Who kidnapped Colonel Imam?

It has makings of a script for a Hollywood movie but since the main character hails from Pakistan and has been an operative of the much loved Inter Services Intelligence Agency of Pakistan, this might not become a reality.

I got interested in this story in February reading the Times Online piece about retired Brigadier Amir Sultan Tarar, well known as Colonel Imam. The article gave credit to Colonel Imam to be the main man who single handedly ran the Mujahidin insurgency against the Soviet Union.

As a top agent for the Pakistani intelligence agency, the ISI, Colonel Imam recruited, trained and armed almost every one of Afghanistan’s prominent insurgents and warlords during the 1980s. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Ahmed Shah Massoud and Jalaluddin Haqqani were all his charges or colleagues at one time.

He escorted Charlie Wilson, the Texan congressman who funnelled millions of dollars to the Mujahidin, into Afghanistan three times and once took the US Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, then the CIA’s Deputy Director, to a Mujahidin camp near the border.

It is only when I saw a grainy photograph of three ISI operatives, who have allegedly been kidnapped by Taliban sympathisers in the North West tribal region of Pakistan, I realised that one of the victims is none other than Colonel Imam himself. Reportedly Taliban hostage takers are asking for release of three key Taliban leaders recently arrested by Pakistani law enforcement agencies.

According to daily Telegraph Colonel Imam believed that

only direct dialogue between the Afghan authorities and Mullah Omar himself, without the interference of the Americans, could end the conflict [in Afghanistan]

Since leaving the ISI, Colonel Imam

has styled himself as a human rights campaigner. He has defended al-Qaeda suspects and fought attempts to extradite Mullah Baradar to Afghanistan.

It is the same Mullah Baradar that his captors want to be released in exchange for his life.

The story is still unfolding and it is hard to say whether it is really Taliban who have taken Colonel Imam hostage. According to daily Telegraph Colonel Imam along with other ISI operatives was taken [by whom] at the request of the American intelligence service as he travelled through Pakistan's lawless tribal belt. In the meanwhile, I am going to watch Charlie Wilson's war to see whether Colonel Imam featured in the Hollywood version of events two decades ago.

Full text of Report of the United Nations Commission of Inquiry into the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

Having spent millions of Pounds (that Pakistan doesn't have) and over two years late Pakistan is now abuzz with findings (or lack of) in the report of the United Nations Commission of Inquiry into the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

The report is a catalogue of incompetence of law enforcement personnel and agencies, callousness of ruling Junta at the time, and ineptness of those responsible for Mrs. Bhutto's personal security - now responsible for overall internal security of Pakistan.

Unfortunately the report does nothing more than providing an independently verified catalogue of what independent Pakistani media has been saying all along.

Though Baitullah Mehsud was immediately singled out as the mastermind behind her assassination and duly killed himself, the report highlights that real masterminds are still at large. For those interested in detail the report is a good read and available here.

Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa - what the fuss is all about

I have been watching with bemusement the rumpus in the political circles in Pakistan caused by discussions around renaming of the North West Frontier Province - a name which does not represent anything other then a effigy of the British Raj in India.

Right wing media in Pakistan, including my personal favourite daily newspaper Nawa-e-Waqt that I grew up reading has been up in arms at the thought of the province being named Pakhtunkhwa - reminding the audiences that this is in some way giving in to the long dead Pashtun nationalist leader Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan's demands who wanted independence for NWFP and having failed to see that happen continued another struggle to get the province named as Pakhtunkhwa.

I am failing to understand that if the province inhabited by majority of Punjabi speaking Punjabis is called Punjab, that of Sindhi speaking Sindhis is called Sind, that of Balochi speaking Blauchs is called Baluchistan and that of Kashmiri speaking Kashmiris is called Kashmir then what is the harm in shedding the legacy of the Raj and calling NWFP - a province of Pashtu speaking Pakhtun majority as Pakhtunistan.

Worth noting that I am not, in anyway suggesting splitting up the country in small unmanagable provinces split on linguistic lines. It is worth acknolwedging that in Punjab the number or real Punjabi speakers is not more than 75.23% and the second bigger lingistic group Saraiki speakers (17.36%) have for quite some time been raising their voices for a provincial status. Similarly in Sind only 59.73% of the population speaks Sindhi, while 21.05% speaks Urdu - and they have in the past raised similar voices for a provincial status for Karachi. In Baluchistan 54.76% people speak Balochi compared to 29.64% Pashto speakers.

There are already protests in Hazara region where speakers of other languages are unhappy at the naming of the province as Khyber-Pakhtunkwa. At the moment various political parties are being compelled to back the demand for Hazara province in view of the growing support for the idea. Lets not go down that road.

Are Pakistan's nuclear weapons safe from the Americans?

Speaking to the New York Times President Obama has confirmed that he is confident that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is safe from Al-Qaeeda.

Q. When you came to office, President Bush had just spent five years working with the Pakistanis to try to secure their weapons. I think we spent about $100 million on a U.S. program to help them go do that. My impression, covering the Bush administration, people were unsatisfied with the results of that by the time you came to office. What can you tell us that you’ve done specifically ——

A. I’m not going to — - I’m not going to talk about the details of Pakistan’s nuclear--

Q. O.K. Can you tell us if you now feel more assured than you were when you came to office, that those are safe from Al Qaeda, from the Taliban?

A. I feel confident that Pakistan has secured its nuclear weapons. I am concerned about nuclear security all around the world, not just in Pakistan but everywhere.

And so my sense is that in every country, we constantly have to find ways that we can further improve our approach. And as I said, right now, one of my biggest concerns has to do with the loose nuclear materials that are still floating out there. It is — it remains more likely that a threat arises because of some smuggled HEU or plutonium than that a terrorist organization obtains a fully built nuclear weapon.

And so we’ve got to guard against that, and that’s exactly why this nuclear summit is so important.

For common Pakistanis this confirmation from president Obama has raised alarm bells. Is Pakistani nuclear arsenal safe from America? Care to comment General Kayani (note I am not asking president Zardari)

America's home grown terrorists - and they are not muslims

"Jesus wanted us to be ready to defend ourselves using the sword and stay alive using equipment."

This is a statement on the website associated with a Michigan-based group, known as the Hutaree. The site also contained hate-filled rhetoric about minorities in the US.

Washington Post reports that US law enforcement authorities have brought charges against nine members of this armed militia group, "accusing them of seditious conspiracy and attempting to deploy weapons of mass destruction, in a case that highlights a strain of extremism focused against the federal government"

Members of this homegrown Christian militia accumulated weapons and explosives to target employees of the federal government, the law enforcement "brotherhood" and other participants in what they called the "New World Order"

The group has allegedly been involved in military style training for over two years and the stockpiling of guns and explosives. And like many Al-Qaeeda sympathisers the Hutaree leaders collected materials and found information about bombs on the Internet.

And this is not the only non-muslim militant group with terrorist aspirations in the pipeline. Dr James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, Washington DC, recently wrote in the Daily Nation:

The arrests of nine members of an armed militia group in Michigan, hell bent on fomenting violence, should serve as a wake up call to those in political leadership roles who are inciting rage against the government. My fear, however, is that they will not see the connection between their rhetoric and the rage they inspire.

Back in January of 2009, the Department of Homeland Security issued a warning (based on analysis compiled during the closing days of the Bush administration) that right wing militia-type groups were a growing threat here in the US, noting that “the historical election of an African American president…the prospect of policy changes…and the economic downturn…are proving to be a driving force for right wing extremist recruitment and radicalisation….Lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent right wing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States.”

An FBI official told me, at the time, that law enforcement agencies were focusing more of their attention on this phenomenon. And bearing out these concerns, a recent report by the Southern Poverty Law Centre notes that in just the past year, these armed “patriot” militias have tripled in number – with over 130 such armed groups now known to be operating across the US.
It is important to recognise that the Obama election was, in many ways, born out of the same set of circumstances. Having studied social movements that emerge in response to social dislocation and stress, I know that in periods of great anxiety, the public can be motivated in different directions. They can be inspired by hope, believing that positive change is in the offing, or, as is also the case, they can be moved to respond in fear and anger, striking out at targets identified as the cause of their distress.

Obama’s messages of hope and change won the election, but, as we soon saw, did not put an end to those who preyed on discontent. Donning the robes of populism, they focused their attacks on “them” – whether the government, liberal elites, or the president himself. Their rhetoric was vile, if not also violent. Watching the “Tea Party” movement emerge and play a disruptive role last summer shouting down and at times breaking up town meetings called to discuss health care reform, was instructive. On the one hand, the established political leaders and TV personalities who fomented this mob-like behaviour were no doubt pleased as they saw this anti-government movement grow and suit their anti-reform agenda. Then again, when their offspring acted out of control, they were able to disassociate themselves from the fruits of their labour with a wink and a “tsk, tsk”.

But the danger remains and the possibility of violence is real. And those in respected leadership roles need to recognise that, in the current environment, playing with matches can start fires. We’ve seen the ugly racist placards, heard the chants and shouted epithets, and witnessed the raw anger at rallies. Can violence be far behind?

I know this to be true and can speak from experience of the dangers of incitement. In the past decade alone, federal law enforcement officials have arrested, charged, convicted, and sentenced three individuals for making violent threats against me and my family. In these threats I have been called “a rag head”, a supporter of jihad and Hizbollah – all rather weird, one might say, since I am a Catholic who has consistently spoken out against all violence. From where then, did these deranged fellows get their distorted ideas? The answer is: from a group of individual associated with right wing think tanks who write for blogs or articles that consistently defame or distort the positions of most recognised Arab American and American Muslim leaders.

And it hasn’t stopped. When, for example, I was given the honour of delivering the closing remarks at the Department of Justice’s commemoration, the 40th anniversary of the signing of the civil rights bill, but an article written by one of these characters who termed it an outrage that the DOJ would invite a “Hizbollah supporter” to speak at this affair. And when the Pentagon invited me to speak at their annual Iftar, honouring the service of American Muslim in the US military another writer decried my presence at the event calling me an extremist “wahabi supporter.”

Just as I feel that these writers bear responsibility for their words and for the behaviour of those whom their words motivate to commit illegal acts, so too those elected officials and political leaders who rant on the floor of Congress or at mass rallies about “creeping communism”, or “Obamunism”, or about “death panels”, etc, must own up to the atmosphere they are creating and the behaviour of desperate lost souls who will use their words as a licence to violence.

Given the circumstances we face, the old saying “sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me” needs to be updated by adding “but may provoke others to break my bones.” A warning is in order: “Put away the matches.” It’s dangerous out there and you don’t know who’s listening or what they might do to act on what you say. It’s time to lower the temperature and tone down the rhetoric, before it’s too late.

Pakistan High Commissioner Wajid Shamsul Hassan responds

On Friday 2 April I wrote "Pakistan High Commissioner Wajid Shamsul Hassan defies diplomatic decorum and aligns with Labour Party in the UK" commenting on High Commissioner's address at a Liberal Democrat fund raising dinner in Manchester. High Commissioner has responded to this blog post in the comments section of that article. I would like to retain my journalistic integrity by not letting his views be buried under comments and am publishing them up front on this blog without any commentary. Here is what Pakistan High Commissioner, Wajid Shamsul Hassan wrote:

Unfortunately your correspondent has misquoted me. I was invited by Councillor Qassim Afzal to his fund raiser and when I was told that they would like me to say a few words I had told the organisers that as a diplomat I cannot support this party or that. When I was inisted to speak I did say--with reference to Qassim Afzal's remarks-- that Labour was the only party in 63 years that had supported the right of self-determination for the people of Kashmir. It was a "diplomatic triumph" for Pakistan as described by the Indian media when Labour Party adopted a resolution in its annual conference in Brighton in October 1995 in support for the right of self-determination. It had also reiterated that Kashmir was part of unfinished agenda of the partition brought about by the Labour Party in 1947. It had also reaffirmed that it was Labour's moral obligation to play a role to resolve the dispute that could push India and Pakistan to a nuclear war.

I had praised the then Shadow Foreign Secretary Robin Cook for moving the resolution drafted by Rt Hon Gerald Kaufman. As one would recall Robin Cook--as Labour Foreign secretary--accompanying the Queen to Pakistan and India in 1997--had got involved in a major media controversy when he offered to mediate between India and Pakistan to resolve Kashmir dispute. He was accused of spoiing the Royal visit by the Indian and British media.

Much similarly present Foreign Secretary David Miliband too, recently said the same thing in so many words causing a storm in Indian media. He said that India must recognise that it was Kashmir issue that was a cause of terrorism in the region. He advised Delhi not to close its eyes to the presence of an "elephant" in the room.

I reminded those present of the role that is being played by Lib-Dem Baroness Emma Nicholson vis-a-vis Kashmir and referred to the series of seminars she is holding objecting to the status of a province given to Gilgit-Baltistan on the specific desire of the people forgetting that she did not object when Indiands made occupied Kashmir their province. Your correspondent has mentioned about Liz Lynn. I did not refer to her in my short speech.

I am putting this to put the record straight and not by way of supporting this party or that. Whenever I have been asked to speak on such occasions I have advised the Pakistani-Kashmiri origin diaspora to vote for the best candidates and to participate in elections in full strength to support the people who could voice their causes in the Parliament.

Incidentally it was not only me but the main Lib-dem speaker who also mentioned that Mr Kaufman was the only person with consistent stand on Palestine and Kashmir in support of the people. I had just put the record straight.

Sincerely
Wajid Shamsul Hasan, High Commissioner for Pakistan to UK