Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Credibility of Mansoor Ijaz.

WASHINGTON: Mansoor Ijaz, a Pakistani-American who claims to have delivered a secret message to US officials on behalf of President Asif Ali Zardari, said on Friday that his contacts indeed had delivered that letter to the then US military chief Admiral Mike Mullen. Earlier this week, Mr Mullen’s spokesman Captain John Kirby said that the admiral had not received any letter from Mr Ijaz. On Oct 10, Mr Ijaz claimed that President Zardari had sought Washington’s help for removing the army and ISI chiefs and had assured the Obama administration that he would cut all ties to militant groups if it assisted him do so. The president allegedly made this offer in a letter he gave Mr Ijaz for personally delivering it to American leaders. But earlier this week, The Cable, a publication associated with the prestigious Foreign Policy group, published a report based on a statement by Mr Mullen’s spokesman, saying that the admiral did “not know Mr Ijaz and has no recollection of receiving any correspondence from him”. Capt Kirby also said he “cannot say definitively that correspondence did not come from him — the admiral received many missives as chairman from many people every day, some official, some not. But he does not recall one from this individual”. In an email message to Dawn, Mr Ijaz pointed out that the denial confirmed his claim. “I never said I delivered anything to Admiral Mullen. What I wrote was — the memo was delivered to Adm Mullen at 1400 hrs on May 10,” Mr Ijaz wrote. “We have proof that Admiral Mullen received the memorandum and acknowledged it to the person who delivered it to him.” Mr Ijaz confirmed Capt Kirby’s claim that Admiral Mullen did not know the Pakistani-American businessman. “It is true that I do not know Admiral Mullen and have never met him. But the person I asked to take the memorandum to him — that person knew him about as well as anyone can. And that person knows me pretty well too,” Mr Ijaz wrote. REFERENCE: Mansoor Ijaz stands by his claim November 12, 2011 http://www.dawn.com/2011/11/12/mansoor-ijaz-stands-by-his-claim.html 

Mansoor Ijaz Propaganda Against Pakistan Army (FOX NEWS May 2011)


Credentials of Mr Mansoor Ijaz.

Mansoor Ijaz is founder and chairman of Crescent Investment Management LLC (CIM), a New York investment partnership since 1990 that includes among others Lt Gen James Alan Abrahamson (USAF Ret), former director of President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative and the renowned German architect Joachim Hauser. Crescent specializes in the use of quantitative modeling techniques to manage investment portfolios. 'We welcome the investment by Crescent Technology Ventures PLC. The Company's distinguished Directors and Advisers, including Lt Gen James Abrahamson (USAF Ret), Lt Gen Tom McInerney (USAF Ret), former CIA Director James Woolsey, Dr John Foster and Mansoor Ijaz, have long been contributors to US and global security initiatives. Their investment in Invicta represents a new chapter in their efforts to combat terrorist threats,' said Victor Sheymov, Invicta's president and CEO. The group’s new publicly listed technology fund, Crescent Technology Ventures Plc (CTV), is funding and developing the next generation of technologies focused on protecting vital infrastructure and providing for security against a spectrum of terrorist threats. The fund is preparing investments in five primary areas of concern: Internet and cyber-security, air and seaport cargo container security, stratospheric telecommunications platforms and alternative energy development. Former CIA Director Amb R James Woolsey serves as chairman of CTV’s Board of Advisers. Lt Gen Thomas McInerney (USAF Ret) serves as chairman of CTV’s Board of Directors. Mr Ijaz is CTV’s chief executive. REFERENCES: Profile of a SAJAer: Mansoor Ijaz, Financier, Op-Ed Columnist, and Television Commentator Crescent Technology Ventures PLC 09 August 2005 http://bestinvest.uk-wire.com/cgi-bin/articles/200508090939058850P.html  Benador Associates last updated: December 03, 2010 http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Benador_Associates
Benador Associates http://www.benadorassociates.com/ijaz.php

Mansoor Ijaz's Partner Ex CIA Chief James Woolsey on War on Iraq

URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrgjqOa8A48

Careful investigation leads one to notice that a number of intriguing groups of people and organizations converged on the events of September 11th, 2001. An example is the group of men who were members of Cornell University’s Quill & Dagger society. This included Paul Wolfowitz, National Security Advisors Sandy Berger and Stephen Hadley, Marsh & McLennan executive Stephen Friedman, and the founder of Kroll Associates, Jules Kroll. Another interconnected group of organizations is linked to these Cornell comrades, and is even more interesting in terms of its members being integral to the events of 9/11, and having benefited from those events. After the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center (WTC), a company called Stratesec (or Securacom) was responsible for the overall integration of the new security system designed by Kroll Associates. Stratesec had a small board of directors that included retired Air Force General James Abrahamson, Marvin Bush (the brother of George W. Bush) and Wirt Walker III, a cousin of the Bush brothers. Other directors included Charles Archer, former Assistant Director in charge of the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Division, and Yousef Saud Al Sabah, a member of the Kuwaiti royal family.[1] Yousef Saud Al Sabah was also chairman of the Kuwait-American Corporation (KuwAm), which between 1993 and 1999 held a controlling share of Stratesec. The other owners of Stratesec were Walker and an entity controlled by Walker and Al Sabah, called Special Situation Investment Holdings (SSIH).[2] SSIH was said to form a group with KuwAm, and the group owned several other companies, including Commander Aircraft and Aviation General. In any case, the Kuwaiti royal family can be said to have benefited from 9/11 due to “The War on Terror” that removed Saddam Hussein from power. Of course, that was the second consecutive US war that Kuwait benefited from, the first being the 1991 Gulf War led by President George H.W. Bush. Stratesec director James Abrahamson was President of Hughes Aircraft from 1989 to 1992, when Prescott Bush Jr. was helping Hughes lobby Bush’s brother, the US President, to lift sanctions on the Chinese government. Abrahamson became a director of Stratesec in December 1997.[3] He also co-founded a company called Crescent Investment Management (Crescent) with the Pakistani-American, Mansoor Ijaz. Crescent’s board of advisors included James Woolsey, the CIA Director for President Clinton who became a PNAC signatory and Booz Allen Hamilton executive.[4] Mansoor Ijaz is the CEO of Crescent, and is a rare individual in that he claimed to have the ability to persuade several governments to extradite Osama bin Laden. After meetings with Clinton and his National Security Advisor Sandy Berger (who first introduced Woolsey to Clinton), Ijaz said that he could not convince them to work toward the extradition.[5] Additionally, Ijaz introduced the journalist Daniel Pearl, by way of a personal letter, to those in Pakistan who are believed to have been involved in his death.[6] Ijaz went on to become a Fox News correspondent, and he was a strong promoter of false claims leading up to the Iraq War, including WMDs and ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.[7] Stratesec had contracts to provide security services for United Airlines, and Dulles Airport, where American Airlines Flight 77 took off on 9/11. Another client was Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), where scientists were working on the development of nanothermite, a type of explosive material that has since been discovered in the WTC dust.[8,9] REFERENCE: Carlyle, Kissinger, SAIC and Halliburton: A 9/11 Convergence submitted by Kevin Ryan on sat, 12/12/2009 - 4:51am http://911blogger.com/node/22120  http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=151588.0;wap2

Mansoor Ijaz, Shaheen Sehbai & Late. Daniel Pearl

"Every reporter has got to start somewhere. And the place Danny Pearl began, shortly after 9/11, was with a phone call to a number in Manhattan [to Ijaz Mansoor].... Danny called on a tip from Indian intelligence, which said Ijaz was wired with leading jihadis. ... Ijaz made introductions to three sources: Shaheen Sehbai, editor of The News, Pakistan's largest English-language daily; a jihadi activist he declines to name; and--most fatefully-- Khalid Khawaja, a Muslim militant and a onetime agent with Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (ISI) who counts among his very best friends Osama bin Laden. .... Musharraf himself said [the reason Pearl was killed] was because Danny was 'overly inquisitive.' And more than a few knowledgeable Pakistanis think the ISI was involved. When asked by Vanity Fair whether it shares that view, The Wall Street Journal issued a two-word written answer: 'No comment.'" Reference: The Journalist and the Terrorist Vanity Fair, August 2002 What Was Daniel Pearl Doing In Pakistan? http://www.htm2pdf.co.uk/output/2011/11/725a144c-3d5a-47b0-b64b-6508db336bb2.pdf

NEW YORK, Oct 3: A Wall Street Journal op-ed piece, which makes a strong case against any foreign investment, including funding by the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and aid packages to Pakistan, was described as being "infantile, vindictive and without any credibility" by Foreign Secretary Najmuddin Shaikh. At a Press briefing on Wednesday night, Mr. Shaikh observed that the article, written on the eve of the most delicate talks with the International Monetary Fund, was due to a "pique" that the writer, Mr. Mansoor Ijaz, had against Pakistan government since he could not "derive sufficient benefit" from projects he had given which were rejected by the government. Meanwhile, a spokesman for the Pakistan Embassy in Washington told "Dawn" on Wednesday night that Mr Ijaz, who is chairman of the New York-based Crescent Investment Management, is vilifying and damaging Pakistan, because the embassy denied him 15 million dollars he had demanded to deliver votes in the United States House of Representatives for the passage of the Brown Amendment. The spokesman said that in 1995, after the Brown Amendment had made it through the US senate and then had to be voted on by the House, Mr. Ijaz came to the embassy along with his lawyers with a proposal which smacked of a "sting operation". Elaborating on Mr Ijaz's proposal, the spokesman said "Mr Ijaz wanted us to release fifteen million dollars for a satellite communications company R.D.D.A. which had done some work for Pakistan in 1979 for which they were not paid and they would sue the government to recover the monies".

"Ijaz told us that in this way you will kill two birds with one stone, one we will ensure votes in the US House for the Brown Amendment and the other the company R.D.D.A. will not sue you", the spokesman added. The spokesman said that when Ambassador Maleeha Lodhi was given this proposal she saw it as a trap wherein Pakistan Government could land in bigger trouble; so she turned down Mr Mansoor Ijaz's proposal saying that "it was illegal". In the Wall Street Journal article, Mr Ijaz has implied that Ambassador Lodhi used "aggressive tactics" in pushing for F-16 monies after the passage of the Brown Amendment because her brother, Amir Lodhi, was interested in the Mirage deal with France as he was the middleman as alleged in the article. Describing the article by Mr Ijaz as being 'outrageous and malicious against Pakistan's Ambassador to the United States, and saying "this is a total travesty of facts", the Pakistan Embassy in a Press release pointed out "Pakistan's publicly enunciated policy on the embargoed military equipment has been the consistent demand for the release of this equipment or the full reimbursement of the money paid". "It was the US Administration which took a decision in July 1995 to back legislation authorising the release of the military equipment except the F-16s, for which the Administration pledged to return the money. This was not Pakistan's decision but that of the US Administration and Congress", the Press release said. "Insinuations to the contrary make the preposterous assumption that Pakistan's Ambassador was in a position not only to determine the policy of the US Administration but also the decision of the US Congress on the F-16 issue". As regards Mr Ijaz, it was pointed out that he had been pushing Pakistan government to recognise Israel and he has himself visited Israel on several occasions, once on the invitation of Jerusalem's Mayor. Last year, Mr. Ijaz was given an award by a major Jewish organisation as being the "Humanitarian of the year" for establishing clinics and schools in Belgium and parts of Eastern Europe for the Jewish communities there. Ambassador Ahmad Kamal, who attended the award ceremony, praised Mr Ijaz and his "philanthropist activities". Then in his speech Mr Ijaz thanked Ambassador Kamal's wife saying "thank you Mrs Kamal for Dal, Roti and Kabab". When the Foreign Secretary was told about the incident he said, "We all make mistakes". REFERENCE: Author was denied $15m, claims Shaikh Our Correspondent DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending : 10 October 1996 Issue : 02/41 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1996/10Oc96.html#auth 

WASHINGTON, March 12: The Brown Amendment was bought and paid for by heavy Pakistani-American political donations but has yet to provide a single tangible economic benefit to Pakistan, the influential Wall Street Journal said on Tuesday. The Clinton administration s first-term policy effort aimed at improving relations with Pakistan, the strategic nuclear-capable Muslim state, has fallen flat, the paper said. The article was written by Mansoor Ijaz, a Pakistani-American investment tycoon running a multi-billion dollar money management firm, who also wrote a number of hard-hitting articles against the Benazir Bhutto government, exposing its corruption and incompetence last year. His remarks about heavy Pakistani donations to get the Brown Amendment passed could add a new dimension to the current congressional inquiries into Donorgate , the term being used for alleged sale of White House access and influence to mainly Asian donors by the Clinton administration. These remarks on Pakistan were contained as part of the article which dealt with Washington s handling of the Muslim World and the failure of the Clinton policy in South Asia. The relevant part of the article on Pakistan said: The Clinton administration s first-term policy effort aimed at improving relations with this strategic nuclear-capable Muslim state fell flat. The vaunted Brown Amendment, sending embargoed military equipment back to Pakistan, was bought and paid for by heavy Pakistani-American political donations but has yet to provide a single tangible economic benefit for Pakistan. If engaged properly, Washington s former Cold War ally could provide the strategic export route for Central Asian oil reserves. It could also provide a vital link in transporting natural gas from Oman s vast gasfields to energy-starved India. Yet, while political risk insurance and other protections for American investment remain blocked by American non-proliferation laws still in effect, Pakistan is busy creating other alliances, most notably with Beijing and Moscow. The implications of Pakistan s 1995 (alleged) purchase of nuclear ring magnets from China just as it was asking American legislators to ease sanctions against it, and its recent purchase of tanks from the Ukraine, are among the clearest indications yet of the failure of US policy in South Asia. If the US-backed World Bank funded a feasibility study for the proposed Oman-India natural gas pipeline, it might provide the needed impetus to build the pipeline overland through Iran and Pakistan - at half the cost of the deep-water route now contemplated. Such a move could bind the economic interests of Pakistan and India in a way that might finally encourage co-operation on a wide array of sensitive issues, including Kashmir and nuclear proliferation, the article concluded. REFERENCE: US journal sees flaw in Clinton policy towards Pakistan Shaheen Sehbai DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending : 15 March 1997 Issue : 03/11 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1997/15Mar97.html#more 

WASHINGTON, Oct 7: A key congressional committee voted unanimously on Wednesday evening to provide President Clinton indefinite waiver authority to lift military and economic sanctions on Pakistan and India. The amendment for the authority, moved by Senator Sam Brownback and commonly known as Brownback-2, is now almost assured a smooth sailing through the full houses of the Senate and House of Representatives as part of the larger Defence Appropriations Bill. The language approved by the committee practically takes away all the bite and sting of the Pressler Amendment without actually repealing the infamous law and is being viewed on the Hill as the biggest ever Pakistani victory in Congress. The final waiver came only after an epic battle between Pakistani and Indian lobbies and last minute long-distance interventions by Foreign Minister Sartaj Aziz, Petroleum Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, Pakistani lobbyist Charlie Wilson and a prominent Pakistani-American Mansoor Ijaz, who used his clout with the Clinton Administration and key senators to pull it through. Congressional experts said the waiver authority was enough for President Clinton to remove all restrictions on Pakistan, including those on military sales including aircraft, tanks and other equipment as well as spare parts. "This would be enough for Pakistan to declare that the coercive atmosphere that existed has now been removed, paving the way for Islamabad to sign the CTBT," these experts said. The committee adopted the final version of the amendment after Conference Committee Chairman, Senator Ted Stevens from Alaska, gave his go ahead, but not before Islamabad moved fast and decisively to resolve a multi-million dollar dispute with an Alaskan Pipeline Company. Pakistan's biggest victory against an Indian lobbying juggernaut headed by former Republican Party chief Bob Dole, former congressman Steven Solarz and former senator Larry Pressler was mainly due to the team efforts of the Pakistani- Americans and their lobbyist who used their influence to get the hurdles past upto the last minute. The Embassy coordinated their effort. The last formidable hurdle which threatened to derail the process was the pending problem with an Alaskan pipeline company, VECO, which had lobbied hard on Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens to get their case sorted out before Stevens voted for the waiver law. Stevens, who chairs the key conference committee, and who is also the chairman of the defence appropriations committee with the last word on what his committee passes, put his foot down and in the last 24 hours Islamabad was told to either agree to VECO's demands or risk the entire process being put off for months, or even years. Mansoor Ijaz and Pakistani lobbyist former congressman Charlie Wilson, worked on the telephone for 20 hours, talking several times to Foreign Minister Sartaj Aziz and other high ups to get the VECO issue out of the way. The matter was rushed to the cabinet meeting on Wednesday morning and a decision was taken to involve the World Bank as an arbitrator in the dispute. Reference: Sanctions waiver approved By Shaheen Sehbai DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending : 09 October 1999 Issue : 05/41 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1999/09oct99.html#sanc 

A comprehensive blueprint of how and in which direction future relations between Pakistan and the United States would, or should move, is circulating in Washington's three main centres of power the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives and many believe that there may not be a better practical alternative. President Clinton has acknowledged it, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has adopted some of its proposals, Senator Larry Pressler agrees with most of it and the House of Representatives may not find a better "staged roadmap" to put U.S. Pakistan relations back on track, its sponsors claim. It has been put forward by some influential Pakistani-Americans in the form of a confidential memorandum which takes into account the pressing security and defence requirements of Islamabad as well as provides Washington a framework to achieve its own goals. The fine print, however, needs a deeper study. The man behind the whole idea is a 34-year old American of Pakistani origin, MIT and Harvard educated mechanical engineer turned nuclear physicist turned investment consultant who was introduced to Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto by a senior Pakistani diplomat in Washington as "the silent billionaire". Mansoor Ijaz runs a billion dollar investment management firm, claims he dines with President Clinton, is a Managing Trustee of the Democratic Party's National Committee and a Majority Trust Member of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, says he makes heavy donations which do move things for him on the Hill, produces a stack of letters written by almost anyone who is someone on the Capitol Hill, and boasts of his business connections outside the U.S. He is adviser to Nelson Mandela's South Africa, manages investments for many other countries and maintains three homes in New York, Toronto and Paris. His credentials are impressive and CNN and the Dow Jones Business and Financial Weekly "Barron's" provide him international media recognition by interviewing him on investment matters repeatedly. He and his other friends, in similar well placed position, say they have laid the ground work for the changes that have started to show in the U.S. policy towards Pakistan (meaning others were just paying lip service) and they have been at this job eversince the Pressler sanctions were imposed. Their claims are hard to be accepted or rejected at their face value but what has actually taken place in favour of Pakistan including the change of heart in the White House, the sympathetic mood of the Senate and the bipartisan support for an even-handed policy in South Asia, was originally outlined in Mansoor Ijaz's confidential blueprint. That gives his claims a bit more credibility that any Pakistani Government official would make us believe. But this also rings many warning bells as the rest of his plan has some serious implications for Pakistan and its security. Mansoor minces no words in stating that Pakistan and the United States will have to enter into a wider security arrangement in which Washington would have to provide the security umbrella and Pakistan would safeguard the interests of the west in that region as strategically Islamabad is now the only country with which the Americans could have an alliance to check fundamentalism and international terrorism. "Yes what I mean is that the Americans have to be given bases to operate in that part of the world, because they cannot always remain onboard their air craft carriers," he argued with cold logic in a two hour discussion last week.

His blue print suggests the same thing in camouflaged language, speaking of "strategic military cooperation" between the two countries. His words may have been taken by me as a routine boast of a well-placed Pakistani, many of whom are in the habit of exaggerating things to incredible limits, just to impress others about their reach and influence. But his words instantly reminded me of an important Congressman of the Democratic Party, David Bonior, who in a speech to the Pakistani American Congress, just a few days back talked of "common defence" between Pakistan and U.S. He had done so when the Ambassador of Pakistan, all other senior diplomats and many prominent Pakistanis were present and no one had questioned him. Ijaz's blueprint suggested modifications to the Pressler Amendment in three stages because easing the sanctions was "in the best national security interests of the United States and no one was interested in allowing Pakistan to fall under partial or complete control of the Iranians." These three stages were restoration of economic assistance, including OPIC, TDA and IMET in the first stage, allowing "non-control list" military spare parts and return of spare parts Pakistan had already paid for, increased military training and cooperation on anti-drug trafficking in stage two and going for strategic military cooperation in the third stage. No conditions were to be attached to the first two stages while the third stage had a hidden agenda, of roping in Pakistan's nuclear programme into the NPT net, if not directly by forcing Pakistan to sign the NPT, by persuading it to sign other international treaties like the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT) or asking Islamabad to comply with the requirements of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). The Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House of Representatives have already approved the first two stages which would open economic assistance to Pakistan, reinstate OPIC cover for U.S. businesses, restore TDA paradigms and revive the military education and training programme (IMET) between the military establishments of the two countries. The blueprint had suggested there concessions in two stages but Ijaz says the Congress was in such a hurry that both the stages were crossed in one go. The argument he had put forward was that on these two stages there was a consensus that they were in the interest of the United States. His line of thought on restoring IMET was interesting. "For Pakistan the objective was clear: They need officer training and they want it from the best in the world. For its strategic long- term interests America can use the IMET forum to encourage the moderate elements in Pakistan's military (non-nuclear hawks and doves and non-religious extremists) to rise to the top ranks and thereby know intimately the type of minds that  are controlling the panic button...."

"American military training will be a step towards containment of 'mullaism' and other forms of extremism as the educational paradigms of Pakistani military," the blueprint argued. "There is also a growing feeling among moderate Pakistani military strategists that if the U.S. wants to see more effective containment of inappropriate Iranian behaviour, America needs to cast a life raft to the Pakistani military-a military that is in essence 'out of shape' to properly withstand the current Iranian offensive," it said. "Military training and spare parts will relieve sufficiently the hawkish pressure on Benazir Bhutto to ask for 'all or none' terms on Pressler modification. It will also get her to the next election date without damaging no confidence motions in Parliament by Nawaz Sharif (a decided nuclear hawk) and give us sufficient time to evaluate the stability of Pakistan's economy, military and politics before engaging in more strategic arms equipment contracts," it argued. For these two stages, Pakistan was supposed to continue cooperation in U.N. peacekeeping missions as well as in other field like checking international terrorism drug trafficking, heroin production, illegal immigration and counterfeit money production, besides reporting tangible progress on existing and outstanding human rights and democracy issues. The third stage of the blue print was the crucial part and though the first two stages have already begun to be implemented, implementation of the last stage could bring in a lot more trouble than anticipated.

This stage envisages a "broad range of possibilities, from 'control list' spare parts to strategic armaments that have non- nuclear capable characteristics, to consideration under appropriate conditionality of strategic weaponry that would serve U.S. national security objectives.." It said the time frame of this stage would depend on two critical issues. "First our conditionality on strategic military cooperation that Pakistan be a signatory to the successful negotiation of the FMCT for which the time frame of end of 1995 and early 1996 is indicated. Secondly, and in conjunction with the first issue, will be Pakistan taking tangible steps towards meeting the requirements of the MTCR including progress on the M-11 issue." The conditions stated in the blueprint are clear: Pakistan's inclusion in FMCT which means accepting verifications of the nuclear programme without actually signing the NPT. "FMCT is an elegant roadmap that achieves the most critical non-proliferation objectives of the U.S. within the existing framework of the NPT, without compromising the internal political sensitivities of the non-declared nuclear states," it says. The final proposal of the blueprint is after these three stages are crossed. It proposes that the President of the United States be given the flexibility, under the Pressler Amendment, to certify that the "proposed U.S. military assistance programme will reduce significantly the likelihood of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their ballistic missile delivery systems." Ijaz explains that by including an "or" instead of an "and" in the Pressler Amendment, the President will be able to certify that in his view whatever military assistance was being provided to Pakistan would not help in its nuclear proliferation goals. "I can tell you that this blueprint is what meets the United States parameters of re writing the Pressler Amendment and it would be done on these lines, come what may. It has already begun to be implemented," he strongly argues brushing aside any other ideas that the Government of Pakistan or its Embassy in Washington may be floating.

He says Pakistan should get its money back, keep the money in an escrow account, wait for the President to get the new certification powers and then negotiate the F-16 deal which would then be possible without any congressional interference. Whatever the reaction of the U.S. authorities on these plans and proposals, at least President Clinton acknowledges them. On May 26 Clinton wrote to Ijaz: "Dear Mansoor, Thank You for your letter regarding Pakistan and for your comments about my meeting with Prime Minister Bhutto. I welcome your input on this mportant matter." Said Clinton: "We need to continue working on ways to solve the difficulties that derive from the Pressler Amendment and the sanctions that have been in place since 1990. I informed the Prime Minister that I was prepared to seek relief from the sanctions and that we would explore our options for return of the F-16s and equipment or of the money that Pakistan paid for U.S. equipment before the sanctions went into effect. I will continue to work with Congress on this important issue. "I appreciate knowing your perspective, and I'am glad you took time to write," Sincerely, Bill Clinton. REFERENCE: Dateline Washington : A blueprint Pakistan cannot ignore Shaheen Sehbai DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending : 15 June, 1995 Issue : 01/23 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1995/15Je95.html 

WASHINGTON, Jan 10: A senior Pakistan diplomat confirmed here on Friday what could turn out to be the crucial missing links in Benazir Bhutto's Mirage aircraft scandal, revealed by the New York Times in its 5,000-word special report on Friday. The NYT had documented and authenticated, for the first time, persistent reports in the Pakistan media that kickbacks were involved in the Mirage purchase deal. But the NYT report did not touch on the US dimension of the whole affair. The US dimension was connected with the purchase of the F-16 aircraft and unless the F-16 chapter was finally closed in the US, Islamabad could not explore any other option, specially not of the Mirage aircraft. To ensure that this chapter was closed, the Benazir Bhutto government coined the catchy phrase of "our planes or the money back" — a business slogan used extensively in the US to push sales. The purpose was to provide the US administration an easy outlet to get out of the commitment to sell the planes and thereby open the doors for Islamabad to purchase jets from other countries. The diplomat, number two man in the embassy, Zamir Akram, who was the right hand man of Benazir Bhutto's ambassador to the US, Maleeha Lodhi, was asked on Friday to confirm when was this catchy phrase of "money back" introduced as a policy option for Pakistan. The question was posed to him, on the record, after ambassador Riaz Khokhar had finished his news conference at the embassy and granted permission to this correspondent to ask the question from his number two. Mr Akram confirmed in his answer that the first time he heard the "money back" phrase was during the speech of President Farooq Leghari to the US, almost five months after Ms Lodhi had been posted in Washington.

He also confirmed that in the original draft of the Brown Amendment, the return of F-16 aircraft was included as part of the text. Another crucial point he agreed to was that before he arrived in Washington, Ms Lodhi used to meet US officials alone, without the presence of any diplomat who could record the minutes of those meetings. Mr Akram insisted that his answer should be reproduced completely, so that it was not taken out of context. According to him: "We were approached by Sen Hank Brown and he said I want to change or amend the Pressler Amendment. His original draft amendment, included everything, including the planes and everything. That was in the Senate foreign relations committee. When it came for vote for the first time, the committee approved the non-weapons part. There were two parts: Return of all the equipment and economic assistance etc. It was a step in the direction of amending Pressler. This amendment stayed in the committee until August/September when the administration itself decided that it would support it. During this period the Benazir Bhutto visit to Washington had taken place and President Clinton had committed that it was unfair to keep the planes and the money. The phrase of money back had been introduced for the first time by President Leghari when he came here, five months after Maleeha had assumed charge as ambassador. "Then the administration told us that from the original text of the Brown Amendment, they could release only the non-F-16 equipment but if you put F-16s in it, there will be too much opposition and we don't think it will pass. This was the administration's point of view which was conveyed to Mr Hank Brown and he conveyed it to us.

"Both Mr Brown and the embassy contested with the administration that if there was support it would be for the entire package, but they did not agree. Whether it was a deliberate act or not is something for the administration (to explain). "What I am trying to underscore to you is, that as far as my reading goes the decision not to include the planes in the package was taken by the administration." When Mr Akram was asked whether at any time he got the sense that the ambassador or anyone else was working on a specific agenda, he said: "I did not get the sense that she was working on her agenda." But then Mr Akram confirmed something very extraordinary, which was not denied by the ambassador or three other diplomats present at the news conference. He agreed with a journalist that Ambassador Lodhi used to visit the state department and other officials of the US administration alone, without taking any diplomat along to record the minutes. "That may be so, but before I had arrived. After I was here. I always accompanied her or if I was not available someone else from the embassy did," Mr Akram said. His statement corroborated statements made by at least four well-known Pakistani-Americans in the US about the role of the Bhutto Government, through her ambassador, in pressing the US administration for returning the money to Pakistan instead of the F-16 planes. These four persons — a Chicago businessman, New York investment banker Mansoor Ijaz, PPP leader in US Dr Bhatti and former journalist Tariq Zaheen — had recorded interviews with Dawn in 1995 and 1996 in which they claimed that Ms Lodhi had been pressing them to use their influence to urge the Clinton administration to return the money to Pakistan. A similar report by the correspondent of another Pakistani newspaper in Islamabad, published in April of 1997, was never denied by any of these gentlemen. REFERENCE: Mirage deal: the 'missing link' By Our Staff Correspondent DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending : 17 January 1998 Issue : 04/03 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1998/17Ja98.html#mira 

WASHINGTON, Nov 3: A senior US official responsible for counter-terrorism on Tuesday directly accused Pakistan of supporting training of militant groups in Afghanistan as well as providing "material support" to some of the Kashmiri militants. "There are numerous Kashmiri separatist groups and sectarian groups involved in terrorism which use Pakistan as a base...We have repeatedly asked Islamabad to end support of terrorist training in Afghanistan," Michael Sheehan, State Department's coordinator for counter-terrorism, told a Senate Foreign Relations sub-committee. The sub-committee hearing was called and presided over by Senator Sam Brownback and the list of experts who testified included a former CIA officer in Pakistan Milt Bearden, president of Stimson Centre Michael Krepon, John Hopkins University Central Asia Institute chairman Dr Fredrick Starr and a Pakistani- American businessman and columnist Mansoor Ijaz. Mr Sheehan recently visited India to coordinate US-Indian responses to terrorist threats but when asked whether he would also visit Pakistan soon, he said: "Hopefully." "Pakistan has frequently acknowledged what it calls moral and diplomatic support for militants in Kashmir who employ violence and terrorism against Indian interests. We have continuing reports of Pakistani material support for some of these militants," Mr Sheehan said. He named several Pakistan-based militant Islamic groups including Lashkar Taiba, Harkatul Jehad Islami and Hizbul Mujahideen, which, he said, "operate freely in Pakistan and support terrorist attacks in Kashmir." Asked by Indian and Pakistani journalists after his hearing whether he found any change in the policy after the overthrow of the Nawaz government, Mr Sheehan said: "We are still waiting for their responses and it is too early to judge whether there is any change." When a correspondent pointed out whether it was "business as usual" with the military government, he crisply said "no" but added: "We hope to work with them on all these issues." REFERENCE: US says Pakistan raining militants Shaheen Sehbai DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending : 06 November 1999 Issue : 05/45 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1999/06nov99.html#ussa 

No comments: