaur this year. We went after the training camps.


There are supposed to be these mud-hut compounds where the Taliban and Al Qaeda do their training.

This is an absolute fallacy. There is no compound like Fort Knox or Fort Benning. What a training camp in our area entails is a room about this size [pointing to his spacious office] where people can sleep at night. And then there is some space outside where they can train. And from the air it may just look like an innocent hut. … It’s not a compound, that’s totally false.

As you know, Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, suggested in a speech on Wednesday that if Musharraf doesn’t act in the tribal areas, the United States will have to. Your response?

I think [Obama] is a very able person, and I respect his views, but I totally disagree with him. I think he is misinformed as far as this goes. I mean, he qualifies it nicely in his speech. He says if Musharraf doesn’t act on information which is 100 percent accurate, then we will. Well, if it is 100 percent accurate and we get it, then we will take them out. [For the record, Obama said, “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.”] This seems to be a favorite topic—hitting Pakistan. It will weaken the position of the government in Pakistan if the Americans go in and hit bad guys, because even now the public in Pakistan feels the government is doing too much for the United States.

Where do you think the NIE judgments came from?

They must have been some Sigint [“signals” intelligence from the super-secret National Security Agency]. Some chatter that there is some movement, which is possible. But there are no safe havens, no planning cells.


Although some Britons of Pakistani descent who were allegedly involved in the July 7, 2006, bombings in London did go back to visit madrassas [Islamic religious schools] in Pakistan, that connection has never been confirmed.

That’s correct. Hypothetically, there may be some education there. There are people who have connections. But it’s not an operational center. You may go back to your high school. The planning doesn’t start there.

After the Red Mosque operation [when Musharraf sent in Army troops to clear out a mosque taken over by a radical cleric and his followers], there were indications that Zawahiri is more determined than ever to kill President Musharraf.

Because Musharraf is committed to doing what he has to do. We want to take out high-value targets whenever we can. There is cooperation between [American] intelligence and ours. … In the tribal area the agreement was signed with 35 elders, but there are spoilers in every movement. You have to understand the tribal culture. Even today, there are tribal leaders who are literally begging the government not to destroy this agreement.

So is the agreement still intact?

I think so.

Why haven’t we been able to get bin Laden and Zawahiri?

That was a failure of intelligence. As much a failure of [U.S.] intelligence, which has far greater resources, as ours. The track record is not very flattering.

You’ve heard the allegations that the Pakistani government will help to take out second- or third-tier Taliban or Al Qaeda, but because of the legendary status of bin Laden that there is unwillingness by Musharraf to target him.

This is not logical. We take second tier and leave the first tier, which is targeting Musharraf? Are we crazy? Are we nuts? People make fancy theories based on thin air. We would be happy to take him out in a second if we knew where he was. If we knew [where] Zawahiri was.

Where do you think they are?

I think they are floating. Nobody knows. Let’s say he was in Pakistan and [U.S.] intelligence had definite information. Do you think they would let us sit on our rear ends and do nothing about it?

Are you frustrated by the criticism of the NIE and Obama when you know there is so much cooperation going on behind the scenes? Particularly in the context of the new U.S. nuclear deal with India, and big aid packages going to Saudi Arabia and Egypt without any apparent conditions?

Afghanistan too. Absolutely. It is frustrating for Musharraf and everybody around him when people do this to Pakistan. Even the preamble to the NIE says that most of these assessments and judgments are not 100 percent accurate.

Though I will say there is solid reporting that in the wake of the Waziristan agreement there has been a re-establishment of Taliban and Al Qaeda-sympathizing elements in that area.

Yes, but whenever we get intelligence we take them out. What irritates us is that we are doing so much, much more than [the Americans are] doing. The threat to us is far greater.

Particularly in the wake of the Red Mosque operation, is there a new push now?

There is a new push for the last couple of months. Because we thought some of it was creeping outside the tribal areas—the terrorists and extremist thinking. We are going to upgrade our police forces and our paramilitary forces. That, we have determined, will take about six months. I think about 20,000 paramilitary we are going to add in tribal areas. In fact right now if you include FATA [Federally Administered Tribal Areas] it’s over 120,000.

Sunday, August 05, 2007

'A Double-Edged Sword' - Benazir's Interview With Newsweek

'A Double-Edged Sword'
Pakistan's banished prime minister on talks with Musharraf that could pave her way back to power.
By Ron Moreau
Newsweek International
Aug. 13, 2007 issue - Benazir Bhutto, the exiled, two-time Pakistani prime minister, is now negotiating a political comeback with President Pervez Musharraf. Last week they reportedly met face to face in Abu Dhabi after months of back-channel talks. The two need each other. Bhutto wants to return to Pakistan to run in next year's elections—without having to face the corruption charges that drove her into exile. She also needs a repeal of the two-term limit for elected prime ministers. Musharraf, meanwhile, is grasping at straws: last month the Supreme Court overturned his suspension of the chief justice; his approval rating is an anemic 34 percent, and Islamic militants have launched a spate of attacks against his security forces, including two suicide bombings in Islamabad. He thus needs the support of Bhutto and her Pakistan People's Party—arguably the most popular political force in the country—if he hopes to be re-elected president. From her London home, Bhutto, 54, discussed Pakistan's political melodrama in a telephone interview with NEWSWEEK's Ron Moreau. Excerpts:

MOREAU: Did you meet with President Musharraf last week in Abu Dhabi?
BHUTTO: I know there's been widespread speculation, but both the presidency and the PPP have not officially said any meeting took place. Both sides have confirmed that there are negotiations going on.

Why such secrecy in the talks?
There's confidentiality about the level of the contacts and how they are taking place, but there's total transparency on the fact that talks are ongoing. We've been searching for a way to facilitate the transfer to democracy. We feel that fair elections are very important for Pakistan and that any attempt to rig the elections would create chaos in the country.

Did you strike any agreement with Musharraf?
We have covered some points, but there are others still to cover. These include steps that can be taken to ensure that the coming elections are fair and open to all political parties and leaders; lifting the ban on a twice-elected prime minister seeking office a third time; a balance of power between the president and the prime minister, and a level playing field for all political parties.

Will you insist that the president resign from the military before he is re-elected?
Both sides have agreed to differ on this issue. We believe that this is unconstitutional and will be challenged in Pakistan's apex court, leading to a fresh controversy and further uncertainty. Such a move would mean more instability.

Aren't some of your supporters disappointed that you're talking with Musharraf at a time when a united opposition could perhaps topple him?
I got a very sweet message from one of our followers who said he was very pleased that the PPP was talking to the regime to help a stable and smooth transition to democracy. I know there are people who feel we could get rid of [Musharraf] by coming onto the streets. But it's a double-edged sword. Coming out on the streets could give him a pretext for [declaring] an emergency or military rule.

Why aren't you cooperating with the Islamic political parties?
The PPP is uncomfortable associating with the alliance of religious parties known as the MMA. Their policies on extremism are ambiguous. The PPP wants the people of Pakistan to have a clear choice between the forces of the future and the forces of the past, between those who condemn extremism and those that don't.

How would you propose to combat rising Islamic extremism?
A PPP government would commit itself to restoring the rule of law in all of Pakistan; to the active engagement and pursuit of Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists; to the interdiction of the drug trade that funds terrorism; to the closing of those militant headquarters posing as political madrassas that house militants and teach hatred.

So when will you return to Pakistan?
Right now I can only say I'll be back before the end of the year.

During your two terms as prime minister, you were criticized for mismanaging the country. Would you be different this time?
The earlier experience taught me a lot. There's been plenty of time for reflection [since]. We have difficult relations with India and tensions with Afghanistan. I hope to work with other leaders in the region to bring about peace. And within Pakistan I hope we will be able to give transparent government and protect the free press.

Saturday, August 04, 2007

BB Lobbyist Pushes US To Push Musharraf

Indian Muslims Website By Arun Kumar

Lobbyists for former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto' s Pakistan People's Party (PPP) are urging top Democrats to press the Bush administration and President Pervez Musharraf to promote free and fair elections in Pakistan this year.

Under contract with the PPP, lobbyists with BKSH & Associates have made dozens of contacts with Capitol Hill, the State Department and think tanks around Washington, the Hill - a Washington journal focusing on the US Congress - reported Thursday.

Advocates have distributed tough-talking letters on Pakistan's need for renewed democracy, signed by the Democratic chairmen of the House Foreign Affairs and the Senate Foreign Relations committees, Tom Lantos and Joseph Biden.

"Our key message has not wavered: Robust US support for free and fair, internationally monitored elections in Pakistan remains critical, as does US support for the safe return and participation of opposition candidates," a BKSH director, Lisa Cotter Colangelo, was quoted as saying.

Her firm has earned more than $80,000 since January for its work on behalf of Bhutto's party, according to records filed with the Justice Department.

The letters by members of Congress pull no punches. In a March 12 letter to Musharraf signed by Senators Biden, John Kerry, Patrick Leahy and Blanche Lincoln, the lawmakers argue that unless Bhutto's party and others can campaign freely, it will be difficult to treat the 2007 elections "as a true expression of democracy".

The senators' letter urges Musharraf to arrest Taliban officials believed to be hiding out along Pakistan's border with Afghanistan. A recent National Intelligence Estimate described Pakistan as Al Qaeda's new safe haven.

Lantos and Biden also sent a letter June 1 to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asking her to "forcefully" raise the issue of Musharraf's actions against protesters with his government and make a "public appeal" for restoring "full democracy".

House member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen also signed the letter to Rice and so far is the lone Republican to side with Democrats in their criticism of Musharraf in the correspondence.

Letters by Biden and others are part of Bhutto's larger effort in America, the Hill said. Bhutto toured congressional offices in February, while PPP officials have visited Capitol Hill during the spring and summer.

Lobbyists for the party also have distributed a scathing report on Pakistan' s voter rolls, describing the lists as full of "errors, duplications and missing voters".

Using field analyses from a variety of officials from different Pakistani political parties, the "informal review" was published by the Centre for Civic Education Pakistan, a civic organisation based in the country, and received funding from the National Endowment for Democracy. Pakistan's 2002 elections were troublesome as well.

Lobbyists have handed out several articles critical of Musharraf, including columns by Bhutto and an editorial by The New York Times, entitled "Propping up the General".

But in choosing between Musharraf and Bhutto, Capitol Hill has not come to "a consensus view", according to a congressional aide with experience in foreign affairs cited by the Hill.

"There are those who toe the line with the administration and will not admonish Musharraf, even on free and fair elections," while others "take a pragmatic view and say perhaps we should encourage this coalition of Musharraf and Bhutto", the aide said.