SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Idea Of The Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (41461)11/6/2001 9:49:47 AM
From: Nick  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 50167
 
Ike, what do you make of this report about the former ISI chief?

US to target Pakistan after Afghanistan: Ex-ISI chief
Paritosh Parasher in Sydney

When the United States finishes its war against Afghanistan, it will target countries like Pakistan and Iraq, a former Pakistan intelligence chief has said.

"When the US finishes with its war against Afghanistan, it will target Pakistan. It will also make Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia a part of its campaign against Islam," Hamid Gul, a former head of the Inter-Services Intelligence, told Australia's SBS Radio's Urdu programme.

Gul, believed to be one of the principal architects in the creation of Afghanistan's ruling Taleban militia, has been a vociferous opponent of US attacks against Afghanistan.

Gul said he refuses to believe that the US is attacking Afghanistan only to capture or kill Osama bin Laden.

He was also asked about Laden's reported appeal to Pakistani Muslims to support the embattled Taleban.

Gul said the appeal was unnecessary: "Pakistanis who read the Quran are aware that when an Islamic nation gives a jihad call, it becomes every Muslim's duty to follow Allah's directive. The people (in Pakistan) will soon understand that the (US) target is our existence and faith."

"America has not clarified what their objectives are in this campaign and I do not have any doubt that their target is Islam and the Islamic way of life," he said.

"Others may be unaware of this, but as I take keen interest in the way Americans think, I am sure it is a campaign against the Muslim world.

"They (US) are saying they will fight a 50-year war. You do not need 50 years to conquer a country or to stop a particular activity emanating from it, but you may need 50 years to finish an ideology, or a way of thinking."

"This is what they did with Communism. It took them 50 years to get rid of Communism. They will target Pakistan as our very origins are based on Islam. The concept of an Islamic way of life as we know it today, owes its sheer existence to the birth of Pakistan," he said.

Gul said that the US had failed to make much of an impact in its war against Afghanistan.

"Unprecedented American attacks have failed in Afghanistan because Afghans are united in the belief that they are serving Islam. Allah tests this nation every time by pitting it against superpowers because He knows only the Afghans can fight against such odds and emerge victorious," Gul said. He was unequivocal in his praise for the Taleban. "I have spent 36 years in the (Pakistani) army and there is no country in the world that can face the wrath of the US the way Afghanistan is doing."



To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (41461)11/6/2001 2:27:39 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 50167
 
Pakistan at a Crossroads

BY JIM ROGERS
jimrogers.com

Americans complain a lot about road rage on the highways but they've got nothing on the Pakistanis. We were driving down Pakistan's main highway, a road which connects Karachi and Lahore, the country's two largest cities, when we were cut off by drivers weaving in and out of lanes at twice the speed limit. Many times, cars merged in front of us from on-ramps as if we weren't even there.

Cars, though, aren't the only hazard. We passed people riding bicycles on the highway and farmers leading ox carts down the middle of the road. Some people even decided to drive on the wrong side of the road because there was less traffic on one side. More than once, I had to switch lanes because a camel cart was headed right at me. Nowhere was there a highway patrol willing to control the chaos.

Such an experience was emblematic of the problems we discovered in Pakistan, a country that, like its highway system, can't seem to get everyone going in the same direction. It's plagued by government corruption, economic mismanagement, and cultural rifts. Such woes are eating away at the country from the inside. Worst of all, its problems have led Pakistan, a long-standing American ally, in a direction that is becoming more and more at odds with U.S. interests.

Pakistan is wedged between Iran, Afghanistan, and India along the Arabian Sea. It's a large country, roughly the size of California. Like other countries in the sub-continent, the landscape can change dramatically from one area to the next: Much of central Pakistan is dominated by farmland but a vast stretch of desert borders the country to the southeast. Towering mountains, including K2, the world's second tallest peak, command the north.

When I visited on my last trip back in 1988, I was taken with the country and its people. Pakistanis were some of the smartest and friendliest people I had met along the course of my trip. At the time, I talked to Pakistan's Minister of Tourism and he told me about plans to develop the tourism industry in the northern mountain region. He had plans to expand the hotels, building luxury housing to draw tourists from around the world. I even went to the stock market in Karachi and did some research on Pakistani companies. The Indus Valley, long considered one of the cradles of civilization, is an ideal region for cotton farming, Pakistan's chief crop. Textile production, in fact, still represents 60 percent of Pakistan's export earnings; more than half of the population works in agriculture. Back in 1998, such resources looked like Pakistan's ticket to success. Locals were building clothing factories and manufacturing plants, always a sign of a productive economy.

After what I've seen this time around, I'm glad I didn't invest. Pakistan's economy is in awful shape. With a gross domestic product of $10 billion, the country has become helplessly reliant on foreign aid donors like the IMF, Paris Club and World Bank to keep its economy afloat. Foreign loans and grants, in fact, account for one-quarter of all government revenue. Payments to service its $32 billion worth of debt total more than 50 percent of Pakistan's annual budget.

The country is heavily dependent on oil imports for energy and has been suffering as oil prices have reached new heights. Recent cotton harvests have been strong but the government never invested any money on infrastructure development. As a result, many farmers can't deliver their cotton to port to sell or are forced to sell to the government at incredibly low prices. What little is left in the budget goes to finance the on-going war with India over Kashmir, a territory bordering the two countries to the North that has been in dispute since their independence.

What went wrong? The revolving door at the top leadership position certainly hasn't helped. Over the past decade, no one person has stayed in office longer than a few years; the ruling party has repeatedly swayed between military and civilian leadership. When I was last here, Benazir Bhutto, the first woman ever to head an elected government in Islamic office, was elected prime minister and head of the government. Oxford and Harvard educated, she was the darling of the western press, a comforting image of Pakistan's promise. She was also the daughter of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the man who had restored constitutional government and civilian rule to Pakistan back in the 60s and 70s.

Within two years, Bhutto was deposed on accusations of corruption. Her husband was known as Mr. 10 Percent because he supposedly took a cut of everything the government made. (Years later, when she returned to power, his nickname changed to Mr. 50 Percent.) Nawaz Sharif of the Pakistan Moslem League went on to succeed her, but, he, too, was ousted only a few years later. Current military leaders say that Bhutto and Sharif bled the country of nearly $30 billion, three times the poor country's annual budget.

Such inconsistent and corrupt leadership has discredited the government and weighted the country under a cloud of fear and uncertainty. The customs agents we met when we arrived in Karachi actually detained us for six days, afraid that if they let us enter, they would be punished for their actions. One agent told me that although it was legal for us to enter, he was worried a new government might be in power shortly that would say otherwise. After all, a local "accountability" bureau has the right to arrest and detail locals for 90 days without any charges.

Bureaucracy is rampant. We were told we needed a non-objection certificate, or NOC, in order to drive in certain areas of the country. This wasn't something needed only by foreigners; locals all need it. The ethnic rifts run so deep that many people don't want certain sects of the population driving in their region.

Such bureaucracy has also made the country incredibly protectionist. The import duties on foreign cars in Pakistan are 350 percent. We saw vehicles that had been donated by the Japanese government in a good-will agreement that had been held up in customs for months because the Japanese hadn't paid the duty.

Ultimately, the roots of Pakistan's problems stretch back to its independence from Britain back in 1947. When the British left, giving the region its independence, they divided the land according to the religion of the people. The area to the Northeast and Northwest, which was inhabited primarily by Muslims, became East Pakistan and West Pakistan. Hindus dominated the remaining territory, which remained India.

While the borders established by the Brits took into account religious differences, they often neglected cultural and social differences within those territories. Even though they shared the same religion, the people of East and West Pakistan had many cultural divides between them. And, of course, they were split in half by the Indian land mass. Years later, a civil war ensued, which ultimately led East Pakistan to become Bangladesh.

Even today, there are cultural differences that continue to divide the populace. For instance: Pakistan's official language is Urdu, but large portions of the population speak Baluchi and Punjabi, Pushtu and Sindhi. These divisions have spawned ethnic and regional rivalries, which have led to violent outbreaks. Last time I was here, no one carried guns in streets. On this trip, we encountered armed security and military everywhere we went. Four bombs went off the first day we arrived in Pakistan.

For the many that live in the over-crowded cities like Karachi and Lahore, the situation is incredibly gloomy and hopeless. Most Pakistanis struggle to make a living, earning $400 a year on average. Literacy is deplorable: Only 30 percent of the population can read or write. Among women, that figure is close to 5 percent.

General Musharraf, the current military ruler, has pledged to restore democracy and improve the economic situation in Pakistan with an ambitious economic agenda that includes privatizing the public sector, improving balance of trade, and attracting foreign investors. Currently, only one percent of Pakistan's 140 million people pays taxes; he wants to widen the tax net, giving the government another source of income beyond foreign aid. He has promised to hold provincial and local elections, bringing in leaders to unify the country. Unfortunately that has been said many times in the past few decades. But any economic development is hamstrung by the growing conflict with India over Kashmir, a conflict that seems to escalate despite periodic attempts at peace. Both countries now possess nuclear weapons.

Remember that Pakistan has long been an ally of the United States. The relationship took a crucial turn during the 1980s, when the U.S. poured aid into the country to train Muslims from around the region to resist the Soviets in Afghanistan. Now some of those well-trained, deeply religious fighters are our national demons: They are Taliban members and even terrorists, and the growing influence of their anti-Western views is roiling the country. One day, I saw someone selling Osama bin Laden T-shirts. The next day the government shut that down. The fundamentalists continue to make inroads since they are the main organized, coherent group left in the country.

A turn toward anti-Westernism threatens to yank Pakistan out of its alignment with its allies, and that could have a destabilizing effect on the entire region. I'm the kind of investor who doesn't mind seeing difficult situations: When a country or an economy is down, I like to try to understand how and when it's going to get back up. I like to buy at the bottom. In fact, I entered Pakistan with the notion of buying into its cotton industry. But this country of fine people may not be at a bottom, economically or politically. That's a waste and a shame, and it's truly unsettling. It was not just as an investor that I felt deeply saddened by Pakistan and foreseeing only more instability.



To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (41461)11/7/2001 3:35:08 PM
From: BubbaFred  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 50167
 
"...regional rivalry that has gone on between the neighbours of Afghanistan needs to come to an end. And Pakistan has to play a major role in that..."

AUTHOR: Ahmed Rashid - Privy to the Taliban
dawn.com
By Shehar Bano Khan

Ahmed Rashid's book, Taliban: Islam, oil and the new great game in Central Asia, has shot him to instant fame (and fortune). It is rated as a bestseller by The New York Times, and, ever since the United States' pounding of Afghanistan, has been replaced on the shelves by the bookstores in the shortest period of time. The rush for the book world over has risen stupendously, so much so that the publishers have run an additional 300,000 copies of the print in New York alone.

The demand in Britain has crossed the figure of 80,000. One of those copies can be found at the Downing Street, in London, where Tony Blair, the British prime minister, is browsing through it to find leads for the institution of a post-Taliban Afghanistan. According to an article published in one of Britain's leading newspapers, The Guardian, "...Tony Blair's plans for a post-Taliban Afghanistan are heavily influenced by [this] book..."

Before catapulting to international fame, Ahmed Rashid was given a minor preview of what was to follow. At the beginning of 2001, he was awarded the Nisar Osmani Award, for courage in journalism, by the HRCP (Human Rights Commission of Pakistan) for his effort to accurately evaluate the abandoned and devastated country that is called Afghanistan.

A lack of material on the pariah Taliban can be one reason why the book has become a political Bible for politicians and diplomats alike. If any other researcher had put in 21 years of scholarship into such a subject, Ahmed Rashid might have spent his time a bit differently. For he has become a busy man. Far too busy for personal interviews. Toggling between appearing on the Western media, as an expert, on the current situation, and writing as a correspondent for the Far Eastern Economic Review and the Daily Telegraph on Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia, leaves him little time for personal commendation.

Hounded by the Western media and a constant rush to meet deadlines, forced him to squeeze 20 odd minutes of his well-synchronized time to talk to Dawn. His latest interview, as an expert on the region of Afghanistan and the Taliban, was an attempt to address certain questions troubling everybody's minds in the post-US attack weeks. Ahmed Rashid underlined the futility of the Operation Enduring Freedom, stressing that the key 'for the United States to defeat the Taliban rested more on its ability to manipulate Afghanistan's complex ethnic balance than in military might'. He foresees the danger of the West walking away, once again, after killing Osama bin Ladin and Mulla Omar. Following is a full text of the interview:

Dawn: How do you feel about your book, Taliban: Islam, oil and the new great game in Central Asia, being read by Tony Blair and hitting number one on The New York Times bestseller list?

Ahmed Rashid: (He shrugs his shoulders nonchalantly and relaxes in an arm-chair to reply). Aaa.... I am gratified that the world is now learning about the Afghans though this book. The aim of this book was to highlight the plight of the Afghans who had spent 20 years at war and were totally ignored by the international community. The recommendations and the conclusion of the book, unfortunately, predict much of what has happened since September 11.

I believe that Afghanistan is the most destabilizing element on the world scenario. The main focus of this book is to emphasise that Afghanistan and the Afghans need international attention. This kind of regional rivalry that has gone on between the neighbours of Afghanistan needs to come to an end. And Pakistan has to play a major role in that. It needs to stop interference, invariably, on the wrong side. It is important that the governments should continue to be engaged in Afghanistan so that development and reconstruction can take place.

The danger is that the West is going to kill bin Ladin and Mulla Omar and walk away. It is up to the people of the West and the Muslim world to ensure that their governments don't make that mistake.

Dawn: While you were writing the book, did you realize it was going to become a rave and an international bestseller?

AR: No... I mean, the book did extremely well when it came out in March 2000. It was translated into nine different languages, and did very well in the United States. But, it had limited readers. So, I was already pleased. Obviously, I could not predict what would happen after September 11. Had my book not been successful before, it would not have been successful now.

Dawn: Do you not think that one of the reasons why your book has done so well is because there is a lack of material available on the Taliban?

AR: Oh, of course! Absolutely! There's no writing being done of international standard on Afghanistan for the last 10 years. There are other books coming out now on the Taliban, but this is probably the most comprehensive. The reason being that it deals with a lot more than Afghanistan. It deals with the geopolitics of the region, the oil issue, Islamic fundamentalism and many other issues.

Dawn:How did you collect the data for your research, considering, I presume, that you had to travel a lot to the Central Asian Republics and Afghanistan?

AR: Well, I have been covering Afghanistan for 20 years now. In that way, this book is not about the history of the Taliban. This book is as much a history of Afghanistan and my experiences in it. The book is not about a quick trip to the Taliban and then coming back to write about them. It is not a quick book. I planned to write it many times but never got down to it. Initially, I wanted to write it in 1989, after the Soviet withdrawal. Then I planned to write it in 1992, after Kabul fell to the Mujahideen, but could not. In 1998, when I saw that there was absolutely no knowledge about Afghanistan and the Taliban, that I decided to get down to it. But, more importantly, I was looking at this new kind of Islamic fundamentalism that the Taliban represented .....

Dawn: You think it is new?

AR: What?

Dawn: This kind of Islamic fundamentalism?

AR: Yeah, I mean, this kind of an idea of a global jihad and the type of Islam the Taliban stood for, were not created by any other Muslim society.

Dawn: Did you meet any of the Taliban leaders like Mulla Omar?

AR: I could not interview Mulla Omar because he doesn't give interviews. He has given several interviews to one journalist for whom I have a lot of respect.

Dawn: Do you speak Pashto, the language of the Taliban?

AR: No, I don't.

Dawn: As you could not speak their language, did you not have any problems in writing about them? I mean, there you were researching their kind of Islamic fundamentalism and their eventual rise to power without knowing what they were actually talking about?

AR: You know, I'm hopeless in languages.

Dawn: In your view as a historian and an expert on Afghanistan, why is there this aura of secrecy around Mulla Omar? Is it to do with his kind of Islam?

AR: This is how the Taliban emerged. This is the whole philosophy of their formation, foundation and how they developed, which was very secretive. The founding members of the Taliban are still a very closed group of people. Later on, they institutionalized the secrecy by forbidding television, photography and all the rest. So, this entire secrecy mania was institutionalized in the their interpretation of Islam. For them, it was more of a logistical thing which was then given an aura of religious fiat. They did not want to divulge their work.

Dawn: As you have studied these religious ideologues in detail, why have their religious secrecy lasted for more than six years? Do you think they have something to tell the world?

AR: See, I've met all the Taliban leaders. They are very simple people. The only education they had was at the seminaries on the border of Pakistan given to them by extremely uneducated teachers. They are not worldly wise or even Afghan wise. You know, Mulla Omar has never travelled in Afghanistan and has never been to the north of the country. He's never been to Herat, to Mazar-i-Sharif and only twice visited Kabul in his life. These are a bunch of people who have very little knowledge about Afghanistan, leave alone anything else.

Dawn: Is not the West and its media responsible for turning Osama bin Laden into a legendary figure? Do you believe he is capable of all that he is being accused of?

AR: Look, I have no doubt that he carried out the attacks on the World Trade Centre. He had the capability of bombing the US embassies in Africa and the capability to bomb the US carrier in Yemen last year. There are people around him who are very bright, technically intelligent and educated. Bin Laden was partly set up by these people as a leading figure, and later, the Western media fell into that trap. But I don't think that he is running the day-to-day operations of Al-Qaeda, I think those are being done by his lieutenants. You can say that he is a very appropriate figurehead. He is a Saudi, is very rich and comes from a very well known family.

Dawn: Now, in your opinion as a journalist and not as a historian, why have all the other media networks been turned out of Afghanistan with the exception of Al-Jazeera? Do you find the coverage on the war on terrorism balanced in the Western media?

AR: Al Jazeera has very close links with bin Laden and that is why they are there. It is bin Laden who has allowed them to be present there, not the Taliban or for the fact that they are brilliant. Now, if there is inaccurate reporting by the Western media it is because they are not there.

Dawn: What is your prescription for a viable Afghanistan?

AR: The process of a Loya Jirga, which King Zahir Shah represents, is the only logical conclusion to this war. It is the only instrument which all the Afghan people recognize and can bridge the ethnic divide in Afghanistan. I think Pakistan should put its weight behind it, so far it has not.

Dawn: But this is not the ground reality. What the world is witnessing is indiscriminate annihilation of a starved nation. Do you subscribe to that as a political expert?

AR: The ground reality is that the Western alliance has not helped to create an entity in the Pashtun south of the country. When that is created you will see a weakening of the Taliban. They will not be weakened by bombing. But, nobody as yet has come up with a political strategy.

Dawn: What should have been the US strategy?

AR: The US should have started off by forming a political structure. The military campaign should have come as part of a political strategy. The US started the other way around.



To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (41461)11/7/2001 3:36:11 PM
From: BubbaFred  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 50167
 
Taliban shooting refugees
From AFP 07nov01
theadvertiser.news.com.au

QUETTA, Pakistan: The Taliban are slaughtering Afghans who try to flee the country, gunning them down in cold blood, refugees who have made it to Pakistan say.

On the outskirts of this south-western Pakistan town, near the Afghan border, thousands of "invisible" refugees exist in abject poverty.
They have fled because of the bombing of Afghanistan and a severe drought. But more than anything, they have fled to avoid persecution by the ruling Islamic militia.

Of a dozen Afghans interviewed, all had tales of random killings, human rights abuses and persecution.

Some told of mass murders.

Ovr Mohd, 65, fled to the hills from Bamiyan to avoid the rampaging Taliban. When he returned he said he found his three sons shot dead.

Mohd said they were targeted because they were ethnic Hazaras, whose sympathies lie with the opposition Northern Alliance.

"When we decided to leave Afghanistan we saw the Taliban attacking people who were fleeing. People were gathering on the road to leave and they were shot. We have seen this," he said.

"I saw 50 people in front of me who were killed. They were women, children and men," Mohd added, claiming the killings happened a month ago.

"I hate the Taliban for doing this."

Most of the 5,000 or so people who live in what has become known as Hazara town in Quetta's west, a dusty maze of dirt roads and mud brick houses, are Persian-speaking Shia Muslims descended from Mongol troops.

They are among the 100,000 Afghans believed to have crossed the border illegally since the US began pounding Afghanistan.

They have no identity papers and officially do not exist in Pakistan. They refuse to move into refugee camps for fear of deportation. Consequently they receive no help from aid groups.

Saeed Zaman, 35, said he witnessed similar killings in Kabul, the Afghan capital.

"There is a chowk (roundabout) where the people go when they want to leave. The Taliban are attacking them there. I saw dozens killed (on Friday). The people were pleading to leave but the Taliban shot them," he said.

"They left the bodies where they fell. The animals were eating them."

Zaman paid a smuggler 1,300 rupees ($A41) to escape the terror, arriving in Quetta on Monday. Six of his family have been killed by the Taliban, he said, including his wife.

Sad Shah Musa, 50, echoed these experiences.

"People are running and the Taliban are shooting them," he said. "We have lost our lives in Afghanistan. We have lost everything.

"'Why are you fleeing, this is your country', they say. They say, 'You are against the Taliban, you are running away' and then they shoot."

The Taliban have also been accused of forcibly conscripting young Afghans to fight their holy war (jihad).

They came for the three sons of Baqhtawar, a 60-year-old woman from near Herat, in western Afghanistan, 12 days ago.

When she protested she was punched in the face, losing four front teeth. She was left sprawled on the floor with a bloodied mouth and has heard nothing from her children since.

She fled soon after under the cover of darkness and arrived in Quetta 10 days ago.

"The Taliban took our husbands and our sons. They burned our homes and our mosque," she said.

"We have not come to Pakistan because of the bombing but because we are hungry, thirsty and the Taliban are so cruel."

The Taliban said yesterday the war against the United States could go on for decades, but Sadiqa, who arrived here eight days ago from Kabul, said Afghanis were tired of the fighting, of the killing.

"We are tired of this life, living like this. We are dead inside," she said.