RIYADH: Saudi Arabia will not take part in Afghanistan’s peace efforts unless insurgent Taliban give up links with militant networks, the state news agency quoted the kingdom’s foreign minister as saying on Saturday. Last month, Afghanistan’s new peace council urged Riyadh to help bring an end to the nine-year-old war after Saudi Arabia hosted secret talks with the Taliban in Makkah in 2008. Saudi Arabia enjoys considerable influence over the Muslim world because of its authority as home to Islam’s holiest sites and its clout from massive oil revenues. Saudi Arabia, along with Pakistan and the US, backed insurgents fighting the Soviets in the 1980s, and later became one of only three countries to recognise the Taliban government that ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001. Riyadh froze its ties with the Taliban in 1998 over their refusal to hand over al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden who had been stripped of Saudi citizenship for activities against the ruling Al-Saud family. “There has been much talk about a Saudi intermediation but we outlined conditions after the Taliban gave refuge to terrorists,” Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al Faisal said, according to agency. “We got a request then from the Afghan President Hamid Karzai to mediate and we said there will be no intermediation unless the Taliban have good intentions and stop giving refuge to terrorists but unfortunately communications stopped,” he said. Official sources say that for the first time all the main Afghan parties, involved from the government to insurgents from Washington to Pakistan, are seriously considering ways to reach a peace deal. REFERENCE: KSA sets conditions for Afghan mediation Updated at: 615 PST, Sunday, November 07, 2010 http://www.thenews.com.pk/latest-news/4435.htm
After thoroughly helping in setting Pakistan and Afghanistan on Fire and Murder of Thousands of "Innocent People" Saudi Arabia [The Muttawwa Republic] had to say this while completely forgetting their Dirty Role. Corrupt, Vile & Filthy: Arabs, Aal-e-Saud, & Wahhaabis. SATURDAY, JUNE 12, 2010 http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2010/06/corrupt-vile-filthy-arabs-aal-e-saud.html
Hillary Clinton on Pakistan
Hillary on Pakistan
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Neyl-6l_3qM
In 1996 then-UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright was asked by 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl, in reference to years of U.S.-led economic sanctions against Iraq, “We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” To which Ambassador Albright responded, “I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it.”
Madeleine Albright - 60 Minutes
During "Judicial Crisis in 2007" the same Saudi Arabia and their Vile, Corrupt, Pervert, Rascal Princes tried to Bribe the Chief Justice of Pakistan at the behest of Musharraf. The Honourable Chief Justice of Pakistan should have written letter to King Abdullah on this Naked Fascism of Saudi Arabia. Jang Group has removed [permanently] many news stories from their web cache to lie blatantly without being caught. Now in 2010 that lick-spittle Prince Prince Bandar bin Khalid bin Faisal Al-Saud Offices: Chairman of the board of directors, AL-WATAN newspaper http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/saudi/cards10.html is writing a letter to CJP on Corruption??? Where was this suddenly found conscience when they kept watching silently the Judicial Murder of Bhutto and not only that they also accepted rather arranged the Exile of Mr. Nawaz Sharif [why the Prince didn't write any letter], instead of writing letters these "2000" Saudi Princes should take a deep breath and do some soul searching. My intention is not to condone corruption but unearth this "double standard" because the same Jang Group had viciously attacked Saudi Diplomat and Sheikh Sudais [Imam Kaaba] when they intervened in Lal Masjid Affair.
The Saudi Royal Family - 1
The Saudi Royal Family - 2
ISLAMABAD: The Saudi Ambassador to Pakistan Ali S Awadh Asseri met the deposed Chief Justice of Pakistan, Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, to extend an invitation for Haj, an offer that was politely declined. “Saying thank you, the deposed CJ told the ambassador he could not go abroad in the present crisis,” a family source said. Asseri went to see Justice Chaudhry at 10 am and remained with him for almost half-an-hour, the source told The News. The Interior Ministry, however, said it had no knowledge of the meeting but the interior minister said the ambassador did not need any prior permission to see the deposed CJ and he could go whenever he wanted. Although, many Western diplomats have been meeting politicians, Asseri is the first diplomat who was allowed to see Justice Chaudhry since his house arrest on November 3. Deposed Justice Bhagwan Das confirmed that he was in the picture about the meeting but said he did not know its details. A close confidante of Justice Chaudhry and leading lawyer, Athar Minallah, told The News that the Saudi ambassador went to see Justice Chaudhry for extending him an invitation of Haj. Minallah said that Saudi ambassador had also invited Justice Chaudhry before March 9 when he was first sacked. Later, the Saudi government had again extended the invitation after his restoration, he said. And now when the time for performing Haj is getting nearer with many intending pilgrims already flown to Makkah, Ambassador Asseri did not forget his last commitment and again went to remind Justice Chaudhry about this standing offer.
The Saudi Royal Family - 4
Minallah said Justice Chaudhry thanked the ambassador for inquiring his well being and extending the Haj invitation but said he could not accept it at this point of time. Justice Chaudhry told the ambassador that the people of Pakistan were passing through a critical phase of history. It would be therefore unwise on his part to leave them alone and to go for Haj. But he said he was deeply grateful for the invitation extended by the Saudi government. Justice Chaudhry also told the ambassador that he was entirely committed to the cause of rule of law and the restoration of the judiciary. According to Minallah, Justice Chaudhry was firm on his previous stand and no let-up was noticed in his strong determination. He said the continued confinement has failed to break Justice Chaudhry and he was as optimistic today as was before November 3.
The Saudi Royal Family - 5
The Saudi Royal Family - 6
Tariq Butt adds: “The former chief justice wants to perform Haj along with his family. We are prepared to facilitate his pilgrimage,” Ambassador Asseri told The News. He said Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry had requested to the embassy for visa to perform Haj, and “my meeting with him was about that.” The diplomat said there was also an outstanding invitation to Chaudhry for visit to Saudi Arabia that was extended to him five months back. At the time, he was the chief justice of the Supreme Court. On being approached by this correspondent, Caretaker Interior Minister Lt-Gen (retd) Hamid Nawaz said that to his knowledge, the deposed judge had so far made no request to the government, indicating his intention to go for Haj. “First, he has to write to the government showing his keenness for performing Haj. Only then, we will consider his case,” he said.
The government has repeatedly stated that none of the deposed judges is confined to his house and every one of them has free access to movement. However, no visitor is allowed to meet any of these justices as police continue to man different barricades on roads leading to the Judges’ Enclave and elsewhere. The latest refusal to a meeting with the former chief justice came when former prime minister Nawaz Sharif had made a bid on Thursday. “I will find out whether or not the former judge is going for Haj,” Interior Ministry spokesman Brig (retd) Javed Iqbal Cheema told The News. “I will let you know,” he said but did not call back. The Saudi ambassador said he did not discuss with the former judge any matter concerning Pakistan’s internal affairs. The deposed chief justice was not available for comment. Asseri’s meeting has assumed great importance in the prevailing situation when a logjam exists between the government and the judges of the Supreme Court and the high courts, who had either refused or were not called to take oath under the Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) that President General Pervez Musharraf issued on Nov 3. REFERENCE: Jang Group has removed [permanently] many news stories from their web cache to lie blatantly without being caught, here is the source for the quote : http://www.paklinks.com/gs/pakistan-affairs/271499-ex-cj-iftikhar-meets-saudi-ambassador-exile-deal-offered.html Saudi envoy meets deposed CJ, invites him for Haj Iftikhar declines invitation; says he cannot leave country in present situation By Umar Cheema Dec 7th, 2007 07:46 PM http://thenews.jang.com.pk/top_story...l.asp?Id=11593
ISLAMABAD: Saudi Ambassador, Ali Awaz Al Asiri called on confined former chief Justice, Iftikhar Chaudhry at his residence. Intelligence sources told that this meeting between the Saudi ambassador and the former chief justice lasted for about an hour at the Judges Colony, where the demands for the re-instatement of the Judges and other options deliberated. Sources told that following the parley with the chief justice, Saudi ambassador also visited the foreign office here and discussed matters of national importance. REFERENCE: Saudi envoy meets former CJ Iftikhar Chaudhry Updated at Friday, December 07, 2007 1330 PST http://thenews.jang.com.pk/updates.asp?id=33504 REFERENCE: Jang Group has removed [permanently] many news stories from their web cache to lie blatantly without being caught, here is the source for the above Umar Cheema's quote : http://www.paklinks.com/gs/pakistan-affairs/271499-ex-cj-iftikhar-meets-saudi-ambassador-exile-deal-offered.html
Saudi Royal Family Lives - Whose side are they? part 1 of 2
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYhbibt6xnQ&feature=related
Saudi Royal Family Lives - Whose side are they? part 2 of 2
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7Nf0htagJY&feature=related
Saudi Arabia is ready to offer Pakistan's sacked chief justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, shelter in the kingdom, Pakistani government sources told Adnkronos International (AKI). High-level sources told AKI, on condition of anonymity, that this was discussed when the Saudi Ambassador to Pakistan, Ali Awaz Al Asiri, called on the deposed chief justice at his residence in the capital Islamabad on Friday. They said that the meeting was set up by the Pakistani government. Al Asiri is believed to have invited Chaudhry and his family to make the Haj or Muslim pilgrimage to the holy city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia, this year. The Haj is scheduled to take place this month. Al Asiri is also believed to have offered Chaudhry and his family a prolonged stay in Saudi Arabia. Sources within the Saudi consulate in Karachi, on the condition of anonymity, also confirmed to AKI the offer of shelter to Chaudhry and said that the government of Saudi Arabia had tried to bring stability to Pakistan. Chaudhry was sacked as chief justice after President Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency in Pakistan on 3 November, citing rising extremism and an unruly judiciary. The former head of the Supreme Court was placed under house arrest. While opposition leader and former prime minister Nawaz Sharif was prevented from meeting Chaudhry on Thursday, just a day later Al Asiri was allowed to meet him. It is believed that the potential deal would help break the deadlock within opposition parties who are divided on whether to contest the January general elections if the sacked judges are not reinstated. A Saudi-brokered deal would be a face-saving gesture for Chaudhry and the entire opposition who need to deal with Musharraf's government and also support an independent judiciary to gain public support. REFERENCE: Jang Group has removed [permanently] many news stories from their web cache to lie blatantly without being caught, here is the source for the above Umar Cheema's quote : http://www.paklinks.com/gs/pakistan-affairs/271499-ex-cj-iftikhar-meets-saudi-ambassador-exile-deal-offered.html
Bush and the Prince
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_4nF6M0KBA
The period of history which is commonly called modern wrote Bertrand Russell in 1945, has a mental outlook which differs from that of the medieval period in many ways. Of these, two are most important: the diminishing authority of the Church, and the increasing authority of science.The culture of modern times, Russell added, is more lay than clerical, so that states increasingly replace[d] the Church as the authority that controls culture. These modern states, partly under the influence of science, tended, Russell felt, toward democracy, which first became an important force in the modern sense with the American and French Revolutions (1). Last Monday, nearly 230 years after the modern democratic American Revolution challenged the Divine Right of Kings and “made the rights of man known to all of Europe (Condorcet), a curious meeting took place in the vacation home of the President of the United States. News of this summit in Crawford, Texas sent Kant, Voltaire, Condorcet, Thomas Jefferson and other leading thinkers of the Ages of Reason and (bourgeois) Revolution spinning in their coffins a little faster than usual.
In one chair sat George W. Bush, the messianic militarist (Ralph Naders description) United States (U.S.) president who once invoked Christ as his favorite political philosopher (because he changed my heart and who announced his imperialist war(s) on terror and the Arab world as crusade (2). A friend of school prayer and the death penalty and a religiously based opponent of abortion rights, gay rights, civil rights, evolutionary science, and stem-cell research, Bush is probably the nations most theocratic president to date. He finds critical electoral support among the highly mobilized group of Americans “ equaling perhaps a third of the first modern nations citizenry “ who call themselves Fundamentalist Christians and who therefore tend to believe literally in such biblical prophecies as Armageddon, and the Second Coming. These beliefs, taken from the book of Revelation, imply acceptance, as David Harvey notes, of the horrors of war (particularly in the Middle East) as a prelude to the achievement of Gods will on earth(3).
Bush is probably the most authoritarian U.S. president since at least the turn of the 20th century. He has exhibited extreme disdain for democratic institutions and values in numerous ways, including chronic deception of the American public (most dramatically in regard to the reasons for, and achievements of, his Iraq occupation and nature of his middle-class tax cuts), denial of citizen access to public White House records, and a determination to enact regressive, corporate plutocratic domestic policies opposed by most Americans.
Sitting in the other chair at Crawford was Crown Prince Abdullah, neo-medieval monarch of the most reactionary and doctrinaire nation on earth. According to Gilbert Achcar in 1997, democratic America longstanding client state Saudi Arabia is the antithesis of democracy. It is a country where the Koran and Sharia are the only basic law and which is run by ultra-puritan Wahhabi [fanatically extremist and arch-authoritarian] Muslims. It is incontestably the most fundamentalist state in the world, the most totalitarian in political and cultural terms, and the most oppressive of the female half of the population (4).
Things have not improved much in Saudi Arabia (from an Enlightenment perspective, at least) over the last eight years. The kingdom still enjoys a continuing positive relationship with the United States despite, or because of, its continuing terrible record of antidemocratic actions. It still practices the wholesale denial of civil, political, and human rights. Despite the Bush administration pseudo-revolutionary rhetoric about bringing freedom and democracy to the Arab world, the totalitarian Saudi state remains a close US ally, receiving ample support from the Pentagon.
The secret to this positive relationship, of course, is oil. Saudi Arabia has the largest petroleum reserves on the planet, a factor of great significance to the architects and maintainers of American empire. In 1945, Noam Chomsky notes, U.S. State Department officials described Saudi-Arabian energy resources as ˜a stupendous source of strategic power and one of the greatest material prizes in history. Thanks mainly to its vast oil endowments, President Dwight Eisenhower considered the oil-laden Persian Gulf (where Saudi Arabia remains the petroleum-soaked crown jewel) to be the most strategically important area of the world. By controlling Saudi and other Arab oil resources and production, U.S. policymakers have long hoped to attain significant veto power over the economic, military, and diplomatic conduct of rival states and regions, who depend significantly on external (and especially Middle Eastern) energy supplies(5).
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7yhR20ny7k&feature=related
The relevance of that strategic and veto power is accelerated for those policymakers by Americas growing dependence upon foreign oil imports and the emergence of more functional state-capitalist systems in Western Europe and East Asia as superior economic competitors. Increasingly unable to keep up (on purely economic terms) with their world capitalist rivals, the deeply indebted and highly defense (military)-addicted U.S. empire relies like never before on its vast military might (a source of power and weakness at one and the same time) to shore up its challenged economic strength by keeping an armed boot on the global oil spigot (6).
At the same time, American imperialists rightly consider control of that spigot as vital to their declared project of preventing the surfacing of any conceivable challenge to U.S. global military hegemony. As Harvey notes, the military runs on oil. North Korea may have a sophisticated air-force, but it cannot use it much for lack of fuel. Not only does the U.S. need to ensure its own military supplies. But any future military conflict with, say, China [which U.S. planners consider to their greatest strategic military rival in coming decades, P.S.], will be lopsided if the U.S. has the power to cut off oil supplies to its opponent. (7)
Thanks to the State Departments early understanding of oil-rich Saudi Arabia stupendous strategic relevance, U.S. imperial architects made a critical deal with the kingdom after WWII. The U.S. was granted decisive control over the Saudis economic and external affairs (including oil production and pricing), along with military basing rights. In return, the U.S. agreed to guarantee the security of the regime from internal (democratic and otherwise) and external threats.
Buttressed by its initially small share of the oil wealth that American corporations extracted from its soil, the Saudi state managed to keep the Ages of Reason and Revolution at bay into the 21st Century. As Achcar notes, “the perpetuation and installation by the US of pre-modern tribal dynasty in Saudi Arabia“ a process replicated by the US and other western nations (principally England) in other Arab oil states “ has contrasted strongly with colonialism project of overturning traditional structures in other parts of the world and setting up models emulating political modernity. The civilizing mission of the West in the establishment of state institutions did not extend to [Saudi Arabia and other oil monarchies]. On the contrary, here the project was to consolidate backwardness in order to guarantee unfettered exploitation of hydrocarbon resources by the imperial power (8).
And exploit Saudi oil the US did. American corporate petroleum authorities pumped out and processed enormous amounts of the kingdoms black gold and sold it at remarkably low prices “ down to $1.29 per barrel by 1969 “ to fuel the dazzling expansion of leading core state (Western and Japanese) economies during the 1950s and 1960s.
It is true that Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and other Arab oil states including Iran, Iraq, and Kuwait dramatically increased oil prices and Arab wealth by forming a producers cartel (OPEC) that brandished the boycott weapon to great effect in the 1970s. By the end of that decade, Middle Eastern oil had risen to $25 per barrel, with Arab elites now receiving most of the revenue. Nonetheless, as Middle Eastern historian Rashid Kahlidi points out, the American companies continued to enjoy a privileged position in their relations with the Saudi oil industry and the United States continued to enjoy its strategic privileges in the country, such as rights to military bases. American industry and services also had great advantages in access to the lucrative Saudi market, which in light of the new oil wealth was insatiable in its demand for construction, consumer goods and most profitably of all expensive weapons systems far too complex to be used without the very expensive training and maintenance provided by American companies. The fantastic new oil revenues made the Saudi regime more powerful than ever in its ability to repress dissent, including that of those who wish to deny the US special privileges in and around the kingdom (9).
Which brings us to the reason for the Crown Prince presence in Crawford. He came to discuss the expansion of Saudi oil output, required by the American overlords to reduce what Bush and his advisors consider the unreasonably high ($55 a barrel) price of oil. The corporate-petrocratic White House does not mind high oil prices; no true oiligarchy would. But the administration is worried that current prices at the American pump are so elevated that they threaten US economic growth and endanger the Republican Partys ability to effectively push its expensive, regressive, and reactionary policy agenda. It was, by all appearances, a successful meeting for Bush: Prince Abdullah committed his kingdom to investing $50 billion to increase Saudi oil production over the next decade.
To show concern for the embattled American consumer, the White House had the monarch sit down briefly with some ordinary folk in a dingy Crawford diner. Heck, Bush wanted the American people to know, ole Abdullah (we do not know if Dubya has given him a personal nickname yet) is a regular fellow...wants to sit down and order a burger too“ just like our pseudo-populist, blue-blooded president. Gas prices and not human rights were the discussion topic during this little appearance, we can be sure.
Responsible journalists might find the administrations push for increased Saudi oil production (and lower oil prices) highly interesting in light of Bushs disastrous, illegal, and immoral occupation of Iraq. Among other things, this brazen imperial action was supposed to bring Iraqs vast petroleum reserves on line, helping keep oil prices within America definition of “reasonable. But two years after Bushs proto-fascistic Mission Accomplished PR stunt (featuring the top-gun president landing in a flight suit on a U.S. aircraft carrier off the California coast), this and other declared Operation Iraqi Freedom objectives remain woefully unfulfilled. The war on Iraq has succeeded only in killing perhaps 100,000 Iraqi civilians, sacrificing more than 1,500 (predominantly working-class) US service persons (and maiming many more), shattering civil authority within Iraq, and tearing down standard civilized norms and institutions of international law and decency. It has deeply alienated Arab (including Iraqi) and world public opinion, fanned the flames of Islamic fundamentalism, and sparked an impressive Iraqi resistance movement that has naturally targeted oil pipelines in its effort to force the invaders departure.
Bush Dancing with Saudis
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoRHLrXmqbc&feature=related
For a significant number of Americans of Fundamentalist sentiment (maybe even the president himself), however, this may all be largely for the good. After all, the bible calls for a final war beginning in the Middle East as prelude to the return of Jesus Christ Our Savior and the ascendancy of non-sinners to Heaven.
Also meriting critical journalistic attention is the meaning of Bushs call increased Saudi (and global) oil production in relation to the broad scientific consensus which concludes that planetary temperatures are dramatically elevating thanks primarily to human societys massive discharge of petroleum-based emissions. This global warming problem carries numerous disastrous consequences “ many already well underway “ for human beings and other living things. As John Bellamy Foster has recently noted, “not only has global warming emerged since the 1980s as the greatest threat yet to the biosphere as we know it, but the problem has gotten rapidly worse. The prospect of only a very limited rise in average world temperatures of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels “ an amount of increase thought to separate non-catastrophic from catastrophic levels of global warming “ will soon become unstoppable.
There is growing fear among scientists, Foster adds, of runaway global warming due to cumulative effects associated with a lessening of the carbon-absorbing capacities of the oceans and forests – a probable consequence of global warming itself. In Antarctica glaciers are melting and ice shelves thinning, pointing to a rise in sea levels. All ecosystems on earth are now in decline. Species are facing extinction at levels not seen for 65 million years. Global shortages of fresh water are looming. The toxicity of the earth is increasing.
All this and more is to be expected,Foster adds, now that the rational regulation of the environment under capitalism has been shown to be a dangerous fantasy in the age of neoliberal globalization, when the worlds unchallenged military superpower refuses to sign even the mild anti-warming Kyoto Protocol (10).
The last thing this developing eco-catastrophe calls for is increased production and consumption of petroleum.
Bushs brazen indifference to the looming problem of anthropogenic global warming (seen in his suppression of government reports documenting climate change as well his rejection of the Kyoto accord) is certainly related to his corporate-petrocratic background and connections. Real (or onetime wannabe) Texan oil men dont lose sleep about the externalized costs of their poisonous industry. But another part of the administration disregard for growing concerns about planetary warming is more cosmological in nature. The nations Fundamentalist Christians have little reason to care about the excessive heating (human-generated or not) of the climate. When its all about the end of the world and getting to be one of The Chosen People who doesnt get Left Behind (the name of a best-selling series of apocalyptic fundamentalist novels in the US) on the fleeting and sinful earth, after all, global warming is no problem. From a literalist biblical perspective, the ongoing climate change might actually be welcome: it will help the world burn faster when Judgment Day comes.
I have no idea what Saudi religious doctrine tells Prince Abdullah to think about the melting of the planet. It seems safe to assume, however, that his government efforts to maintain high oil prices have had less to do with protecting a livable climate than maintaining the wealth and power of his tribal, arch-reactionary state.
The leading minds of the Age of Reason would be horrified by the spectacle of boy-king George and his good friend Prince Abdullah meeting to accelerate the disastrous overheating of humanitys only available climate. More than two centuries after the American Revolution heralded the arrival of modern (at once rational and democratic) statesmanship, these two dynastic and fundamentalist heads of states’ selfish contempt for democracy, science, and the greater common good should disqualify them from serving as toxic arbiters of our environmental fate. Should, that is ¦in an even moderately rational and democratic world.
Would Enlightenment leaders be surprised? At least one, perhaps, would not. As Chomsky has reminded us on repeated occasions, Thomas Jefferson in his later years warned that the early US Republic banking institutions and moneyed corporations (Jefferson) would, if not curbed, become a form of absolutism that would destroy the promise of the democratic revolution. Subsequent developments, Chomsky notes, have more than fulfilled Jeffersons most dire expectations. The nations great and inherently (and legally, in fact) pathological corporations and the concentrated structures of political power they tend to control have become largely unaccountable and increasingly immune from popular interference and public inspection while gaining great and expanding control over the global order. Ruled by massive, profit-addicted, and militantly hierarchical institutions “ modern managerial corporations “ that were given the rights of immortal persons under early 20th century US law, American global state capitalism has occasionally been compelled to temper its underlying tendencies towards savage inequality, tyranny, oppression, empire, militarism, and ecological as well socioeconomic imbalance. Beyond occasional moments of rational, socially responsible, and democratic reform and regulation, however, the system deeper and irresistible drift is always towards the destructive and chaotic concentration of unaccountable power and the ceaseless pursuit of wealth and control for the most privileged members of the owning, investing, and exploiting (business) class (11). The advance of whatever works (in policymakers eyes) to serve those basic, dark imperatives is the basic rule of life and policy under the soulless regime of the moneyed corporations
Thanks to this harsh reality, theres no particular commitment on the part of those in power to scientific rationalism and/or democratic modernism per se. The dominant values are profit, power, empire, and the never-ending quest for capital accumulation “ guiding principles that lead often enough to the embrace of atavistic, pre-modern barbarism and blatant disregard for humanity and its environmental and other needs. Embodied by such science-friendly national founding heroes as Benjamin Franklin and Jefferson, the legacy of the Age of Reason becomes little more than a means to reactionary, selfish, and unreasonable ends.
Rational, scientifically informed thinking is embraced and empowered only insofar as it serves the deeper autocratic imperatives of empire, profit, and inequality. It is employed in the rapacious capitalist extraction of the planets fossil fuels. It is disregarded, however, when it comes to understanding and confronting the grave ecological price that is paid for excessive, unregulated carbon emissions. It is put to profitable and strategic imperial use in the sophisticated arming of a vicious, medieval monarchy that happens to support the United States neo-medieval determination effort to rule the world on the basis of a sheer preponderance of force.
But then, this is what happens when the democratic revolution gives way to the absolutism of state capitalist autocracy. Only those who do not understand the inherently antisocial irrationality of American imperial capitalism " living embodiment of the Thermidorian nightmare that Jefferson glimpsed “ should find it odd that two reactionary, aristocratic petro-Fundamentalists like King George and Prince Abdullah are empowered to push the overheated planet temperature higher even as the preponderant majority of the world scientifically trained climate experts say STOP. REFERENCE: King George, Prince Abdullah, Global Warming, and the Torture of Thomas Jefferson King George, Prince Abdullah, Global Warming, and the Torture of Thomas Jefferson By Paul Street Sunday, May 01, 2005 http://www.zcommunications.org/king-george-prince-abdullah-global-warming-and-the-torture-of-thomas-jefferson-by-paul-street-1
WASHINGTON, October 17: Dear Readers, this is the final piece on the South Asia Tribune, as this site is now being closed for good. I understand that it may come as a rude shock to many and may create despair and depression for all those who had started to look up to SAT as a beacon of courage and resistance, but this decision has been based on many factors, which I will explain briefly. SAT would be on line for the rest of this month, till the end of October. On November 1, 2005 it will disappear from the Internet. All those who may be interested in keeping a record of any SAT article or report can save it any time before that date. REFERENCE: The Final Word from theSouth Asia Tribune By Shaheen Sehbai WASHINGTON DC, Oct 17, 2005 ISSN: 1684-2057 www.satribune.com http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/200510/P1_sat.htm
Mr Shaheen Sehbai (former correspondent of Daily Dawn; former editor of The News; ex Director News of ARY ONE TV Channel; former director of GEO News Network; and presently Group Editor the News), escaped from Pakistan to save himself from the so-called wrath of the establishment headed by General Musharraf, after the controversy surrounding his story about the murder of Daniel Pearl. It was apparently simply to obtain the Green Card for himself, and his family in the United States. Mr Sehbai then started to run a web based news service, i.e., South Asia Tribune, funded through dubious sources, but he suddenly reappeared and closed his website. During his self-imposed exile in the USA, he used to raise hue and cry against the military establishment that he and his family members’ life was in danger, but the so-called danger suddenly vanished after the whole family getting the Green Cards. He then returned to Pakistan and that too under the same Musharraf regime, and joined ARY TV channel, then GEO, and then the News, where he is presently working.
Now as to how Jang Group/The News International plays with the National Interest of Pakistan."QUOTE"
By Shaheen Sehbai in Washington and Rauf Klasra in Islamabad Vol-2, Jul 27-Aug 02, 2002 ISSN:1684-0275 www.satribune.com Vol-2, Jul 27- Aug 02, 2002 ISSN:1684-0275 satribune.com http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/july27_02_02/index.htm It can only be called mind boggling. Something very mysterious and fishy was going on between the Saudi Royal family and General Musharraf's government prior to September 11 WTC attacks. Or, as the Pakistan Ambassador to the Royal Kingdom hinted, someone was trying to use the name of the Saudi royals to promote some hidden agenda in Pakistan under the garb of huge investments. Documents in Pakistani Government files show that on Finance Minister Shaukat Aziz's invitation, a Saudi prince had offered to invest close to $10 billion in Pakistan, an offer which was unprecedented in Pakistani and Saudi history. The money would have come over a few years but $300 million were immediately made available and the Saudis were very eager to get things off the ground, as if in a great rush.
The offer was so serious General Musharraf himself wrote a letter to the Saudi prince, inviting him to Islamabad. The prince wrote back accepting the invitation and first sent his representatives to do the ground work. The Saudis wanted to invest in four key sectors: Renew a whole new city project near capital Islamabad (a project launched by the Benazir Bhutto government but later abandoned); take over country's second largest and lucrative Habib Bank of Pakistan; build an oil refinery in Port city of Karachi; and build or buy a five star hotel. The projections of investment were $4 billion in the city project, $2 billion for the oil refinery, $2-3billion for Habib Bank and $100 million for the five-star hotel.This mysterious story began with secret negotiations between the two sides sometime in beginning of 2000 resulted in General Pervez Musharraf dispatching a letter on Nov 6, 2002 to Prince Sultan Bin Turki Bin Abdul Aziz, said to be Chairman of the little known International Islamic Development Trust (IIDT) and International Infrastructure Development Company (IIDC). (Click to view the image).
The prince had accepted to be Chairman of the company on April 9, 2000 vide a signed letter (Click to view the image). URL: http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/july27_02_02/images/frontpage/saudi%20story%20images/saudiacceptance.jpg
The highly pleased prince responded with his own letter to General Musharraf dated Nov 30, 2000 in which he disclosed that a team of IIDC/IIDT was already "in serious negotiations" with Pakistani officials as he was writing the reply. (Click to view the image). http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/july27_02_02/images/frontpage/saudi%20story%20images/turkiletter.jpg
General Musharraf was asked to give an audience to the prince's man, IIDT President one Mr Saeed Akhtar, who, he wrote, "can brief you in person (about) the avenues we are seeking for cooperation and investment." It is not clear whether General Musharraf received Saeed Akhtar but in two letters sent to the Board of Investment, Government of Pakistan, on Dec 14 and Dec 20, 2000, IIDT and its subsidiary SUNWAYCO, gave details of the proposed investments. Ambassador Asad Durrani says SUNWAYCO was not a Saudi-backed company and no royal family member was involved. He also disputes that Prince Sultan Bin Turki Bin Abdul Aziz had anything to do with these offers but he says Prince Sultan Bin Nasir Bin Abdul Aziz has been investing in Pakistan. The documents in Pakistan Government files, however, mention Prince Sultan Bin Turki and his signatures, genuine or forged, are there on at least three documents. It is not clear whether General Musharraf received Saeed Akhtar but in two letters sent to the Board of Investment, Government of Pakistan, on Dec 14 and Dec 20, 2000, IIDT and its subsidiary SUNWAYCO, gave details of the proposed investments. Ambassador Asad Durrani says SUNWAYCO was not a Saudi-backed company and no royal family member was involved. He also disputes that Prince Sultan Bin Turki Bin Abdul Aziz had anything to do with these offers but he says Prince Sultan Bin Nasir Bin Abdul Aziz has been investing in Pakistan. The documents in Pakistan Government files, however, mention Prince Sultan Bin Turki and his signatures, genuine or forged, are there on at least three documents. The first detailed SUNWAYCO offer was made in a letter dated Dec 20, 2000 and said in part: "We take this opportunity to introduce our group as investors from Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries including overseas Pakistanis, headed by His Royal Highness Prince Sultan Bin Turki Bin Abdul Aziz, under the name of International Islamic Development Trust (IIDT) incorporated under the laws of Bahamas with the base capital of US$ 3.8 billion." (Click to view the image
URL: http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/july27_02_02/images/frontpage/saudi%20story%20images/sunway1.jpg
URL: http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/july27_02_02/images/frontpage/saudi%20story%20images/sunway2.jpg
ULR: http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/july27_02_02/images/frontpage/saudi%20story%20images/sunway3.jpg
"The Trust activities include diverse economic fields but mainly it helps and assists in the social and infrastructure development sectors and human development particularly in the Muslim developing countries," the letter said, disclosing that "IIDT has already budgeted for an initial investment of $1 billion in Pakistan during the next 12 months with a firm commitment for further investments in different mega projects in years to come. We have already approached the concerned authorities.." it said, giving details of the four sectors and the expected investment totaling over $9 billion. IIDT has already approved an initial financing of $200 million and $100 million as a soft term loan for the Islamabad New City Project. The money is available for immediate dispersal, the letter said.
The Board of Investment responded to the offer on Jan 2, 2001 saying the proposals were being sent to different ministries for consultations and when their views are available, the BOI will revert to you.(Click to view the image). URL: http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/july27_02_02/images/frontpage/saudi%20story%20images/boiletter.jpg
A copy of the proposals was faxed to the Pakistan Ambassador in Saudi Arabia, Lt. General (Retd) Asad Durrani, a former head of Pakistan's infamous Inter-Services intelligence agency, the ISI. That is when the trouble for the Saudis began.
On Jan 15, 2001, Gen Asad Durrani sent a letter to the Board of Investment writing, inter alia, that the Prince's company was fake and "cannot be entrusted responsibility for huge projects for which it has shown interest."
The Durrani letter was a bomb shell for many and only he knows why he kicked out proposals for billions of dollars of investment, dismissing the company as fake. The written reason Durrani gave for his judgment was that "the company is not known in business circles of Saudi Arabia, the phone numbers given do not belong to it, and faxes sent to the prince have remained unanswered." (Click to view the image). URL: http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/july27_02_02/images/frontpage/saudi%20story%20images/rejectionletter.jpg
Later talking to the SA Tribune on phone from Riyadh on Tuesday, July 23, 2002, Gen. Durrani confirmed that he had blocked the offer as it looked suspicious with apparently no connection to the Saudi Royal Family. He said two Pakistanis met him in connection with the proposed investments but he found them to be suspicious and could not believe they were able to invest billions of dollars in Pakistan. "Straightaway, whenever someone comes and gives you such a project, you should get suspicious...If I were to go and make these claim that I want to invest 12billion dollars, people will throw me out of the room, I suppose," General Durrani said. (Click to hear Interview). On Jan 20, 2001 the Board of Investment issued a letter saying in view of Gen. Durrani's comments, the Saudi investments "chapter should be closed."
The Saudis were enraged, so say the least, and felt embarrassed and insulted. But in Pakistani files a letter of Prince Sultan is available which appears to be another desperate attempt to revive the project. This letter is addressed strangely enough to the then Chairman of the National Accountability Bureau, Lt. General Maqbool, now Governor of Punjab province, with copies to Gen. Musharraf's office and Board of Investment. In this letter dated March 7, 2001, the Prince wrote that the IIDT had already started work on the oil refinery while the purchase of Habib Bank was under negotiations. (Click to view the image) URL: http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/july27_02_02/images/frontpage/saudi%20story%20images/genmaqbool.jpg
The letter emphasized that IIDT was ready for final negotiations and urged the NAB Chairman to complete these negotiations "under your personal auspices" at the earliest. Why was an accountability bureau chief being asked to take over the investment portfolio is not only mysterious but unexplained.
Nothing happened on the Pakistani side, though.
On May 21, 2001 SUNWAYCO, the lead company for the Islamabad city project, rejected as "fake" by Ambassador Asad Durrani, sent a five-page letter to the Chairman, Board of Investment, with copies to Finance, Interior and Housing Ministers, General Musharraf's Chief of Staff, now late Gen Ghulam Ahmed, Chairman of National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and other officials.
This letter accused General Durrani of sabotaging their proposals and gave some more details of what had been going on behind the scenes. ( Click to view the image pg:1 pg:2 pg:3 pg:4 pg:5 ). It for the first and last time mentioned the name of Prince Sultan Bin Nasir Bin Abdul Aziz, saying he had already visited Pakistan along with a representative of IIDT/IIDC.
http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/july27_02_02/images/frontpage/saudi%20story%20images/protest1.jpg
URL: http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/july27_02_02/images/frontpage/saudi%20story%20images/protest2.jpg
ULR: http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/july27_02_02/images/frontpage/saudi%20story%20images/protest3.jpg
URL: http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/july27_02_02/images/frontpage/saudi%20story%20images/protest4.jpg
URL: http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/july27_02_02/images/frontpage/saudi%20story%20images/protest5.jpg
It also revealed that:
The IIDT was invited to invest in Pakistan by Finance Minister Shaukat Aziz. IIDT had approved an initial $1 billion and another $1.5 billion for investment. Concerned Pak Government authorities have been seriously negotiating with representatives of IIDT/IIDC and various delegations have exchanged visits. A representative of IIDT, Mr Al Riyatti was included in the delegation of Saudi Prince Sultan Bin Nasir Bin Abdul Aziz. Describing SUNWAYCO as a fake company was a malicious statement and it is libel under international law for a compensation exceeding billions of dollars. The immediate inflow of $300 million in these projects has been stopped. A formal apology to Prince Sultan was demanded from the Government of Pakistan. But the letter still kept the doors open and suggested some remedies including a visit of the Board of Investment Chairman to Saudi Arabia and eliminating the role of the Pak Ambassador in Saudi Arabia in any future dealings which, it proposed, should be done through the Saudi Embassy in Islamabad and directly with the office of Prince Sultan Bin Turki Bin Abdul Aziz, whose telephone numbers and contacts were given.
An application was also filed with Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan on May 21, 2001 to incorporate SUNWAYCO in Pakistan.
The Islamabad address of the Saudi company in Sector F-10 was said to be a huge office until around May of 2001. A visit to that office this week by our correspondent Rauf Klasra showed there was nothing there any more. "I went there in the afternoon on Tuesday, July 23, 2002, and found the house (office) closed. Neighbours told me that a big office was opened a couple of years ago but had been closed for more than a year. There was no sign board, no name plate, or anything indicating any Saudi presence in that house. Repeated ringing of door bell to confirm whether someone was inside produced no response," he reported. "Everybody appears to have evaporated into thin air."
All this has raised a number of questions, which remain unanswered. Among them:
Why did the former ISI Chief Gen Durrani summarily dismiss the offer as fake. Did he have some special background of the company or the people behind it? He says the looks of the executives of the company, who were Pakistanis and not Saudis, were suspicious. Can a government make judgments about investment proposals sent in writing on mere looks of some people?
Why did the former ISI Chief Gen Durrani summarily dismiss the offer as fake. Did he have some special background of the company or the people behind it? He says the looks of the executives of the company, who were Pakistanis and not Saudis, were suspicious. Can a government make judgments about investment proposals sent in writing on mere looks of some people?
Who really is Prince Sultan Bin Turki Bin Abdul Aziz? There is no detail available on any Saudi site. He is said to be a close relation of the long time Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki bin Abdul Aziz. Does it mean it was some kind of a Saudi intelligence scheme to pump in money into Pakistan and take control of strategic assets like a major bank, a whole city where any number of people could stay and take shelter, a five-star hotel to keep VIPs, a front business like an oil refinery? The Ambassador says Prince Sultan Bin Turki was not involved. Then why have all the government files letters signed by him and correspondence in his name.
Why did General Pervez Musharraf write a letter to Prince Sultan Bin Turki Bin Abdul Aziz, if he was not the person involved. Why not send a letter to Prince Sultan Bin Nasir, who did visit Pakistan later? Who misled Musharraf and what game was going on? The Ambassador says the other Prince, Sultan Bin Nasir, was interested in investments, but his name does not figure on any file or in the proposals made by IIDT/IIDC or SUNWAYCO. Was he then in the picture or was he trying to hide his name for fear of exposure or some other reason?
Was something going on between General Musharraf and the Saudis to create a huge joint infrastructure that could be used later for any other purpose? Why were the Saudis, or people using their name and identities, so keen to pump in money and then suddenly disappeared? Was it all connected to terrorism or terrorist organizations operating in Afghanistan and in the US?
Following is the transcript of the interview of Lt. General (Retd) Asad Durrani, Pakistan Ambassador to Saudi Arabia with Shaheen Sehbai, Editor, South Asia Tribune, on Tuesday, July 23, 2002 about suspicious Saudi investment plans in Pakistan. The interview was in English, but was mixed with Urdu language in some places:
SS: Last year, some time around March/April, the Government of Pakistan decided, and that was on the basis of one of your comments, that this (Saudi) company was not genuine. The Government closed the whole project and they said this matter is closed..
AD: Yes, there was one company which did not belong to any of the princes. About that, I had said look we cannot find out anything about that company here.
SS: Sunwayco..
AD: Apparently that company had their headquarters in Switzerland..
SS: Probably in Monaco…
AD: That's the only thing that I remember, the rest, Prince Sultan Bin Nasir and others, they are very genuine people.
SS: Have there been any investments in the last one year or two by these people in Pakistan?
AD: I think there have been plenty of investments in the last year and a half. If you are interested, you can always send your contact number and fax and one will dig out all the details.
SS: (Did these investments include) any of these big projects they were talking about like buying the Habib Bank or setting up a Islamabad (New city).
AD: No, on that, I don't think anything final has been done, I think these negotiations take a long time, I suppose.
SS: What is the position of Prince Sultan Bin Nasir Bin Turki, is he fairly high in the royal family?
AD: Sultan Bin Nasir Bin Abdul Aziz, and this name has no "Turki" anywhere.
SS: But the papers that we have show Prince "Turki" is also there.
AD: I would suggest to you not to depend on the papers, because it confuses the source, it confuses the name, it confuses the project. But, you know, we have to live with this environment, I suppose. Sultan Bin Nasir Bin Abdul Aziz, that means he is the direct descendant of King Abdul Aziz.
SS: One of your letters was about a company named Sunwayco…
AD: Oh, yes yes, that is the one we were told that is based in Geneva and we found out they had some representatives here but they were "airy fairy."
SS: And that was the company. Probably they were trying to make those proposals in Pakistan. Later, they wrote a protest letter too to the Government of Pakistan…
AD: That's correct, when you talk of Sunwayco, that is correct. Sunwayco, Switzerland, as far as I know, there was no prince involved in it. The two gentlemen, who were here, were also not Saudis who came to see me.
SS: They were Pakistanis probably, the letters had Pakistani names like Sohail Akhtar and..
AD: He never came to us, their Pakistani representative never came to us.
SS: Why have they been using the name of the prince, because his name is (everywhere).
AD: I suppose, I don't know why they did that exactly, you can probably ask them but I was not told the name of the prince.
SS: President General Musharraf also wrote a letter to Prince Sultan Bin Turki Bin Abdul Aziz regarding cooperation and then he replied back. Things were going back and forth.
AD: I really would not know about that.
SS: But basically what the story is saying…
AD: When you refer to Sultan Bin Turki's name, then I get confused and I don't know what case you are talking about. I am not aware of that..
SS: But the whole case, they say, is because, you wrote a letter, you wrote about Sunwayco, that's very clear in your letter.
AD: I definitely wrote about Sunwayco that we have no information about this company. Here in Saudia, we have no information and we could not trace out this company. You better ask Switzerland where this company is based. After that, these two gentlemen did come to me and told me that were the (Sunwayco) representatives, how could you state that we don't exist. So, those two gentlemen came but I was not convinced. To me it was something not interesting really.
SS: They were asking for fairly huge projects, if you total their proposed investment, it was something close to 8-9 billion dollars.
AD: Straightaway, whenever someone comes and gives you such a project, you should get suspicious.
SS: Something was suspicious because 8-9 billion dollars, like 4 billions dollars for a city near Islamabad, 3-4 billion dollars in Habib Bank, another 2 billion in an oil refinery, that was huge money. It has never been done before.
AD: If I were to go and make these claim that I want to invest 12 billion dollars, people will throw me out of the room, I suppose.
"UNQUOTE"
"QUOTE"
The Saudis Respond to Bugging Story: Pakistanis Still Mum Special SAT Report Issue No 65, Nov 2-8, 2003 ISSN:1684-2057 satribune.com http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/nov2_8_03/P1_saudi.htmISLAMABAD: Saudi Arabia has finally reacted to the South Asia Tribune report that the suites of Crown Prince Abdullah were bugged in Islamabad and that the Saudis had detected the bugging. But the Saudi response, coming almost a week after the report was published by SA Tribune and then by several international newspapers, raises more questions than it answers. The Saudi Ambassador in Islamabad, Ali Awadh Asseri, when contacted by an Islamabad newspaper “The News” described the report as “irresponsible”. "Such irresponsible reporting has its own motives and objectives,” the ambassador told “The News” while commenting on the report.
But then he immediately went into the diplomatic mode and said: “Let me assure you that nothing in the whole world can affect traditional historical ties between Pakistan and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.” The implication either was that the bugging could not affect the historical ties or may be its reporting did not. The ambassador was quoted as saying: “This irresponsible report did not reflect the historical trust existing among the two countries and the two nations. The love and affection demonstrated by the Government of Pakistan during Crown prince visit showed what the visit meant to them.” "What we saw in Pakistan during the visit---the genuine love was unprecedented," Ambassador Asseri said.
This was the total comment of the Saudi Ambassador but “The News” also quoted an un-named Saudi source, who said the report was “an attempt only aimed at the derangement of the historical relations between the Kingdom of SA and the brotherly country of Pakistan.” "The current relations between the two countries are based on a stable principle and transparency in dealing with every matter between the two countries which does not need from either side to resort to such acts that are mentioned by those who are prejudiced,” un-named source was quoted as saying.
"The Kingdom of SA while stressing the falsehood of this story reaffirms that it does not pay any attention to this matter and that its trust in its brotherly Pakistan is bigger than any attempt from someone to harm it or influence it," the un-named source said. Though the Saudi response came a week after the story was published, interestingly there has been absolutely no reaction from the Pakistani officials. Highly placed sources in the Pakistani police, however, again confirmed to the SA Tribune that the incident did take place and the Saudis were very angry about it all. But the sources said the Pakistani officials were not issuing any official statement as they did not want to convey to the Saudis what may be perceived as “public lies or misstatements” about something the Saudis knew well was true. Amusingly the statement of the Saudi Ambassador in Islamabad was published only in Islamabad and the same correspondent who filed the story and who also reports for the English language newspaper, The Saudi Gazette, published in Jeddah, did not either file the story to his Saudi newspaper, or they did not use it.
"UNQUOTE"
But then he immediately went into the diplomatic mode and said: “Let me assure you that nothing in the whole world can affect traditional historical ties between Pakistan and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.” The implication either was that the bugging could not affect the historical ties or may be its reporting did not. The ambassador was quoted as saying: “This irresponsible report did not reflect the historical trust existing among the two countries and the two nations. The love and affection demonstrated by the Government of Pakistan during Crown prince visit showed what the visit meant to them.” "What we saw in Pakistan during the visit---the genuine love was unprecedented," Ambassador Asseri said.
This was the total comment of the Saudi Ambassador but “The News” also quoted an un-named Saudi source, who said the report was “an attempt only aimed at the derangement of the historical relations between the Kingdom of SA and the brotherly country of Pakistan.” "The current relations between the two countries are based on a stable principle and transparency in dealing with every matter between the two countries which does not need from either side to resort to such acts that are mentioned by those who are prejudiced,” un-named source was quoted as saying.
"The Kingdom of SA while stressing the falsehood of this story reaffirms that it does not pay any attention to this matter and that its trust in its brotherly Pakistan is bigger than any attempt from someone to harm it or influence it," the un-named source said. Though the Saudi response came a week after the story was published, interestingly there has been absolutely no reaction from the Pakistani officials. Highly placed sources in the Pakistani police, however, again confirmed to the SA Tribune that the incident did take place and the Saudis were very angry about it all. But the sources said the Pakistani officials were not issuing any official statement as they did not want to convey to the Saudis what may be perceived as “public lies or misstatements” about something the Saudis knew well was true. Amusingly the statement of the Saudi Ambassador in Islamabad was published only in Islamabad and the same correspondent who filed the story and who also reports for the English language newspaper, The Saudi Gazette, published in Jeddah, did not either file the story to his Saudi newspaper, or they did not use it.
"UNQUOTE"
No comments:
Post a Comment