Libya: Seif al-Islam Gadhafi captured

Yahoo News
TRIPOLI, Libya (AP) — Moammar Gadhafi's son Seif al-Islam has been captured in southern Libya, a Libyan militia commander said Saturday.
Bashir al-Tlayeb of the Zintan brigades told a press conference that Seif al-Islam was captured with two aides trying to smuggle him out to neighboring Niger.
Read More

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi captured in Libya-Guardian

Kadhafi's son Seif arrested: NTC

'Gaddafi's son captured' in Libya--BBC

Libyan commander tells reporters Seif al-Islam Gadhafi arrested in south Libya--Washington Post

Gaddafi's son Seif arrested: NTC--Hindustan Times

Fire outside Reno forces thousands to flee

Reporting from Las Vegas— A wind-stoked fire that erupted early Friday chased thousands of residents from their homes on the outskirts of Reno, as orange flames licked the sky and chewed through 2,000 acres in the Sierra Nevada foothills.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-reno-fire-20111119,0,2025938.story

Fast-Moving Reno Fire Kills One, Damages More Than 20 Homes-Fox News

Firefighters aided by easing winds in Reno fire that drove thousands from homes-Washingtonpost

Dirty tricks brigade at it again

It looks as if this whole ‘Memogate’ issue, as it is being called despite being a dubious drama, has taken the Pakistani media by storm. Why so much attention is being given to a shady character like Mansoor Ijaz is beyond comprehension. A man whose credibility in the international arena is murky to say the least, is being believed over Pakistan’s Ambassador to the US, who has served our country in the most difficult of times. Ambassador Haqqani has denied that he has anything to do with the memo. Admiral (retd) Mike Mullen, who first denied any knowledge about the memo but later confirmed he had received it.

Staying focused

Hopeful eyes watched as the 17^th meeting of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) kicked off in Addu, Maldives, yesterday. Indeed, more closely monitored and analysed will be the meeting between the ministers and prime ministers of India and Pakistan on the sidelines of the summit. Already the upbeat statements of foreign ministers S M Krishna and Hina Rabbani Khar have been widely reported as further signs of thawing of relations between the two arch rivals. Without doubt the Pakistan government’s decision to grant Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status to India just weeks ahead of the summit set the tone for constructive developments in bilateral relations. The sweetener was the civilised and professional manner in which an Indian helicopter that had strayed into Pakistani territory recently was returned to India within hours.

The lack of cooperation between India and Pakistan is viewed as having been the stumbling block to SAARC developing into an effective regional organisation thus far. Having come into being 26 years ago with the aim of improving the quality of life for the South Asian population, which now stands at 1.5 billion, SAARC has achieved anything but that. One raison d’être of SAARC was expansion and promotion of regional trade, which too remains dismally low in comparison to both global trade as well as intra-regional trade in other regions of the world. When compared with other regional organisations like the European Union (EU), Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), SAARC and the South Asia Free Trade Agreement  (SAFTA) have miles to go, despite their being not just the obvious answer to enhancing regional prosperity, but vital to it. Clearly, the opposition from certain lobbies within Pakistan, who wish to continue making the Kashmir issue a stumbling block to bilateral cooperation with India, is peddling a logical absurdity. The government has rightly ignored these lobbies in trying to move forward towards a constructive relationship with one of Pakistan’s immediate neighbours that is emerging as an economic giant with a huge potential market for Pakistani goods and services. It is unfortunate that when these lobbies find themselves left out in the political cold, they resort to souring the relationship via other means, and bringing to a screeching halt any meaningful progress in cooperation between India and Pakistan. The bilateral peace dialogue between India and Pakistan was suspended after the Mumbai attacks of 2008 when Pakistan-based terrorists brought carnage to India’s business and commercial capital, killing over two hundred people. It has taken close to three years for India’s anger and wounds to heal enough for it to restart a dialogue with Pakistan. More importantly, there is a realisation on the Indian side of terrorism being a common enemy and scourge that both countries need to fight together. This was borne out by SM Krishna’s statement with regard to the trust deficit between the two countries shrinking and a need for them to look at a ‘joint strategy’ to fight terror.

It is to be hoped that this year’s summit does indeed help in ‘building bridges’ between the SAARC countries. These bridges of physical connectivity, free trade and increased economic integration and interdependence have been long awaited by the peoples of the region, who want to live in peace and prosperity. It is time the governments rose to the occasion, setting aside their domestic political imperatives and moving forward in realising the dream of reviving the historical grand Silk Route. Given the fragile nature of the newfound positive direction of Indo-Pak relations, it is critical that India and Pakistan keep their eye on the ball to prevent this momentum from becoming another missed opportunity.

Holding on to a flagging relationship

In what can be considered a dramatic shift in a seemingly resolute and unalterable policy, the CIA has yielded to a level of compromise vis-à-vis its drone campaign in Pakistan, which has been seen by some to be stoking anti-American sentiments and is emerging as an obstacle in Pak-US relations of late. The CIA and the US State Department have been in conflict over the repercussions of this drone campaign on an already strained relationship between the two countries. Consequently, the parameters of the campaign have been re-defined to be more acceptable. The State Department will act as a check on the CIA’s gung-ho attitude and the Pakistan government will be taken on board before any drone operations are carried out. Also, the sensitivity of the timing of drone strikes is to be taken into account, such as when Pakistani officials visit the US or American officials are in Pakistan. Another concession by the CIA is on the controversial matter of ‘signature strikes’ that target unidentified suspected groups of militants as opposed to ‘personality strikes’ that target identified top militants only. The signature strikes, which form the bulk of the drone strikes, have been accepted as causing greater collateral damage, regardless of their success in weakening al Qaeda and being considered the politically safer option as opposed to boots on the ground, which is neither without risk nor possible without a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty.

At the same time, influential voices in the US Congress have raised the contention whether the role of the Pakistan military is that of an ‘ally’ in the war against terrorism and have pointed out that Pakistan is determined to pursue its self-defined interests and that these interests are not in sync with those of the US. Seeing that Congress holds the purse strings, its disapproval of Pakistan’s stance has led to its decision to cut already dwindling civilian assistance pledged under the 2009 Kerry-Lugar-Berman Act to provide $ 7.5 billion of aid over a period of five years. Of late, the Obama administration has also delayed payments to Islamabad on the Coalition Support Fund account as a manifestation of its displeasure at Pakistan’s reluctance to ‘do more’ with regards to the denial to militants of their safe havens on Pakistani soil. However, Hillary Clinton has urged a continuance of civilian aid to Pakistan as “disengagement at this stage would only undermine the US’s national security interests”. Moreover, she is of the view that stability cannot be ensured without economic opportunity.

With mutual mistrust piling up since the beginning of this year and the incompatibility of objectives and respective national interests now being realised and voiced by the US lawmakers, the CIA’s altered strategy of reduction and control of drone strikes and the offering of a carrot in the form of continuing aid, is a feeble attempt of the US to make the best of a bad situation. The US having acknowledged the limits on its options in ensuring post-withdrawal stability in Afghanistan and having seen Pakistan standing its ground in pursuing its notion of ‘strategic depth,’ has decided to lower its expectations and recognise, grudgingly, the importance of the relationship with Pakistan, agreed to take Pakistan’s views into consideration and thereby prevent the relationship from spiralling into the pit that has increasingly loomed under it.

It appears that these differences are not going to disappear any time soon and these contradictions are likely to exacerbate over the period leading up to the withdrawal of the US. The prospects of a healthy relationship based on mutual interests are not looking good and it seems that Afghanistan is headed towards more trouble and possibly a protracted civil war, the implications of which are going to be grave, for Pakistan as well as the region.

Pakistan decision to declare India MFN state-Paradigm shift

In a widely hailed decision, the cabinet unanimously approved Most Favoured Nation status for India on Wednesday. The decision deserves unreserved commendation, and were the PPP government to consider this as one more jewel in its crown, one would not grudge it. Business communities in both countries have welcomed the move. It is clearly a win-win move, which should have come years ago, especially in view of the fact that India granted this status to Pakistan 15 years ago. The fact that MFN is reciprocal in nature, i.e. trade privileges granted by one party extend to a reciprocating party, has meant that by not granting this status to India earlier, Pakistan has been hurting its own potential for export to India all these years. Meanwhile, India has come across as the more pragmatic country. Pakistani businessmen admit to having eyed Indian markets for a long time, especially given the plummeting purchasing power of consumers at home. MFN status for India should prove to be a sorely needed boost for local industry. Currently, official trade between the two countries stands at a paltry $2.7 billion, a fraction of the potential that may be assessed by contrasting this with last year’s Pak-China bilateral trade of $ 9 billion.
Today, the level of trade between neighbours Afghanistan, Pakistan and India is amongst the lowest level of regional trade anywhere in the world. No doubt, this bleak state of affairs is a legacy of the historic enmity between Pakistan and India, and the 30 year war in Afghanistan. In a larger context, the granting of MFN status to India is one of the crucial steps forward towards expanding regional trade and connectivity and placing Pakistan at the centre of it. Without the creation of positive ties with our immediate neighbours, such an outcome would be impossible. Opening up of trade and liberalisation of visas between Pakistan and India, especially for the business and tourism industries, lays the foundations for Pakistan serving as a strategic link on the new Silk Route from Central Asia through to India, with Pakistan benefitting not only from direct trading, but also transit fees.
It is a relief that at least one of the two players perceived to be against normalisation of ties with India is now on board. The Pakistan Army, which has traditionally held the reins of foreign as well as security policies of the country even during ‘democratic’ times, backs the move. The other, the religious lobby, remains obstinately opposed. Religio-political parties have once again raised the Kashmir issue, denouncing the MFN decision as hurting the Kashmiris’ cause. One might ask them how much help fighting wars, creating movement barriers and blocking trade has been to that cause in the last 64 years. They must give peace a chance now, and understand that interdependence of trade and the economy is key to regional peace and prosperity. Bilateral trade or a lack thereof, never has, and never will be an agency to Kashmiri freedom. As for the PML-N voicing its opposition to MFN status for India, the less said the better. It smacks of opposition for the sake of opposition. At least the party should have found a better reason for raising objections than ‘not being consulted’. It would be better for PML-N to realise that such statements only serve to strengthen perceptions of its increasing political isolation and consequent desperation. Such ill advised and ill timed statements could also potentially distill an impression of PML-N favouring politicking over national interest at a critical juncture in Pakistan’s history.
One would hope for this move to prove itself as the first step in a paradigm shift towards a relationship of mutual benefit to both India and Pakistan, and help to dull the bitterness of having fought three wars that benefited neither country’s economy or people.

An exercise in futility

As expected, the knots and tangles in Afghanistan during the so-called anti Soviet jihad and, more recently, the war on terror and the ensuing confusions felt not just by observers and allies but also the policy makers themselves are not proving easy to undo. The many layers of secrecy have left the truth almost unrecognisable and the heavy investment in the business of deception is now paying its dividends. The conference in Turkey, aimed at restoring at least some modicum of a working relationship amongst the stakeholders, is fast proving to be an exercise in futility.
The Pak-Afghan-US nexus in the war on terror is turning out to be more complicated than anticipated. The three allies have learnt from a fairly long experience that they cannot perform independently in the region. In this scenario, Turkey’s efforts for mediation between Pakistan and Afghanistan to bridge the trust deficit between the two neighbours are to be appreciated, but so far only mouthings in principle do not promise to activate a unanimous consensus or action in Afghanistan by all parties. The standoff between the US and its major ally Pakistan is going to last longer until the Pakistani military feels its interests in Afghanistan are secure. The US in its haste to get its objectives in Afghanistan achieved by 2014, wants Pakistan to remove its support and act decisively against the Haqqani network-led militants who are carrying out attacks on the US-led NATO forces from their sanctuaries across the Durand Line. The Kabul government, too, resents Pakistan’s support to the ‘terror groups’. Afghan President Hamid Karzai reiterated at the beginning of the Istanbul conference that terrorists continue to have sanctuaries outside of Afghan borders, from where they launch attacks on Afghanistan. The trust deficit is evident from President Karzai’s statement despite his meeting with President Zardari, which the Turkish leadership especially arranged between the two only a day earlier in Istanbul, that he would now only talk to Pakistan and not the Taliban. On the other hand, the Pakistani military establishment does not want to lose its interests in the region based on the doctrine of strategic depth. They are highly inimical to the Kabul government’s strategic deal with India, the archrival of Pakistan. Pakistan is averse to any peace plan for Afghanistan that includes India in it. The US wanted to get a draft of a regional security system prepared at the Istanbul conference, which could not be brought up due to the unplanned absence of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from the event at the eleventh hour. However, Pakistan and some other participating countries, due to persisting differences amongst them, had already opposed the proposal for creating a regional security mechanism.
Both Pakistan and the US have huge stakes in Afghanistan. The Pakistani military establishment wants to secure its western border, while the US wants to stabilise the pro-US Kabul government to manage regional politics as per its wishes. However, the people of war-torn Afghanistan should have the prerogative to decide the future they deem is good for them. Through this grand Istanbul conference aimed at drawing up Afghanistan’s future, no breakthrough is expected. The politics of deception is still there. Our GHQ leaders do not seem impressed by the Kabul government’s demand to ‘move beyond words.’ Until the governments in Islamabad, Kabul and Washington unanimously carve out a post-withdrawal settlement that satisfies the contradictory goals of all of them, all these efforts would remain pretty much an eyewash.

Of change and alternatives

Sunday, October 31 saw two rallies in Pakistan’s two largest cities. The Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) held a huge rally in Karachi, which was dubbed ‘Democracy and Stability of Pakistan Rally’. That a party known for its opportunism and supporting military dictatorships came out on the street in support of democracy is ironic. The MQM, along with a delegation from the PPP, protested against Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif’s derogatory language against President Zardari at a PML-N rally in Lahore the other day. MQM chief Altaf Hussain addressed the rally from London and attacked the PML-N and the Sharif brothers. The language Shahbaz Sharif used against the president is condemnable, but expecting principled politics from the MQM that has quit the PPP’s coalition government on several occasions in the past three years can hardly be taken seriously.

Lahore also witnessed a rally on Sunday. The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) rally was held at Minar-e-Pakistan, the symbolism of the location not being lost on anyone. It was a massive rally with over 100,000 people who came to show their support for PTI chief Imran Khan. That the PTI managed to attract one of the biggest crowds in Lahore in over two decades – over a million people came to Benazir Bhutto’s rally in Lahore back in 1986 – without the help of any government machinery must be recognised. It goes to prove that the people of Pakistan are disillusioned and fed up with the political class across the board. In reaction to the void created by the ruling incumbents, the people are looking for change. Anybody who comes along and seems to give a different message is bound to gain some traction. It is not so much that the things Imran Khan is saying are resonating with the people but the fact that he presents a possible alternative to the dreary spectrum in the next elections. Add personal charisma and hero worship and Imran Khan comes out as a seemingly ideal candidate for ‘change’. Mr Khan’s speech started with attacks against President Zardari and the Sharif brothers. His repetition of the false story pertaining to Ambassador Husain Haqqani about a nonexistent letter was uncalled for. Mr Khan should not bend facts to suit his case. On the domestic front, Mr Khan’s politics revolves around mainly two issues: elimination of corruption and systemic administrative structural change. Even if Mr Khan somehow manages to end corruption, is there any guarantee that the existing system will not regenerate it? How the PTI intends to save our economy is something that is virtually conspicuous by its absence in its programme. Mr Khan talked about the patwari (land record officer) system and the thana (police station) culture, but provided only half-baked solutions. Giving superficial solutions is a sign that Mr Khan has failed to recognise the actual depth of the problem. He needs to come up with better plans. Once again Mr Khan talked about reconciliation with the Taliban. He needs to be reminded that more powerful people and forces have tried this policy and failed. How can we expect those who kill and maim innocents for their fanatical objectives to think rationally?

Imran Khan talked about the rights of the Baloch and ending the ongoing military operation in Balochistan. How he plans to persuade the army and the FC to end their kill and dump policy is anyone’s guess. While he talked of educating women and the rights of minorities, he did not talk about the discriminatory laws that are loaded against women and religious minorities. He also failed to talk about the persecution of the Ahmedis and sectarian conflict. Mr Khan’s main targets were the politicians. By keeping quiet about the military’s role in Pakistani politics and the consequent mess we are in today, Mr Khan has certainly aroused suspicion. Many believe he has the blessings of the establishment.

The jury is still out on whether to call the success of PTI’s rally a game changer or not. PTI lacks the required party machinery and electable candidates. Mr Khan also made some tall claims, such as calling for civil disobedience and shutting down the cities if the politicians in power do not reveal the full extent of their wealth, but on this he may well be tested in the coming months. While the successful rally has added weight to Imran Khan’s political standing, the next general elections will show whether the PTI is able to translate a successful rally into parliamentary strength.

Afghanistan’s future

Pakistan’s position in the international arena has seen better days. Now our country is viewed as a pariah state responsible for sponsoring terrorism across the border. Despite the military establishment’s denials about not having any decisive influence over the Taliban and therefore a critical impact on Afghanistan’s future, Pakistan’s overt and covert support to the Afghan Taliban is no secret. In an interview, Major-General Athar Abbas, Director General (DG) of the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), said that Pakistan has “not been informed and not been taken into confidence on a possible roadmap or a practicable shape of the [Afghan] reconciliation process so far”. He was also critical of the BBC documentary about Pakistan’s double game in the war on terror. “We consider that report highly biased, it is one-sided, it does not have the version of the side which is badly hit or affected by this report. Therefore…it is factually incorrect,” Major-General Abbas said. Nobody expects that our military establishment would admit to playing this double game but to think that the world would buy their ‘denials’ is also naïve to say the least. On the other hand, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton faced tough questions from the US House Foreign Affairs Committee over the State Department’s willingness to negotiate with the Taliban. “So which is it, Madam Secretary, crackdown or negotiate with the Haqqani network or a little bit of both?” asked the Republican committee chair. “It is both. We want to fight, talk and build all at the same time,” answered Ms Clinton. It seems that even in the US, there are reservations about the Afghan reconciliation process.

While the Obama administration wants to reconcile with the Afghan Taliban, in Pakistan it has increased the frequency of drone strikes. This might be their way of pressurising the Afghan Taliban to come to the negotiating table while also trying to end Pakistan’s support for them. But drone strikes have not worked to the US’s advantage. It has increased anti-American sentiment in Pakistan and the militants and the right wing forces have taken advantage of this sentiment. Negotiating with the same Taliban the US helped dislodge would result in dire consequences for not just Afghanistan and Pakistan but the entire region. We should not forget that the Taliban are a barbaric force. If they are back in power in Afghanistan, there is no guarantee they would not host al Qaeda again. They have already provided sanctuaries to the Pakistani Taliban and once back in power would not hesitate to do so again. Pakistan cannot afford a Taliban rule once again despite the distinction given to them by our military establishment.

What is now needed is a new approach. The obvious way to bring back peace in the region is to adopt a three-pronged strategy. One, withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan. Two, eliminating safe havens on both sides of the Durand Line and sending the militants back to their countries of origin. This will end proxy jihad and bring stability back to the region. Three, end interference of all regional and world powers in Afghanistan and let the Afghan people settle their own affairs. It would eventually lead to Afghanistan returning to its 19th century status of a buffer state, with the significant and beneficial new factor that it can now act as a trade and energy corridor for the region.

What comes next?

The leader of Libya’s interim government set up under the National Transition Council (NTC), Mustafa Abdel Jalil, has said that a commission of inquiry is to probe the ‘controversial’ killing of slain leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. According to the pathologist who conducted the autopsy, bullets were the cause of death. Well, no surprise there. The purpose of the inquiry is to investigate the legitimacy of his killing and the circumstances surrounding it. That begs the question of how exactly an open investigation is expected to be conducted following the reports of the burial of his body. Another pertinent concern is the credibility of the autopsy report and the ingenuity of an inquiry by a commission that was set up ‘under pressure’.

As is evident from the graphic images and video footages that continue to pour in, Gaddafi was alive and injured when captured and subsequently killed. Seeing as he was alive, he was then to be categorised as a prisoner of war. The horrid manner with which his dead body was made to suffer indescribable humiliation was a shuddering sight to have been exposed to by the western and global media. This undignified and barbaric treatment of the dead body of a former leader is not justified under any circumstances. It only signifies the defiance of ethical and humanitarian principles to be observed in the treatment of any prisoner of war and disrespect of the sanctity of human life. As suggested by the sequence of the footage which articulates a quite apparent narrative, his killing only substantiates the doubts regarding his execution and not the consequence of being caught in a cross-fire. The disgraceful management of Gaddafi’s decomposing body, which was stored in a refrigerator and made a monument for public display for four days, is merely a glimpse into the characteristics of the post-Gaddafi government that claims to be a ‘moderate Muslim nation’. On the day of declaring the liberation of Libya, NTC leader Abdel Jalil’s announcement of a shariah-based state insinuates the foundations of a seemingly Islamist-extremist oriented regime to follow. If this proves true politically and socially, it symbolises a disaster in the making.

Following the events that transpired in Libya and its self-proclaimed victory against dictatorship, there have been reports stating that the US has surreptitiously decided to arm the Syrian opposition in its fight against President Bashar al-Assad and are therefore prepping for an intervention, thus indicating Syria to be the next target of a military campaign. If these reports hold true, the US and NATO are only stoking the fire and they are setting a dangerous precedent of taking military action using the protection of civilians and setting up democracy as a ruse to acquire their imperialistic designs. The US pulling out its envoy from Syria for reasons of his safety being threatened should be taken as a warning for meddling in the internal affairs such as allegedly holding talks and meetings with the opposition and inciting the people to stand against the government. This burgeoning and seemingly unhindered imperialist intervention based on a fig leaf to justify their involvement will become the cause of an inevitable confrontation and will prove detrimental not only to regional stability but world peace. Such interference and blatant invasions of sovereignty of any nation are simply not acceptable and the world should not abide it. The Arab world, the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) must take notice of this threat and unite against this intimidation, which will otherwise only embolden the imperialists to pursue their agenda.

Nusrat Bhutto-A life of struggle and tragedy

In the death of Begum Nusrat Bhutto, the country has witnessed nothing less than the passing of an era. Begum Bhutto was perhaps the last representative within the past or present leadership of the PPP of the original élan of the party – left wing and anti-imperialist. All that has by now given way to the PPP being swayed by the currents of our times. The change in the party’s ideology could perhaps be traced to the moment when, partly because of ill health, Begum Bhutto was removed as the chairperson for life of the PPP and replaced by her daughter, Benazir Bhutto.

In a life that saw both highs and lows, and was never far from struggle and tragedy, Begum Bhutto was the bulwark of support for her husband Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (ZAB) and after him, to her daughter Benazir. When ZAB was executed in 1979, many erstwhile leaders of the PPP abandoned him in the face of actual or threatened repression by the military dictatorship of General Ziaul Haq. Cometh the time, cometh the man, or in this case, woman. Begum Bhutto rose to the challenge, filling the void left by ZAB’s departure from this world, assumed charge of and the chairpersonship of the PPP in 1979, a post she held with great distinction until 1983. It is in this fraught period in the country’s history, when the horizon had darkened with the draconian repression by the Zia dictatorship, that she launched a determined and heroic struggle against the military regime. During this struggle, she suffered incarceration repeatedly and even physical abuse at the hands of the dictator’s minions. Undeterred, she pulled off the remarkable feat of uniting a broad spectrum of political parties to launch the Movement for the Restoration of Democracy (MRD). The movement was put down ruthlessly with an iron hand by General Zia. Around this time, Begun Bhutto was diagnosed with suspected cancer and allowed to leave the country for treatment abroad. She was a rock of support for her daughter Benazir in her captainship of the PPP from then on.

As though the fate of ZAB was not enough, she faced a continuing series of tragedies of Shakespearean dimensions. First her younger son, Shahnawaz Bhutto was murdered by poisoning by Zia agents. In 1996, her elder son and the apple of her eye, Murtaza Bhutto, was gunned down in Karachi by the police. That was not the end of the Bhutto family’s unprecedented record of tragedies. Benazir herself was gunned down in Rawalpindi after her return from exile abroad. It is not clear whether Begum Bhutto was either told or was aware of the death of her daughter, since by 2007 her Alzheimer’s is said to have rendered her unable to comprehend. A further tragedy was that Begum Bhutto, torn between loyalty to her daughter and the political ambition of Murtaza, cast her lot in with the latter. His killing is said to have so affected her that she not only retired from public life, but reconciled with Benazir and lived out the rest of her days in exile in Dubai.

While the respect Begum Bhutto was held in is reflected in the non-partisan tributes flowing in from all political parties and leaders, naturally it is the PPP, and especially its workers, with whom Begum Bhutto always retained a special rapport, who feel bereft. The prime minister announced a national holiday on Monday, the day of her funeral, and 10 days of mourning. The president, her son-in-law, awarded her the title of Madir-e-Jamhuriat (Mother of Democracy) and a Nishan-e-Pakistan for her services to democracy and the country. The Sindh PPP announced 40 days of mourning. The party has suspended all political activities throughout the country.

While the outpouring of grief for a great lady and great leader fill the air, her death could not, unfortunately, heal the divide in the Bhutto family. Murtaza’s widow Ghinwa and his daughter Fatima objected to her body not being allowed to come to her home in 70 Clifton, Karachi, or Al-Murtaza, Larkana, although they did travel to Garhi Khuda Bux for Begum Bhutto’s last rites. We do not know what Begum Bhutto would have made of the continuing feud in the family or the very different direction the PPP has taken from the party her husband founded and she steered through very difficult times. Perhaps it would not be far off the mark to surmise that she would have been somewhat disappointed by both. Be that as it may, while death comes to us all, the passing of some is a greater moment than others. Without fear of contradiction, one such was Begum Nusrat Bhutto, the epitome of grace under pressure and immense courage.

Beginning of a charm offensive

Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s recent interview with a local TV channel has been making headlines in the region. Talking about an attack on Pakistan by either the US or India, President Karzai said, “Anybody that attacks Pakistan, Afghanistan will stand with Pakistan. Afghanistan will be a brother of Pakistan. Afghanistan will never betray a brother.” When chairman Afghan Peace Council, Professor Burhanuddin Rabbani, was assassinated, the Afghan intelligence pointed at Mullah Omar’s Quetta Shura as being responsible for the suicide attack. President Karzai then said that instead of talking to the Taliban directly any more, Afghanistan would talk to Pakistan, implying that our military establishment controls the Afghan Taliban. It seems that Mr Karzai’s recent interview is in a way trying to placate Pakistan’s military establishment. This is nothing short of a charm offensive where the Afghan president is trying to persuade Pakistan to soften its position vis-à-vis strategic depth in Afghanistan. “Please stop using all methods that hurt us [Afghanistan] and that are now hurting you [Pakistan]. Let’s engage from a different platform, a platform in which the two brothers only progress towards a better future in peace and harmony,” said President Karzai. This is a clear reference to Pakistan’s overt and covert support to the so-called ‘good’ Afghan Taliban. Mr Karzai is right when he says that this policy has not just hurt Afghanistan, Pakistan is also paying the price of supporting terrorists. By differentiating between the Afghan Taliban and the local Taliban, Pakistan has made a big mistake. The attacks from across the border by the local Taliban should be proof enough for our military that the Afghan Taliban are not just harbouring the Pakistani Taliban but helping them with their attacks on Pakistani soil.
On the other hand, the US seems keen on negotiating with the Taliban. When asked whether the US expects Pakistan to militarily tackle the Haqqani network or force them to the negotiating table, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “It’s more the latter.” There is now an emerging consensus internally, regionally and internationally that peace and stability will return to the South Asian region through talks and a political settlement with the militants. Ten years after fighting the Taliban in difficult conditions, the US-led NATO forces have not been able to crush them. Other options were first explored but later General Petraeus’ surge approach did not work. The key to a settlement in Afghanistan lies with the Pakistani military, which is what Afghan President Karzai also hinted at. He was not addressing the Gilanis and the Zardaris when he talked about Pakistan. That our security establishment has been stoking insurgency inside Afghanistan is no secret. If our military remains recalcitrant and stubborn by not stopping this insurgency, a new civil war in Afghanistan is all but inevitable. Even though peace deals have not worked out in the past and we do not know at this poinyt whether they will be successful in the future, a political settlement may lead to the elimination of safe havens on both sides of the Durand Line. It is hoped that a combined strategy of political and military means will bring back peace in the war-torn region. It is equally important to root out safe havens from both sides of the border. The Afghans deserve peace after decades of civil war, a barbaric Taliban regime and a 10-year-long war. Pakistan, too, needs to put an end to its flawed policies if peace, stability and progress are to be achieved.

“Days and weeks”

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in Islamabad from her interaction with the Afghan leadership in Kabul and in the backdrop of the tensions between Pakistan and the US, stemming from a series of events beginning with the Abbottabad raid, Admiral Mullen’s castigation of the ISI’s links with the Haqqani network, and the Pakistani civilian-military response orchestrated through the All Parties Conference (APC). The expectation in some circles may have been that Ms Clinton came bearing gifts and palliative noises. To some extent they may have been satisfied. But the essential thrust of Ms Clinton’s message was clear and unequivocal. The US expects Pakistan to act against the terrorist safe havens on its soil within “days and weeks”, she said, while nudging, cajoling, persuading the Taliban to enter peace negotiations. If they do not cooperate, Ms Clinton asserted, stern action should be taken against them. The palliatives, largely overshadowed by the import of the ‘stern’ message, were that the Pakistan-US relationship is too critical for both sides and cannot be given up, and that the US would not carry out any (further) unilateral actions against Pakistan. She ended by emphasising Pakistan’s critical role in the Afghan endgame, and that the APC call to “give peace a chance” could only be achieved if both sides realise that “we have some work to do”.

Reports state that Clinton seemed to have extracted the recognition from Pakistan that it could do more against terrorist safe havens on its soil. This led some commentators, especially on television, to criticise foreign minister Hina Rabbani Khar for having seemingly conceded this point. However, a careful reading of Ms Khar’s statement may show that the American ‘joy’ at the seeming concession may have been overstated, and that the criticism had more to do with sensitivity amongst some of our commentators to the ‘do more’ mantra rather than what she actually said. Khar linked safe havens on this side with their counterparts across the border (a reference to the Pakistani Taliban having found sanctuary in eastern Afghanistan, reportedly with the Haqqani network’s help). Khar went on to say that better cooperation by the two sides could yield better results but categorically refuted ISI’s support to safe havens. So while the foreign minister stuck to her brief, the real question is the credibility of her defence of the Pakistani military and ISI’s role in supporting and providing sanctuaries to the Afghan Taliban and Haqqani network on Pakistani soil, for which there is by now overwhelming evidence.

A parallel and important development is the concentration of US and Afghan forces in the eastern Afghan provinces considered the stronghold of the Haqqani network, presumably in preparation for military action against the group. Clinton would like Pakistan to put pressure on the group from the Pakistani side (the old hammer and anvil tactic). This would include not only military action on both sides of the border (Ms Clinton pointed out that action on only one side would not achieve the desired results) but also intelligence cooperation. Pakistani policy makers are by now wedded to the view that military operations offer limited gains (based on the experience of the military offensives in Swat and FATA), and it is time now for a comprehensive reconciliation ahead of the withdrawal of the foreign forces from Afghanistan. The question however remains, if the military is not prepared to reject its strategic depth obsession and continues to support the continued fight of the Afghan Taliban against the foreign and Afghan forces, what incentive is there for the Taliban to come to the negotiating table? From their perspective, it makes perfect sense to wait out the withdrawing foreign forces. What may follow causes greater concern. Unlike the relatively easy victory of the Taliban in 1994-96, this time they will face a broader and more determined anti-Taliban front, comprising not just the non-Pashtun ethnic groups, but also those Pashtuns who reject the medievalism of the Taliban. Therein lie the seeds of another civil war in Afghanistan, from whose effects Pakistan cannot isolate itself. Talking of a peaceful and stable Afghanistan while stoking the Taliban insurgency seems, to put it mildly, contradictory.

Robert Fisk: You can't blame Gaddafi for thinking he was one of the good guys

We loved him. We hated him. Then we loved him again. Blair slobbered over him. Then we hated him again. Then La Clinton slobbered over her BlackBerry and we really hated him even more again. Let us all pray that he wasn't murdered. "Died of wounds suffered during capture." What did that mean?

He was a crazy combination of Don Corleone and Donald Duck – Tom Friedman's only moment of truth about Saddam Hussein – and we who had to watch his ridiculous march-pasts and his speeches bit our lips and wrote about Libyan tanks and marines and missiles that were supposed to take this nonsense seriously. His frogmen flipped and flapped through Green Square in the heat and we had to take this rubbish at face value and pretend that it was a real threat to Israel; just as Blair tried to persuade us (not unsuccessfully) that Gaddafi's pathetic attempts to create "weapons of mass destruction" had been skewered. This, in a country that couldn't repair a public lavatory. 

Click here for complete column 

Shocking brutality

Nothing defines the post-Gaddafi National Transitional Council (NTC) regime better than the shockingly brutal manner in which Colonel Moammar Gaddafi was literally beaten to death after his capture on Thursday in Sirte. To reiterate the cliché that all is fair in love and war in this context is no comfort. The reports and footage of Gaddafi’s last moments are nothing short of hair-raising. This was a barbaric act in the extreme. With its usual expedient blinkers where its interests are concerned, the west, whether governments or the media, have tucked away their moral compass somewhere out of sight and convenient. The NTC pro-west regime they are triumphantly supporting is less likely to be, as the Libyan Ambassador in London claimed, a state ruled by law so much as a western imperialist satrap. Given that this treatment of a captured leader was not the first manifestation of the brutality of the NTC fighters (note the violence perpetrated against unarmed migrant African workers captured by the NTC and accused of being Gaddafi mercenaries without any proof), what is the explanation for this barbarism?

The NTC forces include al Qaeda affiliated groups who have been trying to overthrow Gaddafi through armed uprisings (especially in eastern Libya) over the years. Ironically, the very west that claims to be fighting al Qaeda worldwide turned a convenient blind eye to the troubling inclusion of these extremist jihadi groups in the NTC ranks. One faction of these al Qaeda affiliates was held responsible for the murder of a Gaddafi regime senior general who defected to the rebels and was leading their military campaign. Yet to date, no one has been held accountable for this murder. Libya presents the picture of the pattern likely to be used by the west from now on to take out regimes that oppose its imperialist ambitions. The model is to use local dissident or rebellious forces on the ground, supported by the US and Nato’s overwhelming technological superiority in air power, missiles and other ‘remote’ weapons to help crush regimes that do not play ball with the west. US President Obama boasted after Gaddafi’s brutal end was confirmed that not one American life had been lost in the Libyan campaign. What he conveniently forgot to mention was the role of covert special forces attached to the NTC rebels that arguably helped and directed their relatively amateur military efforts. Obama’s triumphalism pulled whatever thin fig leaf was put up by Washington under the rubric ‘leading from behind’.

Like in any detective novel, the two critical questions to be asked are: motive, and beneficiary, to determine the villain of the piece. Libya’s oil and gas riches are what the US-led west has been slavering over for a very long time. Gaddafi’s support to anti-imperialist movements worldwide earned him more than a fair share of the ire of the powers that be in our (still) post-Cold War unipolar world. France and Britain, that led the anti-Gaddafi pack, are licking their lips over the lucrative ingress they have gained through bringing the NTC to power into Libya’s oil and gas. As in Iraq, energy sources and imperialist intervention have a symbiotic relationship.

It may be too close to these horrific events to judge Gaddafi’s place in history. However, a few tentative conclusions can be tendered even now. Colonel Gaddafi’s coup in 1969 that overthrew the decrepit monarchy and established a popular Arab nationalist regime openly declared its support of all anti-imperialist movements in the world. Sometimes, his uncompromising stances and criticism of other third world countries that betrayed their ostensible support to such movements because of ties to, and pressure from, the west, invited retaliation and even relative isolation for Gaddafi. He was however, undeterred for a very long time. It is only when the west was  able to orchestrate a virtually total isolation of Libya because of the Lockerbie bombing and other incidents, that Gaddafi attempted to compromise with the west. He gave up his nuclear ambitions, support for already dwindling anti-imperialist movements, and tried to craft an acceptable modus vivendi with the western powers. However, if there is one lesson to be drawn from his fate, it is that empires have long memories and are totally ruthless in achieving their goals. Gaddafi joins a long list of the victims of the rapacious greed and domineering imperialist ambitions of the west that litters the history of the modern world. Rest in peace Colonel.

Gaddafi killed, still no conformation

Former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi died of wounds suffered on Thursday Libya's interim rulers said.
His killing, which came swiftly after his capture near Sirte, is the most dramatic single development in the Arab Spring revolts that have unseated rulers in Egypt and Tunisia and threatened the grip on power of the leaders of Syria and Yemen.
"He (Gaddafi) was also hit in his head," National Transitional Council official Abdel Majid Mlegta told Reuters. "There was a lot of firing against his group and he died."
Mlegta told Reuters earlier that Gaddafi, who was in his late 60s, was captured and wounded in both legs at dawn on Thursday as he tried to flee in a convoy which NATO warplanes attacked. He said he had been taken away by an ambulance.
There was no independent confirmation of his remarks.
An anti-Gaddafi fighter said Gaddafi had been found hiding in a hole in the ground and had said "Don't shoot, don't shoot" to the men who grabbed him.
His capture followed within minutes of the fall of Sirte, a development that extinguished the last significant resistance by forces loyal to the deposed leader.
The capture of Sirte and the death of Gaddafi means Libya's ruling NTC should now begin the task of forging a new democratic system which it had said it would get under way after the city, built as a showpiece for Gaddafi's rule, had fallen.
Gaddafi, wanted by the International Criminal Court on charges of ordering the killing of civilians, was toppled by rebel forces on August 23 after 42 years of one-man rule over the oil-producing North African state.
NTC fighters hoisted the red, black and green national flag above a large utilities building in the center of a newly-captured Sirte neighborhood and celebratory gunfire broke out among their ecstatic and relieved comrades.
Hundreds of NTC troops had surrounded the Mediterranean coastal town for weeks in a chaotic struggle that killed and wounded scores of the besieging forces and an unknown number of defenders.
NTC fighters said there were a large number of corpses inside the last redoubts of the Gaddafi troops. It was not immediately possible to verify that information.

Ten years on and counting

Ten years after the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, there appears no satisfactory end in sight to the longest war the US has been engaged in in its history. The main justification for the war was denial of safe havens to al Qaeda by their hosts, the Afghan Taliban, which allowed the former to plan and perpetrate 9/11. To achieve that, the US, impatient with Taliban prevarication on the demand to hand over Osama bin Laden, unleashed its immense military might to demolish the Taliban regime and install in its place an anti-Taliban alliance with Hamid Karzai at its head. Given Afghan history and character, it was always risky to expect a regime imposed by foreign bayonets to find ready acceptance amongst the Afghan people, even if large numbers amongst them breathed a sigh of relief at seeing the back of the antediluvian Taliban. Ten years on, the balance sheet of the US/Nato occupation is being totted up, with mixed results at best.

First, the pluses. There is no doubt that the rolling back of the most extreme Taliban strictures against women, the minorities, culture, etc, have provided Afghans with badly needed breathing room and the hope of a revival of Afghan traditions and culture dearly beloved of the people of that country. In an interview, President Karzai has recounted the ‘achievements’ of his regime over the last ten years in the fields of healthcare, education, and the economy. There is no doubt that in the first two of these, quantitative growth and outreach has been pretty spectacular. Most Afghans today can access healthcare and education, especially the female gender, even though experts decry the poor standards attending these services. Afghanistan’s finances still depend heavily on foreign aid, with one estimate showing that 80 percent of the country’s GDP still is owed to foreign sources. President Karzai seems to be relying on newly discovered reserves of minerals in the country, particularly some estimated $ 3 trillion worth of lithium, which could arguably transform the economy to the extent of being able to stand on its own feet. However, this will take time and, according to the British Ambassador to Kabul, William Patey, Afghanistan will require funds from abroad until at least 2025 just to stay afloat.

While it is difficult to count the pluses, the minuses come crowding forth. Even Karzai admitted in the same interview that his government and its international allies have failed to provide security for the Afghan people. For astute observers of the Afghan scene, this hardly comes as a surprise since the Afghans have proved time and again in their history their unmatched ability to fight a foreign occupier indefinitely until he tires and departs. And if they have the facility of safe havens in a neighbouring country, the result is predictable. According to the Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid, that is where things stand today, leading him to predict that victory will be theirs in the end. The entire enterprise of regime change and rebuilding Afghanistan depended first and foremost on providing security, which Karzai thinks has been a failure and the ISAF command thinks is a work-in-progress with many bright spots. This year has seen increased boldness in the Taliban’s attacks in Kabul and the spread of Taliban influence in the north and east, even as the traditional stronghold of the south and southwest has yielded relative control by the ISAF forces. Security, like much else in Afghanistan, especially governance, presents a mixed picture at best.

Whatever the balance sheet of ten years of war may reveal or conceal, the fact remains that US President Obama’s optimism that the Afghan and Iraq wars are being ended responsibly and that al Qaeda is nearing its end after a decade of pursuit seems overly simplistic to the point of delusion. Al Qaeda may be hurt, but it is by no means down and out. The Taliban’s expected push to return to power once the foreign forces have departed and the Afghan security forces are all that stand between them and the prize plum of Kabul still lies in the future. There is little evidence that US hopes for a distancing of the Taliban from al Qaeda, a distancing that would open up the gates to a separate settlement with the Taliban that excluded any remaining ties with bin Laden’s successors have any reasonable chance of being fulfilled. If the Taliban return to power in Kabul, can al Qaeda be all that far behind?