Syed Hassan Tanwir Wasti wrote:
Dear All,
It is our dirty conforntational politics that attributes to bringing army into power time and again.
During his first term as prime minister, Sharif had fallen out with three successive army chiefs: with General Asif Nawaz over the Sindh "Operation Clean-Up" issue; During his first term as prime minister, Sharif had fallen out with three successive army chiefs: General Jehangir Karamat was appointed army chief. His term was due to end on January 9, 1999. In October 1998, however, true to form, Sharif fell out with General Karamat as well, over the latter’s advocacy of the need for the creation of a National Security Council.In October 1998 General Karamat resigned.
============================================
Dear Sir,
Nawaz Sharif was correct to the hilt when he opposed Late. General Asif Nawaz Janjua on Conducting a Military Operation against MQM in Sindh. Time has proved that Military Operation against MQM was wrong absolutely wrong. Army Chiefs are not supposed to issue Political Statements e.g. Asif Nawaz had said; When there could be many factions of Pakistan Muslim League then there should be no objection on MQM [Haqeeqi].
Asif Nawaz and Military Establishment were supporting MQM Haqeeqi because it was the creation of Military Establishment.
Dear Wasti Sahab,
If you have forgottn those Ruthless and Bloody Days of 90s then one can only curse his luck. Let me give you a glimpse of those days one of the Lt Generals of Musharraf Cabinet i.e. Muzaffar Hussain Usmani was Brigadier in Karachi and serving the most Corrupt General Naseer Akhter [Corps Commander Karachi] during those days and after the start of 1992 Operation Cleanup in the month of June, Jinnah, Civil, Abbassi Shaheed and Edhi Sources had found more than 100 unidentified [ruthlessly tortured] dead bodies of MQM political activists. Now apply your mind and guess as to why Nawaz Sharif had opposed Mililtary Operation in Karachi.
Dear Wasti Sahab,
Generals are Governemnt Servants and they should behave while in government service instead of issuing statements on protecting the Corporate Interests of the Army. By the way his son Farrukh Karamat now lives in the USA [he escaped during Musharraf tenure] .Farrukh Karamat , the son of former army chief General Jehangir Karamat (retired), in the Emirates Bank fraud case of Rs 300 million.
Jahangir Karamat was also not an angel. Read...
'QUOTE'
Dear All,
It is our dirty conforntational politics that attributes to bringing army into power time and again.
During his first term as prime minister, Sharif had fallen out with three successive army chiefs: with General Asif Nawaz over the Sindh "Operation Clean-Up" issue; During his first term as prime minister, Sharif had fallen out with three successive army chiefs: General Jehangir Karamat was appointed army chief. His term was due to end on January 9, 1999. In October 1998, however, true to form, Sharif fell out with General Karamat as well, over the latter’s advocacy of the need for the creation of a National Security Council.In October 1998 General Karamat resigned.
============================================
Dear Sir,
Nawaz Sharif was correct to the hilt when he opposed Late. General Asif Nawaz Janjua on Conducting a Military Operation against MQM in Sindh. Time has proved that Military Operation against MQM was wrong absolutely wrong. Army Chiefs are not supposed to issue Political Statements e.g. Asif Nawaz had said; When there could be many factions of Pakistan Muslim League then there should be no objection on MQM [Haqeeqi].
Asif Nawaz and Military Establishment were supporting MQM Haqeeqi because it was the creation of Military Establishment.
Dear Wasti Sahab,
If you have forgottn those Ruthless and Bloody Days of 90s then one can only curse his luck. Let me give you a glimpse of those days one of the Lt Generals of Musharraf Cabinet i.e. Muzaffar Hussain Usmani was Brigadier in Karachi and serving the most Corrupt General Naseer Akhter [Corps Commander Karachi] during those days and after the start of 1992 Operation Cleanup in the month of June, Jinnah, Civil, Abbassi Shaheed and Edhi Sources had found more than 100 unidentified [ruthlessly tortured] dead bodies of MQM political activists. Now apply your mind and guess as to why Nawaz Sharif had opposed Mililtary Operation in Karachi.
Dear Wasti Sahab,
Generals are Governemnt Servants and they should behave while in government service instead of issuing statements on protecting the Corporate Interests of the Army. By the way his son Farrukh Karamat now lives in the USA [he escaped during Musharraf tenure] .Farrukh Karamat , the son of former army chief General Jehangir Karamat (retired), in the Emirates Bank fraud case of Rs 300 million.
Jahangir Karamat was also not an angel. Read...
'QUOTE'
Meanwhile, what surprised some was Karamat's dismissive tone about the A Q Khan affair, which he labeled a "proliferation episode" while denying any government complicity in it. "There was no government sanction, approval, or any kind of government connection with what went on," he said flatly. But Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan, in his 11-page confession reported in the US press in February, named Karamat, former chief of army staff General (retired) Mirza Aslam Beg and President General Pervez Musharraf as the men on top who were aware of what was going on. As the chief of army staff from 1996-98, Karamat was directly responsible for the safety and security of the nuclear program.
'UNQUOTE'
Pakistan lays down the agenda for the US By Seema Sirohi
WASHINGTON - Pakistan, the United States' premier ally in the "war on terrorism", has laid down the agenda for the Bush administration for the next four years on what it expects in exchange for continued cooperation to hunt down al-Qaeda.
On the menu is a slew of demands, ranging from continued economic aid to a generous flow of weapons. But above all is the expectation of a long-term relationship, especially in light of what Washington is building with India under the title of the "Next Steps in Strategic Partnership".
Jehangir Karamat, Pakistan's new ambassador in Washington, wants no less. He, in fact, chose to dub his first public speech "Next Steps" too, articulating Pakistan's hopes and desires for a partnership that will endure beyond the capture of Osama bin Laden. "We seek sustained and enhanced engagement so that gains continue to be consolidated and pushed further," he said at a well-attended speech in Washington last week.
But what was noted by observers was the language he used to deliver the message. He sounded more like a teacher telling a pupil the level of performance he expected from the Americans, said diplomatic observers. He seemed to be drawing a clear parallel between payment and delivery, which led to questions whether the changes in policy that Pakistan has pursued post-September 11, 2001, have been made because they are good for Pakistan, or because they bring US arms and aid.
The administration of President George W Bush is currently in the process of dispensing US$3 billion in economic and military aid, apart from having written off nearly $2 billion in Pakistani debt. An arms package approved by Congress worth $1.2 billion includes eight P-3C naval reconnaissance planes, 2,000 TOW missiles, and other weapons, which has raised serious concerns in New Delhi because they counter specific Indian capabilities. New Delhi has told Washington that large-scale delivery of arms to Pakistan will jeopardize the composite dialogue between India and Pakistan.
But Karamat, a former chief of army staff, said that the US largess, both monetary and material, "must" continue. He turned India's reasons for opposing the weapons package on its head, arguing that it is the United States' "tilt" toward India that makes peace in South Asia elusive.
"The conventional defense capability must continue to be built up because an unacceptable tilt in the balance of power makes meaningful India-Pakistan dialogue difficult," Karamat declared.
Among other "musts" for Washington to carry out are a free-trade agreement, or alternative arrangements, and bilateral investment initiatives in Pakistan to "influence public opinion". "US support must continue to give us access to international financial institutions," Karamat added.
"The US support for Pakistan's counter-terrorism effort must continue and capabilities must continue to be enhanced. We need to work with the US to change perceptions based on past happenings and create perceptions based on current policies and future projections," he said. As for his side of the bargain, Karamat said that "Pakistan will of course continue to address US concerns. The present cooperative and unambiguous relationship will help to do this as everything is on the table."
Karamat's categorical tone left some US officials a little embarrassed, for they are not used to ambassadors laying down the line in Washington. "Even Tony Blair's ambassador won't use that tone in public," said one observer. Some others said that Pakistan prescribing the agenda was a case of the tail wagging the dog.
Meanwhile, what surprised some was Karamat's dismissive tone about the A Q Khan affair, which he labeled a "proliferation episode" while denying any government complicity in it. "There was no government sanction, approval, or any kind of government connection with what went on," he said flatly. But Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan, in his 11-page confession reported in the US press in February, named Karamat, former chief of army staff General (retired) Mirza Aslam Beg and President General Pervez Musharraf as the men on top who were aware of what was going on. As the chief of army staff from 1996-98, Karamat was directly responsible for the safety and security of the nuclear program.
But Karamat declined to elaborate how something so big could happen on his watch, saying that too much had already been written about the Khan affair.
Karamat's main objective in the speech appeared to be to move the debate in Washington from Pakistan's past to Pakistan's future and Washington's commitment. He said Pakistanis are worried that they will never be let off the hook, because the past is always being dredged up to color policy.
Even though the Bush administration has embraced Pakistan as a key and indispensable ally in its "war on terrorism" and publicly defended Musharraf on every issue - from the Khan affair to the re-emergence of the Taliban to his refusal to relinquish his post as army chief as promised - the US media and many congressmen and senators have repeatedly raised questions about Pakistan's commitment to the United States. Editorials in respected newspapers have questioned the reliability of Pakistan as an ally, and whether the US is giving Musharraf a pass despite the many problems.
It is Karamat's job to change this perception, and he took a big leap forward with his first speech. Crafted well and delivered with ease, he presented Pakistan, its role and its indispensability to Washington with flair, said many in the audience.
He said Pakistan had changed "strategic directions" and is now suffering the consequences. "From a policy of active interference and destabilization of Afghanistan, Pakistan is working with the US for a stable and friendly Afghanistan. From a policy of hostility and confrontation with India, Pakistan now has a policy of dialogue and conflict resolution. From a policy of appeasement and political expediency with extremist religious elements, Pakistan has moved to confronting them to end their negative influence and activities. From a clandestine nuclear program with proliferation consequences, Pakistan has moved to a regime of command, control and international cooperation," he said, giving an overview of the "new" Pakistan in progress.
"This is a major strategic reorientation of the country. And, as in all such strategic turnarounds, there is a price to be paid. This price is paid in terms of the blowback, the resistance and the retaliation to the changes."
Reaction to Karamat's presentation was mixed. His host, senior South Asia analyst Stephen Cohen, was full of praise for his candor. "I had never heard a Pakistani official so systematically and bluntly go over the errors of past governments, including one in which they served. Of course his government, and the army, did things that were wrong at the time, and have come to regret, but Pakistan officials have promulgated a new benchmark that the world can hold them to. This is not trivial," said Cohen.
But others, speaking on background, were more critical of Karamat's rosy picture. One US official who is familiar with South Asian issues said the ambassador's storyline was overly optimistic. Regardless, there is little doubt that the US-Pakistan partnership is fraught with potholes that will take more than a smart presentation to fill up.
Seema Sirohi is a Washington-based correspondent.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/FL25Df01.html
Pakistan lays down the agenda for the US By Seema Sirohi
WASHINGTON - Pakistan, the United States' premier ally in the "war on terrorism", has laid down the agenda for the Bush administration for the next four years on what it expects in exchange for continued cooperation to hunt down al-Qaeda.
On the menu is a slew of demands, ranging from continued economic aid to a generous flow of weapons. But above all is the expectation of a long-term relationship, especially in light of what Washington is building with India under the title of the "Next Steps in Strategic Partnership".
Jehangir Karamat, Pakistan's new ambassador in Washington, wants no less. He, in fact, chose to dub his first public speech "Next Steps" too, articulating Pakistan's hopes and desires for a partnership that will endure beyond the capture of Osama bin Laden. "We seek sustained and enhanced engagement so that gains continue to be consolidated and pushed further," he said at a well-attended speech in Washington last week.
But what was noted by observers was the language he used to deliver the message. He sounded more like a teacher telling a pupil the level of performance he expected from the Americans, said diplomatic observers. He seemed to be drawing a clear parallel between payment and delivery, which led to questions whether the changes in policy that Pakistan has pursued post-September 11, 2001, have been made because they are good for Pakistan, or because they bring US arms and aid.
The administration of President George W Bush is currently in the process of dispensing US$3 billion in economic and military aid, apart from having written off nearly $2 billion in Pakistani debt. An arms package approved by Congress worth $1.2 billion includes eight P-3C naval reconnaissance planes, 2,000 TOW missiles, and other weapons, which has raised serious concerns in New Delhi because they counter specific Indian capabilities. New Delhi has told Washington that large-scale delivery of arms to Pakistan will jeopardize the composite dialogue between India and Pakistan.
But Karamat, a former chief of army staff, said that the US largess, both monetary and material, "must" continue. He turned India's reasons for opposing the weapons package on its head, arguing that it is the United States' "tilt" toward India that makes peace in South Asia elusive.
"The conventional defense capability must continue to be built up because an unacceptable tilt in the balance of power makes meaningful India-Pakistan dialogue difficult," Karamat declared.
Among other "musts" for Washington to carry out are a free-trade agreement, or alternative arrangements, and bilateral investment initiatives in Pakistan to "influence public opinion". "US support must continue to give us access to international financial institutions," Karamat added.
"The US support for Pakistan's counter-terrorism effort must continue and capabilities must continue to be enhanced. We need to work with the US to change perceptions based on past happenings and create perceptions based on current policies and future projections," he said. As for his side of the bargain, Karamat said that "Pakistan will of course continue to address US concerns. The present cooperative and unambiguous relationship will help to do this as everything is on the table."
Karamat's categorical tone left some US officials a little embarrassed, for they are not used to ambassadors laying down the line in Washington. "Even Tony Blair's ambassador won't use that tone in public," said one observer. Some others said that Pakistan prescribing the agenda was a case of the tail wagging the dog.
Meanwhile, what surprised some was Karamat's dismissive tone about the A Q Khan affair, which he labeled a "proliferation episode" while denying any government complicity in it. "There was no government sanction, approval, or any kind of government connection with what went on," he said flatly. But Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan, in his 11-page confession reported in the US press in February, named Karamat, former chief of army staff General (retired) Mirza Aslam Beg and President General Pervez Musharraf as the men on top who were aware of what was going on. As the chief of army staff from 1996-98, Karamat was directly responsible for the safety and security of the nuclear program.
But Karamat declined to elaborate how something so big could happen on his watch, saying that too much had already been written about the Khan affair.
Karamat's main objective in the speech appeared to be to move the debate in Washington from Pakistan's past to Pakistan's future and Washington's commitment. He said Pakistanis are worried that they will never be let off the hook, because the past is always being dredged up to color policy.
Even though the Bush administration has embraced Pakistan as a key and indispensable ally in its "war on terrorism" and publicly defended Musharraf on every issue - from the Khan affair to the re-emergence of the Taliban to his refusal to relinquish his post as army chief as promised - the US media and many congressmen and senators have repeatedly raised questions about Pakistan's commitment to the United States. Editorials in respected newspapers have questioned the reliability of Pakistan as an ally, and whether the US is giving Musharraf a pass despite the many problems.
It is Karamat's job to change this perception, and he took a big leap forward with his first speech. Crafted well and delivered with ease, he presented Pakistan, its role and its indispensability to Washington with flair, said many in the audience.
He said Pakistan had changed "strategic directions" and is now suffering the consequences. "From a policy of active interference and destabilization of Afghanistan, Pakistan is working with the US for a stable and friendly Afghanistan. From a policy of hostility and confrontation with India, Pakistan now has a policy of dialogue and conflict resolution. From a policy of appeasement and political expediency with extremist religious elements, Pakistan has moved to confronting them to end their negative influence and activities. From a clandestine nuclear program with proliferation consequences, Pakistan has moved to a regime of command, control and international cooperation," he said, giving an overview of the "new" Pakistan in progress.
"This is a major strategic reorientation of the country. And, as in all such strategic turnarounds, there is a price to be paid. This price is paid in terms of the blowback, the resistance and the retaliation to the changes."
Reaction to Karamat's presentation was mixed. His host, senior South Asia analyst Stephen Cohen, was full of praise for his candor. "I had never heard a Pakistani official so systematically and bluntly go over the errors of past governments, including one in which they served. Of course his government, and the army, did things that were wrong at the time, and have come to regret, but Pakistan officials have promulgated a new benchmark that the world can hold them to. This is not trivial," said Cohen.
But others, speaking on background, were more critical of Karamat's rosy picture. One US official who is familiar with South Asian issues said the ambassador's storyline was overly optimistic. Regardless, there is little doubt that the US-Pakistan partnership is fraught with potholes that will take more than a smart presentation to fill up.
Seema Sirohi is a Washington-based correspondent.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/FL25Df01.html
The Not-Very-Honest Ramblings of a Retired Pakistan Army Chief
By Shaheen Sehbai
WASHINGTON, December 21: The first policy speech of Pakistan’s new Ambassador to the US, General (Retd) Jehangir Karamat (JK), has largely been ignored by the mainstream Pakistani and US media, although he said so many things which a former Army Chief would never have admitted under ordinary circumstances. For instance the following quotes from JK’s speech at the Brookings Institution in Washington on Dec 15, 2004, merit attention: Click here for full text of speech
“From a policy of active interference and destabilization of Afghanistan, Pakistan is working with the US for a stable and friendly Afghanistan.”
“From a policy of hostility and confrontation with India, Pakistan now has a policy of dialogue and conflict resolution.”
“From a policy of appeasement and political expediency with extremist religious elements, Pakistan has moved to confronting them to end their negative influence and activities.”
“From a clandestine nuclear program with proliferation consequences, Pakistan has moved to a regime of command, control and international cooperation.”
“From vendetta oriented political leaderships and dictatorial regimes, Pakistan is moving slowly and surely towards sustainable democracy and political stability.”
“From a military centric concept of security, Pakistan has realized the importance of a broader concept of security with the emphasis on economic and internal stability.”
“This is a major strategic reorientation of the country…. Yet these happenings in Pakistan are not discussed and debated. Maybe because no one believes that all this is actually taking place or maybe because there is the perception that this is all eye wash and actually it is business as usual.”
Although JK was nick named “General Baaji” after his resignation from the office of Army Chief during the second Nawaz Sharif government, I initially admired the man as he had shown respect for the constitution and instead of overthrowing the government had decided to quit. Baaji in Pakistan means “the elder sister” and in slang describes someone who is incapable of taking bold steps.
Part of my admiration for JK diminished when details of the scandals about purchase of tanks from Ukraine surfaced and JK could not convincingly explain his role.
Another part was sliced away when tales of his close relatives doing business deals did the rounds.
Yet another slice was cut when former President Farooq Leghari said at a seminar in Karachi on March 19, 2001 that JK, at the request of the Supreme Court Chief Justice, could have put four men in SSG fatigues to guard the Supreme Court and maybe the attack on the Supreme Court on November 28, 1997 would not have occurred.
But when he accepted the offer of General Musharraf to become the Pakistan Ambassador to US, it became clear that his resignation from the post of Army Chief was not because of his respect for democracy or his commitment to the country’s constitution but because he was, deep inside, a weak man who was unable to face the secret files of his corruption which Nawaz
Sharif’s intelligence had prepared for public release.
These secret files were not figments of anybody's imagination. A case in the Lahore High Court is still pending in which, besides other defence deals by other Generals, the following charge has also been leveled:
“Ex Army chief General Jahangir Karamat took kickbacks of more than US$20 Million from Ukrainian tank company for purchase of 300 Ukrainian tanks for Pakistan Army through a middleman named as Colonel Mahmood , a brother tank corps officer of Karamat. Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif sent the present chief of the WAPDA Major General Zulfiqar, then serving in ISI, to Ukraine and Azerbaijan to investigate the scam. General Zulfiqar compiled a complete report of the transaction and the bribes given. But the Army tried to buy him out by rewarding him with the post of WAPDA Chairman and promoting him to the rank of a three star General. The then Army Chief, General Jahangir Karamat was forced to resign, based on the threat that if he did not, he would be charged for corruption.”
He had therefore quietly removed himself from the scene but the other Generals in the Army were so angry that they took a decision in principle not to tolerate any such "humiliation" to the Army again. This collective decision was basically the driving force behind General Musharraf’s coup in October 1999.
Otherwise it was not a tradition in the Pakistan Army that one General would topple a government and hand over the reins of power to another General. It was an institutional coup and when Musharraf landed on the soil, he was asked to take over, although the Government of Nawaz Sharif had been toppled when he was still out of the country.
This background of JK was necessary to put into perspective his latest statements about the dirty role Pakistan played in the region and how this role had been changed by the new masters of the country’s destiny.
JK has not been honest in his assessment as he conveniently ignores, and thus exonerates, the perpetrator of these destructive policies --- in most of the cases the Army itself, including his own self as the Chief at critical times when all these policies and dirty games were in full play.
It has become a national pastime of generals and bureaucrats who, while in service bury themselves in dirty work to their necks, but when they are thrown out or retire, distort history and accuse everybody else without accepting even an iota of the blame for their own deeds. JK is one such example as if he has washed all his sins by resigning and can now lecture the country and the world about who did what wrong and why. What about your own role, General?
For example when JK speaks about “active interference and destabilization of Afghanistan” was he not himself guilty of this crime as Army Chief? When he talks about “hostility and confrontation with India” or “appeasement and political expediency with extremist religious elements” what did he do as the man in the top position of influence to reverse these wrong policies? At the time he was hunting with the hounds.
When he now says that Pakistan is moving “from vendetta oriented political leaderships and dictatorial regimes towards sustainable democracy and political stability,” he is again misleading everybody. Who in his right mind would accept that a military dictator is advancing the cause of democracy by breaking all his promises to restore democracy. JK is simply dishonest and self-serving in his utterances.
He says: "there is a major strategic reorientation of the country…. Yet these happenings in Pakistan are not discussed and debated,” Yes there have been umpteen number of U-Turns but all under duress and for self-preservation of a few Generals, both serving and retired, not for any larger democratic or global security cause. Why these issues are not debated is for General Musharraf and his crooks to answer because they claim there is complete freedom of speech and expression in the country.
The only thing he rightly points out is that “…no one believes that all this is actually taking place or maybe because there is the perception that this is all eye wash and actually it is business as usual.” Yes no one believes because he has joined a club of usurpers and occupiers who are now trying every conceivable dirty trick to justify their misdeeds and crimes against the country and its constitution.
That no one trusts and believes what the Generals are doing in Pakistan is the only and the greatest hope for every body else, because as soon as their utility for specific objectives and goals is over, they will be dumped into the dustbin of ignominy, for good.
http://anon.free.anonymizer.com/http://www.satribune.com/archives/dec04/P1_jk.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment