Pakistan is one of those unfortunate countries where the Sanctimonious Intellectuals discuss the blame on speculations and assumptions even if it is at the cost of the integrity and sovereignty of the country. Differring with PPP or any other government is one thing and putting country's fate at the stake for settling some political score is quite another and that is the usual story with the Jang Group of newspaper and their Journalists/TV Anchors particularly Shaheen Sehbai, Kamran Khan, Mohammad Malick and Ansar Abbasi despite knowing an established fact (with reference, history and footage) that Mansoor Ijaz and his Neocon Lobby had destroyed Iraq by raising False Alarm of Weapons of Mass Destruction and Mansoor Ijaz is exactly doing the same again and Jang Group of Newspapers is part and parrcel in this ugly game. During a TV Show of GEO TV "Aaj Kamran Khan Kay Sath dated 18 Nov 2011" and earlier on Bolta Pakistan of AAJ TV dated 16 Nov 2011 the resident editor of The News International, Mr. Mohammad Malick opined that raising objection on Mansoor Ijaz' credibility is of no use! Very well as Mr. Malick suggest we should apply Mansoor Ijaz "Rant" as a cardinal truth and Mr. Mohammad Malick should plead case against Pakistan in the world community particularly in UN by quoting from Mr. Mansoor Ijaz "Excellent Pieces" on Pakistan, and particularly Mansoor's Lie on WMD in Iraq, let us proceed but before proceeding to the detailed background of this Neocon War Monger i.e. Mansoor Ijaz, we must keep one thing in mind that Mohammad Malick (Resident Editor, The News International) also has several blot on his character e.g. Muhammad Malick (List of journalists given plots in Islamabad Published: November 1, 2010http://tribune.com.pk/story/70940/list-of-journalists-given-plots-in-islamabad/ Journalist Corruption Scandal – Mohammad Malick JUNE 3, 2009http://pkpolitics.com/2009/06/03/journalist-corruption-scandal-mohammad-malick/.
Mansoor Ijaz Poisonous Propaganda Against Pakistan Army (FOX NEWS May 2011)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQh90sH9CgU
Mansoor Ijaz is against Pakistan Nuclear Deterrence. (Fox News 2007)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtRLTrEg-aE
Mansoor Ijaz is Imran Khan's Friend.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8iOlscVK1I
Ijaz is the same person who called for declaring the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) a terrorist organisation, Haqqani was quoted as telling the president. A few days later, the same person then reportedly met the head of ISI Lt. General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, Haqqani reportedly added. “What does this indicate?” he was quoted as rhetorically asking the president. Haqqani, sources added, also referred to a statement of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chief Imran Khan on October 30, where he was implicated in the scandal for the first time. “I was summoned on November 15 … how could Imran know about it on October 30,” Haqqani was quoted as saying. REFERENCE: Memogate: Adamant ambassador set to face troika By Kamran Yousaf Published: November 21, 2011 http://tribune.com.pk/story/295132/memogate-adamant-ambassador-set-to-face-troika/
Shaheen Sehbai, Kamran Khan, Mohammad Malick, and Ansar Abbasi have paid quite an attention to the statements of Admiral R. Michael Mullen and Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta ! Very well if Admiral (R) Michael Mullen's statement is a cardinal truth then following Statement should also be accepted as a Cardinal Truth and Immediate Action/Specail TV Program on GEO TV should be started forthwith."QUOTE"
The Obama administration has sharply warned Pakistan that it must cut ties with a leading Taliban group based in the tribal region along the Afghan border and help eliminate its leaders, according to officials from both countries. In what amounts to an ultimatum, administration officials have indicated that the United States will act unilaterally if Pakistan does not comply. The message, delivered in high-level meetings and public statements over the past several days, reflects the belief of a growing number of senior administration officials that a years-long strategy of using persuasion and military assistance to influence Pakistani behavior has been ineffective. White House officials and Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta are said to be adamant in their determination to change the approach, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity about internal administration deliberations. Although he declined to provide details, Panetta told reporters at the Pentagon on Tuesday that “we are going to take whatever steps are necessary to protect our forces” in Afghanistan from attacks by the Haqqani network, which has had a long relationship with Pakistan’s intelligence service. “We’ve continued to state that this cannot happen,” Panetta said of the Haqqani network strikes, including a Sept. 13 attack on the U.S. Embassy in Kabul. As Panetta spoke, new CIA Director David H. Petraeus was holding an unpublicized private meeting in Washington with his Pakistani counterpart, Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who met with Pakistan’s army chief in Madrid on Friday, said that the “proxy connection” between Pakistani intelligence and the Haqqani network was the focus of those discussions. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is among a minority of administration officials still willing to express public sympathy for Pakistan’s weak civilian leaders as they face a growing threat from domestic terrorism and the politically powerful military. But during a 31 / 2-hour meeting in New York on Sunday with her Pakistani counterpart, she warned that Pakistan is fast losing friends in Washington, according to one official deeply familiar with the session. Clinton left the meeting with Pakistan’s assurance that “they recognize that these people are threats to Pakistan as well, and that no one should think that their relationship with the Haqqanis was more important than their relationship with the United States,” a senior administration official said. But another administration official emphasized the severity of the U.S. officials’ warning. “We are expressing the firm conviction that things have to change . . . in Miranshah and in Islamabad, as well,” this official said. Miranshah is the main population center in Pakistan’s North Waziristan region, where the Haqqani leadership is based. CIA drone attacks elsewhere in the region have avoided the city for fear of civilian casualties. REFERENCE: U.S. sharpens warning to Pakistan By Karen DeYoung, Published: September 20 http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-sharpens-warning-to-pakistan/2011/09/20/gIQAdqlNjK_story.html
"UNQUOTE"
Mansoor Ijaz's Partner Ex CIA Chief James Woolsey on War on Iraq
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrgjqOa8A48
North Korea's curious brand of nuclear brinkmanship and blackmail will become a recurring nightmare for the United States and its allies in the region unless a longer-term policy of preemptive containment is implemented to prevent Pyongyang from obtaining the materials to develop nuclear weapons. The current spate of diplomacy may be useful -- perhaps even successful -- in managing the short-term fallout from Kim Jong Il's decision to restart his nuclear reactors and pull out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But such well-intentioned efforts can't quash the North Korean leader's long-term nuclear ambitions. They also put Washington in the awkward position of being compelled by its friends to engage with a regime whose repudiation of every international norm for state behavior offers no basis for engagement. As the U.S. proceeds, it must avoid anything that appears like negotiating with a terrorist regime. At the other end of the policy spectrum, preemptive military solutions like attacking North Korea's nuclear or missile installations could well cause Pyongyang to retaliate against Japan and South Korea with a blitzkrieg of troops and missiles. And threatening Kim's nonexistent economy with further sanctions is little more than bluster. A new approach is needed to adequately address the North Korean threat. Japan, Australia and South Korea are currently engaged in diplomacy with Pyongyang. They should, in their talks, insist on the near-term removal of nuclear stockpiles as a prerequisite for food and fuel that would be provided for nonnuclear electricity production. Russian natural gas from deposits near the Korean peninsula could replace any need for nuclear power, while also giving Moscow an incentive to stand firm against North Korean nuclear actvities. At the same time, a U.S.-led alliance needs to find ways of preventing materials necessary to weapons production from getting to North Korea. This would require firm commitments from China -- and, perhaps more important, Pakistan -- to stop providing Pyongyang with nuclear components, particularly the gas centrifuges that form the heart of uranium enrichment plants and the ring magnets that are vital to centrifuge function. Bomb designs, particularly the specialized bomb casings needed to house highly radioactive uranium cores and spherical implosion trigger devices needed for detonation, must also be stopped at the source. Last month's sale by China of 20 tons of tributyl phosphate to North Korean agents, as reported in the press, demonstrates the magnitude of the problem. This is a key chemical needed to extract plutonium from depleted uranium fuel rods in a process known as "purex." The Chinese shipment was enough to extract plutonium for four to five bombs from the approximately 8,000 spent fuel rods North Korea has. Efforts must be directed toward preventing any more of the chemicals needed to separate plutonium from depleted uranium fuel rods from reaching North Korean plants. Plutonium reprocessing would allow the North Koreans to miniaturize nuclear cores for missile warheads -- or worse, to shape them into small tactical weapons for sale to terrorists on the black market. If Beijing continues to enable Pyongyang's plutonium separation, it must also accept that such cooperation could spark a decision by Japan or South Korea to develop nuclear weapons. More troubling still is the specter of Pakistani cooperation with North Korea. Islamabad vehemently denies having provided North Korea with any nuclear assistance in the past, but mounting intelligence data and forensic evidence suggest otherwise. The same South Korean intelligence report that exposed the existence of the uranium enrichment facility that sparked the U.S. confrontation with North Korea last fall also reportedly noted remarkable similarities between centrifuge components bought by North Korea for its plant and those known to be used by Pakistan at its enrichment facilities. Press reports have repeatedly documented how a North Korean missile proliferation company, Changgwang Sinyong Corp. (CSC), provided missile parts to Pakistan for its Shaheen and Ghauri missiles, although the company has been sanctioned by the U.S. State Department only for its sale of missile components to Yemen and Iran. CSC's chief procurement officer in Islamabad during the late 1990s, Kang Thae Yun, doubled as economic counselor at Pyongyang's Islamabad embassy. His wife, Kim Sa Nae, was mysteriously gunned down in Islamabad on June 7, 1998, a week after Pakistan successfully detonated five nuclear devices based largely on Chinese designs. According to a senior Pakistani police source who filed the murder report (which was later leaked to Western journalists and published in November 1998), Kim was shot by North Korean agents working at Pakistan's top-secret nuclear facility, the A.Q. Khan Research Laboratories in Kahuta, who feared she was going to defect and provide Western intelligence agencies with hard evidence of Pakistan's assistance to North Korea in developing its fledgling nuclear program. Islamabad officially maintains that the murder stemmed from a kidnapping attempt gone awry. But such nuclear shenanigans -- which admittedly happened under a different regime at a time when U.S.-Pakistan relations were severely strained -- must be curtailed. The Bush administration must hold its ally to answer, even if privately, about the exact extent and nature of assistance Islamabad provided Pyongyang in its uranium enrichment and bomb-making facilities. Washington should insist, at a minimum, that further U.S. financial aid be tied to verifiable and tangible guarantees that Pakistani nuclear materials, bomb-making and enrichment technology components, and scientists, both active and retired, are not made available to other countries -- officially or unofficially. Pyongyang's nuclear bluff cannot be called until Washington persuades Beijing and Islamabad that nuclear cooperation with North Korea is reckless and cannot be tolerated. Interrupting the supply of nuclear technology, bomb-making materials and extraction chemicals is the best way to curtail North Korea's habitual policy of nuclear blackmail. REFERENCE: Cut Supply Lines that Fuel Pyongyang's Nuclear Dreams by Mansoor Ijaz and R. James Woolsey Los Angeles Times January 12, 2003 http://www.chemcases.com/nuclear/ncases.html
Aapas ki baat - 21st november 2011 part 1
As I noted yesterday, Josh Rogin has been doing outstanding work on the issue now rocking Pakistan, a memo purportedly sent from the highest levels of the Pakistani civilian government seeking US support for shutting down the branch of Pakistan’s ISI that deals with the Taliban and the Haqqani Network and weakening Pakistan’s military. Now that Rogin has confirmed existence of the memo (and today has even provided a copy of it), I’d like to return to the figure who got this whole scandal started, Mansoor Ijaz. Here is information Rogin dug up regarding Mansoor Ijaz back on November 8, when Michael Mullen was still denying existence of the memo: This is only the latest time that Ijaz has raised controversy concerning his alleged role as a secret international diplomat. In 1996, he was accused of trying to extort money from the Pakistani government in exchange for delivering votes in the U.S. House of Representatives on a Pakistan-related trade provision. Ijaz, who runs the firm Crescent Investment Management LLC in New York, has been an interlocutor between U.S. officials and foreign government for years, amid constant accusations of financial conflicts of interest. He reportedly arranged meetings between U.S. officials and former Pakistani Prime Ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. He also reportedly gave over $1 million to Democratic politicians in the 1990s and attended Christmas events at former President Bill Clinton‘s White House. Ijaz has ties to former CIA Director James Woolsey and his investment firm partner is Reagan administration official James Alan Abrahamson. In the mid-1990s, Ijaz traveled to Sudan several times and claimed to be relaying messages from the Sudanese regime to the Clinton administration regarding intelligence on bin Laden, who was living there at the time. Ijaz has claimed that his work gave the United States a chance to kill the al Qaeda leader but that the Clinton administration dropped the ball. National Security AdvisorSandy Berger, who served under Clinton, has called Ijaz’s allegations “ludicrous and irresponsible.” Those are some pretty damning allegations. Before moving to the detail from the source Rogin linked on Ijaz’s attempt to get $15 million from Pakistan in return for securing a positive vote in the House of Representatives for the Brown Amendment back in 1995, it’s worth getting the context for this bill. From the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation: Continue reading → REFERENCE: The Checkered Neocon History of Mansoor Ijaz, Instigator of Pakistan’s “Memogate” Posted on November 18, 2011 by Jim White http://www.emptywheel.net/2011/11/18/the-checkered-neocon-history-of-mansoor-ijaz-instigator-of-pakistans-memogate/#more-23113
Aapas ki baat - 21st november 2011 part 2
Enter Daniel Pearl: We may never know the true motivation that set Daniel Pearl on a quest that would ultimately lead to his grisly demise. However, thanks to an invaluable article by Robert Sam Anson in the August 2002 issue of Vanity Fair, we do know which key player was involved in guiding him on his quest for knowledge. Mansoor Ijaz is not a man widely known outside his circle, but his intimate connections run deep in Washington's power circles. A counter-terror expert, a member of the Council On Foreign Relations, a Fox News analyst, as well as a business partner of former CIA Director James Woolsey, Ijaz is represented by the public relations firm of Benador Associates, whose client list reads like a "who's who" of the propaganda heavy-hitters who were pushing for a war in Iraq - Richard Perle (former Chairman of the Defense Policy Board), Woolsey (also a member of the Defense Policy Board), Iraqi scientist ( and chronicler of Saddam's weapons program) Khidir Khamza, former Washington Times publisher (and UPI chief) Arnaud De Borchgrave, anti-Saddam author Laurie Mylroie, Harvard professor/CIA associate Richard Pipes (mentor of Mylroie, and father of Daniel Pipes), and Frank Gaffney, president of the hard-right Center For Security Policy (of which Perle and Woolsey are on the advisory council). The interlocking relationships of members of this clique - or "crew", in the parlance of organized crime - is indeed a testament to the power of networking, yet the astonishing scope of their most recent activities - both in the lead-up to and aftermath of 9/11 - is perhaps indicative of a more covertly sinister tint in the psychological makeup of some members of the political "power elite." Ijaz's frequent writing partner, James Woolsey, for example, was one of just 17 participants in a July 2001 bio-warfare exercise dubbed "Dark Winter," a simulation of a mass smallpox attack, co-sponsored by the ANSER Institute of Homeland Security and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Among the other participants was Benador client Arnaud De Borchgrave and New York Times journalist Judith Miller, who had co-authored a book with Benador client Mylroie in the early '90's. Mylroie's book - an attempt at linking Iraq to 9/11 - was released just weeks after September 11 with a foreword written by James Woolsey. Around the same time, Judith Miller had just launched her own well-publicized book on the germ warfare threat - within a week or two of her own well-publicized role as one of the very few recipients of an "anthrax" mailing (which turned out not to be anthrax). As for the anthrax threat, a major principal in the company that holds the exclusive license for the anthrax vaccine is former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff William Crowe, whose business associate in the consulting firm Global Options is - you guessed it - James Woolsey. As for the present smallpox threat, the man charged with overseeing President Bush's mass vaccination policy was another "Dark Winter" alumnus, Jerry Hauer. Hauer, a former director of Kroll Associates - the security firm at the helm when the Twin Towers fell - is also the man who personally pulled strings in order to get senior FBI official John O'Neill his job as head of security at the World Trade Center. O'Neill, who had left a 30-year career in the FBI only two weeks before September 11, had perished in the rubble of the Twin Towers on his very first day at the post. Incidentally, O'Neill just happened to have been the main FBI official in charge of investigating all things bin Laden. REFERENCE: There's Something About Omar: Truth, Lies, and The Legend of 9/11 by Chaim Kupferberg www.globalresearch.ca , 21 October 2003 The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP310A.html http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP310A.html
Aapas ki baat - 21st november 2011 part 3
Aapas ki baat - 21st november 2011 part 4
Aapas ki baat - 22nd november 2011 part 1
Aapas ki baat - 22nd november 2011 part 2
Aapas ki baat - 22nd november 2011 part 3
The biographical sketch, nonetheless, emphasises Mansoor's knowledge about the nuclear establishment in Pakistan. According to ADG, the memo says that Mujaddid's "closest classmates and teachers in Pakistan are now in charge'' of Pakistani nuclear facilities, including the directors of the Centre for Nuclear Studies and of PINSTECH, Pakistan's leading nuclear-research facility. Further, ADG claimed that a note at the bottom of the sketch says this, "These names have been provided at the request of the DNC in order to more fully evaluate the potential of a mutual relationship.'' The note asked for strict confidentiality. Whatever the case may be, by 1995, Mansoor was hobnobbing with the Washington elite, including Clinton and his wife. By then he was also in a position to directly send letters to Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto through a high-ranking intermediary. In other words, he was in the thick of intrigues in 1995 involving the US (at re-election fund-raising time) and an "attempted coup" in Pakistan. Imagine the scene, a glamorous fund-raising dinner ($1000/plate) for the Democrats on 11 July 1995, at the home (haveli) of Pakistani cosmetics millionaire Rashid Chaudhary. Guests of honour were Vice President Albert Gore and his wife Tipper. In a gesture to symbolise long-term friendship, Gore planted a tree in his host's back yard that evening. Chaudary's wife gave Tipper a shalwar kameez, which she changed into before dinner in order to please the hosts; the objective was to raise $150,000 that night from the 150 guests. Yet the event was not about food (which was plain, catered chicken and vegetables) but about politics – both the American and sub-continental versions. And this is where Mansoor comes into the picture. He was seated at the head table, along with Chaudhary and Gore as well as Izzat Majeed, a former Saudi oil adviser and chief Executive of Alyph Ltd., a London financial consulting firm; Nancy Soderberg, then Deputy Assistant to the President for national security affairs; Alexis Herman, a former Democratic National Committee chief of staff who moved on to become head of the White House Office of Public Liaison and Clinton's nominee for secretary of labor; naturalized American Yusuf Haroon, a former Pakistani politician whose family owns the Pakistani newspaper group Dawn; and two unidentified businessmen. Just as important as who was present at the dinner was who was not: namely, Maleela Lodhi, Pakistan's then Ambassador to the United States. She had not been invited. Instead, the Bhutto government was represented by Wajid Shamzil Hassan, Pakistan's Ambassador to London. Why so? Well, intrigue was in the air. Plans of a "coup" in the making against the Bhutto government were already afloat and the White House was already aware of it. US media reports have it that Yusuf Haroon was the point man on this on the American side. His goal was to get maximum publicity coverage with the high and mighty in the US so that the credibility of the coup would be enhanced. A speech by Gore at a dinner hosted by Chaudhary at which Haroon was at the head table was just such an opportunity. (Photos were taken by Larry Glenn, a pro hired by the Democratic National Committee). But this plan collapsed, in manner similar to how the coup fizzled out some months later. Pivotal in the derailment of the plan was Mansoor, the American-born Pakistani with the "cultural gap" with his late father. He had to choose between divergent interests and outcomes, and he did. Here's how. REFERENCE: Musawer Mansoor Ijaz – America's Secret Emissary JAIDEEP E. MENON BHARAT RAKSHAK MONITOR - Volume 3(2) September - October 2000 http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE3-2/menon.html
Aapas ki baat - 22nd november 2011 part 4
Mansoor, through his sources in Pakistan, had learned that a coup was being prepared against Bhutto. He then injected himself into the situation by doing two things: (1) informing the US government which had a pro-Bhutto stance at the time; and (2) informing Bhutto herself in a four-page letter dated June 29 and delivered to Zafar Hilaly, her National Security Adviser. The thrust of the information provided by Mansoor was as follows: Yusuf Haroon and Lt. Gen. Ali Quli Khan, then Pakistan's Chief of Military Intelligence, were plotting to oust Bhutto. According to the ADG, Mansoor said that he learned of the plot from sources inside Pakistan who were aware of his political connections in the US. In the letter to Bhutto, Mansoor recommended that she send a trusted friend to represent her at Chaudhary's dinner, namely Shamzil Hassan, the ambassador to London. Oddly enough, it appears that she may not have trusted Maleeha Lodhi, ambassador in Washington; perhaps Bhutto, a fairly shrewd judge of character, recognised that Maleeha – like her brother Amir Lodhi – would sell herself to the highest bidder (and she has done so since). One would have thought that Mansoor's interjection to save Bhutto would have earned him her eternal appreciation, but this was not to be. She dealt with the 'coup attempt' in her own way, apparently compromising Lt. Gen. Quli Khan and getting him to nail his own underlings, but that's another story.Gore's office and the National Security Council had been forewarned by Mansoor about the coup and were in no mood to be used. Indeed, it has been reported that on the day of the dinner, Mansoor called the Vice President's office to warn his staff. At the same time, foregoing $150,000 was not an option. So, Mansoor provided an escape route by suggesting a way to subvert the plotters' plan: Gore should somehow address the coup issue when he spoke. Thus Gore gave a long speech and at the end said a coup in Pakistan against Bhutto would not be tolerated by Washington. As numerous journalists were present, the Haroon-Quli Khan plan was quashed in public – at least from the US perspective.
The question here is, what made Mansoor decide that the best course of action was to inform the US Government. He obviously knew that, having family members still in Pakistan, they would be vulnerable. He also knew that, if it came out (as it did) that he was the leaker of information, powerful people in Pakistan would gun for him (perhaps literally). On the other hand, he knew that if he did not inform the US (and if the US found out that he had known), Pak-Americans in general would be cast in a negative light. He could not be sure, in another uncertainty, that the US would believe him. Yet he took the course of informing the US, and it seems he was right; in subsequent years he has been noted wearing US presidential cufflinks and the White House has said it welcomes his views. In April 1997, the White House press spokesman (also the National Security Council press officer) David Johnson has been quoted as saying: "We found him (Mansoor) to have an interesting cultural perspective, particularly with respect to Pakistan… We've had no discussion with him about nuclear capabilities, nor negotiations, nor about code names''. The issue of "code names" came up because it was reported that Mansoor was known among circles interested in his activities as "Leo" (the star sign of his birth month August), a bit obvious perhaps but reality does not always conform either to Fleming's fantasy or to notions of bureaucratic alphanumeric efficiency. In any case, it seems Mansoor did not decide to inform the US about the coup purely on grounds of personal benefit – although that too may have been involved (as will be shown later).
The year 1995 was eventful for Mansoor in other ways. He was honored as the Endowment for Democracy's 1995 "Humanitarian of the Year" in recognition of his efforts to aid poor and disaffected people in Bosnia, South Africa, Hungary and Pakistan. The Endowment for Democracy is seen as a Jewish-controlled organisation. From late 1995, however, Mansoor became a severe critic of the Bhutto government, attacking it for corruption, etc. He said subsequently to ADG that, "We were saving democracy from the hands of military dictators, not Mrs. Bhutto as a person…When I wrote the anti-corruption pieces, I was speaking out on behalf of the poor and disaffected people of Pakistan who had no other voice to protect them from the ravages of the Bhutto regime's unforgivable conduct. There is no contradiction". This earned him her lasting enmity. Was there something more than plain old altruism to Mansoor's criticism of Bhutto? We'll never know for certain, but consider this: for what other reason was the year 1995 eventful for Pakistan? The Brown Amendment was passed that year. Indeed, from the beginning of the year the Clinton administration was lobbying for the bill with help from Chaudhary. In June 1995, as Mansoor became aware of the coup plans, the bill was a hot topic, and at the time of the Chaudhary haveli dinner in July it was being debated in the Senate. The Brown Amendment was included in a foreign appropriations bill passed by the Senate in September 1995. In the same month, Mansoor hosted a low-profile fund-raiser for Gore at his Manhattan penthouse. Twenty contributors with "blue-chip credentials'' contributed $150,000 to the Clinton-Gore Re-Election Committee, according to a Pakistani journalist present. (White Houe records show 25 guests present contributed $5,000 each). Gore promised during the dinner that the Clinton administration would devote more energy to the "South Asian situation'' in its second term. By November 1995, the Brown Amendment was passed.
After the Brown Amendment was passed, however, Mansoor's ties with Bhutto began to deteriorate fast. He began writing high profile critiques of her government for corruption. This continued through the following year. That there may be reasons beyond altruism for his views was suggested in October 1996 when Pakistani Foreign Secretary Najmuddin Shaikh said a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Mansoor arguing against foreign investment in Pakistan was "infantile, vindictive and without any credibility" as well as being the result of "pique". Shaikh said Mansoor was attacking Bhutto because he could not "derive sufficient benefit" from the government. Separately 'Dawn' quoted a Pakistan Embassy spokesman in Washington as saying that Mansoor was blasting Islamabad because the embassy denied him $15 million he had demanded to secure votes in the US 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, Mansoor went to the embassy along with his lawyers with a proposal that smacked of a 'sting operation'. He added, "Mr. Ijaz wanted us to release $15 million 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 also said that when Ambassador Maleeha Lodhi was given this proposal she saw it as a trap wherein the Pakistani government could land in bigger trouble; so she turned down Mansoor's proposal saying that "it was illegal". In the Wall Street Journal article, Mansoor implied that Lodhi used "aggressive tactics" in pushing to recoup the payments for the stalled F-16s (the focus of the Brown Amendment) after the passage of the Amendment because her brother, Amir Lodhi, was interested in the Mirage deal with France as he was the middleman. According to the 'Dawn Wire Service' of 04 October 1996, the Pakistan Embassy in Washington struck back with a press release in which it refuted Mansoor's allegations regarding the reasons for Maleeha Lodhi's eagerness to recoup the F-16 payments. Interestingly, the press release added that Mansoor had been urging Islamabad to recognize Israel. It said he had visited Israel on several occasions, once on the invitation of the mayor of Jerusalem. The press release pointed out that in 1995 Mansoor had been given the "Humanitarian of the Year" award by a "major Jewish organization" (Endowment for Democracy – as mentioned earlier). It added further that the reasons for this award was his efforts in establishing clinics and schools in Belgium and parts of Eastern Europe for the Jewish communities there. The press release said Ambassador Ahmad Kamal, who attended the award ceremony, praised Mansoor and his "philanthropist activities". Then in his speech Mansoor thanked Ambassador Kamal's wife saying "Thank you Mrs. Kamal for Dal, Roti and Kabab". Also in October 1996, Mansoor served as a Plenary Session speaker on nuclear proliferation at the State of the World Forum in San Francisco, along with General Lee Butler, Senator Alan Cranston, Nobel laureate Joseph Rotblat and others. Not surprisingly, Mansoor was not too unhappy with the departure of the Bhutto government after President Farooq Khan Leghari sacked it on charges of corruption. It must be noted, in the meantime, that allegations of financial blackmail by Mansoor had surfaced in 'Dawn' and 'Dawn Wire Service' – both owned by Yusuf Haroon, the man who paid the price for Mansoor's decision to inform the US government about the coup plot against Bhutto.
Mansoor continued to maintain a high profile in the US on matters related to Pakistan and, increasingly, Sudan. He is said to have had good links with the Nawaz Sharif administration. It has been reported (Washington Post, 29/4/97) that by the summer of 1996, Mansoor was lobbying strongly for improved US-Sudan ties; Sudan has been on the US list of terrorism-supporting states since 1993. He reportedly made In a half-dozen trips to Khartoum between July 1996 and April 1997, and met several times with Sudan's president, Lt. Gen. Omar Hassan Bashir, and the country's real power – the militant Islamic leader, Speaker Hassan Al Turabi, advising them on how to soften the Clinton administration's position. According to the Post, in that time frame, Mansoor also met with senior White House and State Department officials - including Sandy Berger - to urge "constructive engagement" which would include enlisting Turabi's help in curbing international terrorists. A White House spokesman subsequently said the Mansoor had provided helpful "insight", although other officials have said they did not find his analysis "compelling". Other officials he met included Susan E. Rice, special assistant to the president for African affairs; senior officials in the State Department's African affairs office; and several senior members of Congress, including Rep. Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.), ranking minority member on the House International Relations Committee, according to government sources. Mansoor also had meetings with FBI and U.S. intelligence officials. At the time, Mansoor had not registered with the Justice Department as a lobbyist for Sudan and said he had received no known compensation from the Khartoum regime. The Post said that in April 1997, Mansoor "returned from another trip to Khartoum with a letter from Bashir to Hamilton. Bashir offered in the letter to allow FBI agents unrestricted access in Sudan to determine whether the government supports international terrorists, according to a Sudanese official". Hamilton passed the letter on to the State Department and told the Post that he had met Mansoor three or four times and found him "a very bright, energetic guy" with "a lot of contacts in the Sudan". The Post also quoted Mansoor as saying: "I am of the view that Doctor Turabi (then speaker of Sudan, an Islamic radical now marginalized somewhat in Sudanese politics) has access to every single major fringe radical group on the face of the planet," Ijaz said. "Let's use him to be our bridge to all of these fringe radical groups". (This writer finds the statement by Mansoor to be debatable. Turabi, who fancies himself something of an intellectual with global pretensions (Sorbonne-educated PhD), does indeed have vast links across the spectrum of Islamist militant activity. But he is only a "moderate" within a militant spectrum. His antecedents are with the Muslim Brotherhood, and he will not hesitate to turn extremely radical if he judges the time to be right. In other words, his moderation is reserved for the right audience). On 10 June 1997, Mansoor, provided a testimony to the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime on "Prohibition on Financial Transactions With Countries Supporting Terrorism Act". According to a profile appended as Exhibit B to the testimony he had also become involved in "designing, funding and implementing projects for the people of third-world countries under the direction of his private foundation, The Ijaz Group. His current projects include structuring the asset management systems for the governments of the CIS and designing models for low-income housing in poor African countries". He was also becoming highly visible in the media, with op-ed pieces in the Wall Street Journal, LA Times, BARRON's Roundtable Currency discussions, ‘CNN', etc. Mansoor by 1996/97 had begun displaying photographs in his New York office of him and Clinton, Gore, etc. Wearing his Crescent Investment hat, according to the Exhibit B profile, he had also "advised the Unity Government of President Nelson Mandela on low-income housing programs, President Sam Nujoma of Namibia on global investment programs for domestic pension plans, and President Haidar Aliev of Azerbaijan on investment of the revenues from Caspian oil reserves. He also meets regularly with the economic and political leaders of Russia, China, Israel, Pakistan, the Sudan and Persian Gulf states on economic and political issues related to his investment management business". Yet his efforts with Sudan were to take a sudden turn for the worse, (at least temporarily). In summer 1997, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were hit by bombs. The culprits were judged to have received help from Sudan and Afghanistan. In August 1997, both countries were hit by the US with cruise missiles, although later it was acknowledged that the Sudanese target was perhaps wrongly identified. What was Mansoor's Sudan angle? Well, Sudan was preparing to export oil around 1997 and Mansoor wanted to place himself in a position so that Crescent would be chosen to manage some of Sudan's export income. After the Sudan developments, it did not take very long for Mansoor to raise his profile once again. In May 1998, India set off nuclear bombs, and this was followed by Pakistan within the month. Mansoor's analytical skills were much in demand by the broadcast and print media and he obliged. After the October 1999 coup in Pakistan, he was once again in high demand and his views (strongly anti-military) were well appreciated. In the meantime, Mansoor had managed to get on the prestigious Council for Foreign Relations in the US where he got involved in policy recommendations for South Asia. His background in Washington and his current position no doubt helped Mansoor in arranging a discreet visit to Jammu & Kashmir in May 2000. The fact that he did not have to go through the usual check-up formalities at Srinagar airport in Kashmir may be explained by the fact that he was accompanied and guided throughout his visit in Kashmir by officials of the Indian intelligence agency Research & Analysis Wing (RAW) and military officials, who no doubt have assessed his present and future value as an opinion maker and policy driver. Notes: Dawn Wire Service (October 4, 1996); Dawn Newspaper (date unavailable); Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (April 25th & 28th, 1997); Washington Post (April 29, 1997); The News online; and Exhibit B from Mansoor Ijaz's Testimony to the House of Representatives (June 10, 1997, 10:00 am, at the Rayburn House Office Building). All the information contained in this article is in the public domain. REFERENCE: Musawer Mansoor Ijaz – America's Secret Emissary JAIDEEP E. MENON BHARAT RAKSHAK MONITOR - Volume 3(2) September - October 2000 http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE3-2/menon.html
No comments:
Post a Comment