WikiLeaks Scandal Blows Hole In U.S. Diplomacy Worldwide

Diplomacy / United States

WikiLeaks Scandal Blows Hole
In U.S. Diplomacy Worldwide

 

by Larry Luxner

For years, retired diplomat Edward “Skip” Gnehm has taught a class at George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs, in which he plays the ambassador of a small Middle Eastern sheikhdom under attack by terrorists. Gnehm’s students, assuming the role of a “country team,” must urgently help their boss draft a top-secret cable to the State Department, detailing how Washington should respond to the unfolding crisis.
Except that in real life, those cables would no longer be very secret.

For better or for worse, WikiLeaks has suddenly turned the world of diplomacy upside down with its release of classified State Department cables from 270 U.S. embassies and consulates overseas. What’s more, only a tiny fraction of the 251,287 transmissions have actually been published, and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is threatening to set off a “thermonuclear device” of unexpurgated government files if he’s arrested or harmed in any way.

Even if that doesn’t happen, the biggest diplomatic bombshell in recent U.S. history has already been “devastating and destructive” for American diplomats overseas, according to Gnehm, a former director-general of the Foreign Service and U.S. ambassador to Kuwait, Australia and Jordan. He was also posted to Lebanon, Syria, Tunisia, Yemen and Saudi Arabia over the course of his 35-year career.

“This has broken our confidence and has left most of our interlocutors fearful and angry,” Gnehm told The Washington Diplomat in a phone interview from Amman, where he had just given a WikiLeaks-related press briefing to Jordanian reporters, at the behest of the State Department. “In the future, people are going to be wary about talking to us, and it’ll be harder for us to give our own governments the information they need to make analytical decisions.”

Susan R. Johnson, president of the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), complained that the leaks “draw attention to our diplomats but undermine diplomacy,” and that “WikiLeaks cannot justify these actions in the name of transparency.”

Gnehm and Johnson are hardly lone voices in the wilderness. Their concerns are echoed by many other U.S. and foreign diplomats interviewed by this newspaper — which, as a publication devoted to diplomatic coverage, continues to be fascinated, if not astonished, by the WikiLeaks revelations unfolding almost on a daily basis.

As fascinating as it is to get a window into the vast world of behind-the-scenes diplomacy, the wide-ranging ramifications of prying open closed doors remain unknown. And just as WikiLeaks has exposed a massive mountain of information, the subsequent debate over its actions has unearthed an avalanche of questions. What does this mean for the future of U.S. diplomacy? How will it impact our foreign policy goals, whether in Iran, Russia, Afghanistan or North Korea? Who’s really to blame for the fiasco? Will the government abandon its information-sharing efforts because of the breach? What are the pros and cons of conducting more diplomacy out in the open?

Despite the prevailing uncertainty, a general consensus seems to have emerged amid the international media frenzy and soul searching at Foggy Bottom. First, although embarrassing for U.S. officials and ego-denting for some foreign leaders, most experts agree the leaks won’t significantly damage long-term U.S. interests. While revealing, the cables don’t say anything that most foreign policy junkies didn’t already know. For some observers, they’ve even affirmed that America’s diplomats are a lot smarter and insightful than they’d originally assumed.

That being said, the cables have eroded trust, and effective diplomacy fundamentally hinges on trust. Perversely, in its stated effort to bring greater transparency to U.S. diplomacy, WikiLeaks may have had the opposite effect, making governments more paranoid and thereby less open. After all, it will be hard to find people anywhere on the planet who won’t be thinking about WikiLeaks in the back of their mind before they speak to an American diplomat. So the public may have gained a bounty of insider information in the short term, but the government may suffer from a dearth of critical information in the long term.

*****

From Saudi Arabia to Slovenia, from Qatar to Korea, just about every country on the globe has been touched in some way by the scandal. In terms of sheer numbers, so far the largest numbers of cables emanated from U.S. missions in Ankara (7,918); Baghdad (6,677); Tokyo (5,697); Amman (4,312); Paris (3,775); Kuwait City (3,717); Madrid (3,620); Taipei (3,456); and Moscow (3,376).

Some of the most damning back-channel cables originated at U.S. posts in Afghanistan and Pakistan — supposedly America’s allies in the war against terrorism. Karl Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, wrote about that country’s president, Hamid Karzai, in less than glowing terms last summer, in one of the first cables exposed by WikiLeaks.

“Two contrasting portraits emerge. The first is of a paranoid and weak individual unfamiliar with the basics of nation-building and overly self-conscious that his time in the spotlight of glowing reviews from the international community has passed,” Eikenberry wrote, telling his superiors that Karzai “does not listen to facts” but instead is swayed by anyone who reports even the most bizarre stories or plots against him. “The other [image] is that of an ever-shrewd politician who sees himself as a nationalist hero who can save the country from being divided” by political rivals.

Yet another cable from Kabul to Washington describes the rampant corruption under Karzai’s rule, quoting an Afghan official who described the four stages at which money is skimmed from U.S. development projects:
“When contractors bid on a project, at application for building permits, during construction, and at the ribbon-cutting ceremony.”

In neighboring Pakistan, Ambassador Anne W. Patterson reported in May 2009 that the government of President Asif Ali Zardari was refusing to schedule a visit by U.S. technical experts hoping to remove highly enriched uranium from a research reactor because, as a Pakistani official said, “if the local media got word of the fuel removal, they certainly would portray it as the United States taking Pakistan’s weapons.”

Wendy Chamberlin, president of the Washington-based Middle East Institute and a former U.S. ambassador to both Pakistan and Laos, said that despite the scandal, Washington’s relationship with Islamabad will endure, although it will suffer a PR hit.

“The government of Pakistan has been circumspect in its public remarks about the leaks,” Chamberlin told The Diplomat. “But the Pakistani media is publishing far more of the stolen cables than we are seeing here. The reaction there is far more anger among the people than what we in the U.S. realize.”

A senior Pakistani official who asked not to be named told the Washington Post that the revelations “will only feed further paranoia” about U.S. designs in his country. He added that “even when there are no major secrets revealed, the WikiLeaks cables embarrass a lot of people for making comments in private that they would never make in public.”

Meanwhile, outright duplicity of foreign officials is laid bare by one cable recounting a meeting last January between Gen. David Petraeus — then-commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East — and Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh, who jokes about the U.S. role in missile strikes against the local branch of al Qaeda.

“We’ll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours,” Saleh told Petraeus, also complaining about smuggling from nearby Djibouti, telling the five-star general his concerns were about drugs and weapons, not whiskey, “provided it’s good whiskey.”

Although America’s role in Yemeni counterterrorism operations is one of the worst-kept military secrets around, Saleh’s undiplomatic candor could prove problematic for the authoritarian ruler of a conservative Muslim nation intensely opposed to any sign of American meddling.

Indeed, many of the cables affirm what many people already know: Saudi Arabia — a staunch ally of the United States — is also the world’s largest source of terrorist funds for extremist groups, along with three other wealthy oil sheikhdoms, Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. Russia is described as “a virtual mafia state” under which President Dmitry Medvedev “plays Robin” to Batman, i.e. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. The North Korea-related cables also confirm what’s widely known — that not much is known about the hermit kingdom. Another shocker: China has engaged in cyber attacks aimed at U.S. military and political data, and its leaders have been obsessed with Google’s role in China.

Some revelations, although common knowledge, nevertheless may have a profound impact on future negotiations or foreign policy thinking. At the top of the list will be Iran, which cables confirmed is a major concern for America’s Arab allies, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, all of whom have been reluctant to publicly denounce Tehran’s nuclear aims.

Privately, however, the cables paint a very different picture. One secret cable says King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia repeatedly asked Washington to “cut off the head of the snake” — a reference to Iran’s nuclear program — while there was still time. In response, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, compared in one cable to Adolf Hitler, accuses the Zionists of fabricating the leaks to bolster support for Israel and justify a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

One cable dated Feb. 24, 2010, and based on a meeting between Russian officials and a State Department nonproliferation expert, revealed that North Korea was able to smuggle 19 advanced, Russian-designed missiles to Iran. According to Politico, “the shipment of R-27 components to Iran was already widely known in intelligence circles, but the WikiLeaks disclosures represent the first confirmation that Iran now possesses complete missile systems capable of delivering nuclear payloads.”

Other cables shed light on the gritty details of diplomacy and creative statecraft. For instance, as recently as last February, the U.S. ambassador in Seoul, Kathleen Stephens, said in a confidential cable to Washington that U.S. and South Korean officials had begun discussing the prospects for a unified Korea following the eventual collapse of the communist regime in Pyongyang. In the cable, Stephens says South Korean officials believe that the right business deals would “help salve [China’s] concerns about living with a reunified Korea” that is in a “benign alliance” with the United States.

Still other cables expose a type of stealthy statecraft that borders on spying. One secret directive signed by Hillary Clinton and sent to American diplomats sought detailed intelligence on United Nations leadership — including cell phone numbers, e-mail addresses, credit card numbers, encryption codes, frequent-flyer accounts and even biometric data on top U.N. officials. Even if American diplomats didn’t abide by the intelligence order, the revelation caused an uproar at the world body, with U.N. officials demanding an investigation.

Not all the cables deal with life-or-death issues. In one, the Slovenian government is told to accept one prisoner from the detainee camp at Guantánamo Bay in exchange for some face time with President Obama. The tiny Pacific island nation of Kiribati — population 108,000 — was offered millions of dollars in incentives to take in Chinese Muslim detainees.

And Gene Cretz, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, noted in one scintillating dispatch — which has gotten heavy media play — that Col. Muammar al-Gaddafi doesn’t go anywhere without his “voluptuous blonde” Ukrainian nurse and is scared of flying over water or staying on upper floors.

Meanwhile, diplomats’ blunt descriptions of some world leaders, including U.S. allies, are just plain embarrassing, leaving egg on everyone’s faces. Putin is labeled an “alpha-dog,” Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is “feckless, vain” and “appears increasingly to be the mouthpiece of Putin,” German Chancellor Angela Merkel allegedly “avoids risk and is rarely creative,” while French President Nicolas Sarkozy has a “thin-skinned and authoritarian personal style.”

*****

Since WikiLeaks began publishing the cables on its website Nov. 28, reaction around the world has ranged from the angry to the absurd. Italy’s foreign minister calls the document dump “the 9/11 of diplomacy” and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky labeled Julian Assange a “high-tech terrorist” who should be tried for treason — while at the other end of the spectrum, leftist political commentator Noam Chomsky said the WikiLeaks cables reveal “a profound hatred for democracy on the part of our political leadership.”

The official response from Washington, though far more muted, warns that the leaks jeopardize national security. “Such disclosures put at risk our diplomats, intelligence professionals and people around the world who come to the U.S. for assistance in promoting democracy and open government,” President Obama said in a carefully crafted statement. “By releasing stolen and classified documents, WikiLeaks has put at risk not only the cause of human rights but also the lives and work of these individuals.”

Likewise, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the leaks an attack on the international community, arguing that the illegal disclosure of classified documents “puts people’s lives in danger, threatens our national security, and undermines our efforts to work with other countries to solve shared problems.” At the same time though, she added that the administration’s diplomatic relationships could weather the upheaval.

Although some recently released documents provide a list of sensitive sites around the world — from hydroelectric dams in Canada to vaccine producers in Denmark — that could in theory offer terrorists potential targets to hurt American interests abroad, many experts say it’s a stretch to say the cables directly endanger national security.
None of the leaked cables, in fact, rank higher than a “secret” clearance, to which some 3 million people in the U.S. government have access (many are unclassified and none are marked “top-secret” — the government’s most secure communications status).

To be sure, WikiLeaks has its defenders — including, strangely, Republican lawmaker Ron Paul of Texas and populist President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela.

“In a free society, we’re supposed to know the truth,” said Paul, a one-time presidential candidate. “In a society where truth becomes treason, then we’re in big trouble. And now, people who are revealing the truth are getting into trouble for it.”

Chávez, spouting off on state television, said the scandal “exposes the U.S. empire for what they are” and declared: “I have to congratulate the people of WikiLeaks for their bravery and courage. Clinton should resign. It’s the least she can do with all of this spying and delinquency in the State Department.”

Some of the defenders though are a bit less dramatic — conversely praising the skills of American diplomats. The National Journal’s Michael Hirsh said the cables look more like “a breath of fresh air than a national security threat.” The New York Times’s Roger Cohen called members of the U.S. Foreign Service “thoughtful, well-informed and dedicated servants of the American interest who write in clear, declarative English sentences.”

Time Magazine’s Fareed Zakaria argues that “the sum total of the output I have read is actually quite reassuring about the way Washington — or at least the State Department — works.”

“First, there is little deception. These leaks have been compared to the Pentagon papers. Which they are not…. The WikiLeaks documents, by contrast, show Washington pursuing privately pretty much the policies it has articulated publicly,” Zakaria writes. “The cables also show an American diplomatic establishment that is pretty good at analysis.”

“If we’re looking for bad government policies, perhaps the place to look is not in the cables but in the new data-sharing craze. The leaks are, in some ways, an unintended consequence of Washington’s finally getting its information act together,” Zakaria concludes. “Our anger at WikiLeaks should not obscure the fact that it is Washington’s absurd data-sharing policy that made this possible. That’s the scandal here that needs fixing.”

*****

Yet we couldn’t find one U.S. diplomat who had any sympathy for WikiLeaks or Assange, its 39-year-old Australian founder. While Assange’s self-anointed campaign to promote “transparency” may not be overtly dangerous, many say it’s a pointless exercise in embarrassment that will only complicate much-needed U.S. diplomacy around the world.

“These WikiLeaks seem to have no end in sight,” said Richard Murphy, former assistant secretary of state for Near East and South Asian affairs. “I gather that there has been enough detail released in their military analyses of Afghanistan and Iraq to threaten the lives of those who have worked with us, but when it comes to the diplomatic releases, it’s not a question of life or death — it’s a question of access.”

Murphy, now a scholar with the Middle East Institute, told The Diplomat that “in many cases in which access to leaders is limited, you must rely on other people to give you insights into the way they’re thinking, people like journalists who have access to those who do not like to talk to Americans.”

This is especially true of deeply suspicious countries like Saudi Arabia, according to Murphy, who served as U.S. ambassador in Riyadh from 1981 to 1983.

“While this may not lead to death threats against those who have talked to us, it certainly will lead to more caution, and less information from sources where the leadership is not available to talk over issues,” he told us. “The Saudis recognize that Americans have a very difficult time keeping their mouths shut. So this will make the conversations more difficult, at least in the short term.”

Murphy added: “Historically, governments expect to have confidential discussions, and that those confidences will be respected. This violates that trust, and when you violate it, you raise questions about how difficult your own career — if not your life — is going to be.”

“Most people don’t understand what a cable is,” the George Washington University’s Gnehm explained. “They don’t understand that embassies get information from people in and out of government, and pass that to Washington, where it becomes part of a larger pool of information. Only then do you have a full picture that Washington is able to use, to analyze whether a particular cable from a particular post is worthy. You can’t just look at one of the leaks and say you know the whole picture, because you probably don’t.”

Gnehm said “it’s no surprise to anybody,” for example, that conservative Arab governments throughout the Persian Gulf are terrified that Iran will acquire nuclear weapons.

“It’s clear that these leaders are concerned about Iran and its nuclear capability, but it’s embarrassing that their officials were quoted,” said the professor, who knows many of those leaders personally from when he was ambassador to Jordan and Kuwait. “You’re trying to keep your relationship with these countries as strong as possible. At the same time, you’re not trying to provoke a crisis — and to have [these private conversations] come out in such stark terms is an embarrassment.”

Carne Ross, executive director of Independent Diplomat — a nonprofit advisory group based in New York — says “most diplomats are pretty outraged and rather shocked” at the damage Assange and his team have done to world diplomacy.

“We are worried about the short-term political fallout, which is pretty unpredictable. Neither WikiLeaks nor the State Department can know what all this means,” said Ross, a British diplomat who was responsible for his country’s Iraq policy at the U.N. Security Council. He resigned in protest over the Iraq war.

“I think this has really done grave damage to the notion that information can be assumed to be kept confidential. One of the reasons it was so shocking to U.S. diplomats is that the United States is widely regarded as a technologically sophisticated country, and it was assumed the U.S. had pretty good procedures for protecting its data,” Ross told The Diplomat.

“This is quite a profound shock to the system. The immediate reaction in many diplomatic services will be to restrict the circulation of sensitive data, to restrict information management. But there’s a problem with that, which is that the reason data is circulated is because it makes diplomats more effective. The more you restrict data, the more ineffective diplomacy becomes. This is a real conundrum.”

Wolfgang Ischinger, chairman of the Munich Security Conference, is Germany’s former ambassador in Washington and the country’s former deputy foreign minister. Writing in the New York Times, he says the WikiLeaks paradox is that it will lead to “less openness and a lot more secrecy” rather than the transparent information universe WikiLeaks idealists may have dreamed of.

“Some leaks are harmless, some lethal — and some have even led to war. But one thing is certain: Every single leak damages or destroys trust, in one way or another. And trust is the single most precious commodity in diplomacy. That is why the ongoing WikiLeaks publication of hundreds of thousands of U.S. diplomatic cables endangers the entire species. It puts the business of diplomacy at risk.”

Ischinger argues that governments in democracies must be held accountable for their actions, but that a citizen’s right to know applies primarily to the policies of his or her own government.

“Whistle-blowing in cases of governmental or business misconduct or criminal behavior may be a legitimate ingredient of a modern society, but the right to know should not be interpreted to include information presented or discussed by foreign countries under rules of confidentiality,” he wrote. “Once trust has evaporated, it is difficult, sometimes even impossible, to rebuild.”

Chamberlin agrees, telling us in a phone interview that “we diplomats should have the right to protect and not disclose the names of our confidential sources, just as you journalists do.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose country has so far come out smelling like roses, nevertheless conceded in a speech to foreign correspondents in Tel Aviv that “journalism is built on revelations. And the result of what happened with WikiLeaks, in my view, is that it will be harder for you to do your work and it will be harder for us to do our work.”

One silver lining to come out of all this may be renewed respect for U.S. diplomat overseas — who rarely get the limelight they often deserve and are only noticed when things go wrong.

Peter Hakim, former president of Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington-based think tank, says that “indeed, one cable discussing the constitutional questions surrounding the 2009 coup in Honduras demonstrated the U.S. Embassy’s exceptional grasp of issues and context, and its capacity for sophisticated and balanced analysis.”

Columnist Cohen of the New York Times says, “I’ve not heard much in the torrent of Wiki-chatter about these admirable career diplomats whose diplomacy is now condemned to be unquiet. Yet it is they whose lives have been upturned. Every journalist knows that if their correspondence over several years was suddenly made public, they would lose most of their sources. That should give every journalist pause.”

“With 99.9 percent of the WikiLeaks cables still yet to drop, the American people are going to learn a lot more about how their Foreign Service works. And if that means they can all start talking about their foreign policy like adults, that’s a good thing,” Joshua Kucera wrote in the Foreign Policy article “U.S. Diplomats Aren’t Stupid After All.”
Yes, it may be a benefit, says retired diplomat Murphy, “but it is outweighed by the lack of trust our representatives will encounter as they try to do their jobs.”

Indeed, when asked if he’d do anything differently post-WikiLeaks if he were still an active Foreign Service officer, Gnehm told The Diplomat: “I’d continue to do reporting, but I’d be more circumspect about identifying a person by name. If for example I were writing a cable out of a Mid-Eastern country that had a parliament, I’d say I had dinner with six prominent senators whose opinions I respect, rather than name them.”

Ross — whose New York consulting group advises such clients as Burma, the government of Southern Sudan, the Polisario Front of Western Sahara and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus — doesn’t think it’s the end of the world as we know it, although the world will be talking about WikiLeaks for some time to come.

“Diplomats are a pretty hard-bitten bunch,” he told us. “Most of them feel that eventually — and fairly soon — things will go back to business as usual. But I personally think it will change things for good. If diplomats now think that what they say may ultimately end up on the Internet, they’ll be more careful about what they say. What I hope it also means is that governments will realize they’ve got to close the gap between what they say they’re doing and what they are actually doing. It’s only embarrassing if there’s a real discrepancy between what governments do in private and what they say in public.”

Chamberlin agrees. “A lot of feelings got hurt, but there won’t be long-term damage. The State Department has been at the center of the scandal because our reporting is so good,” she said. “Maybe now, the American public will understand the value of our hard-working diplomats.”

Larry Luxner is news editor of The Washington Diplomat

The conflict of geography

Samson Simon Sharaf
The message being sent to Pakistan in the post-WikiLeaks scenario is ominous and bereft of diplomatic dignity. “We will continue to insist to Pakistani leaders that terrorist safe havens within their borders must be dealt with,” said President Barack Obama. General (retd) Jack Keane, put it more bluntly: “Don’t just put a finger in their chest, put a fist in their chest.” As predicated in my columns, the US is expanding the drone war into Pakistan, while our national leaders continue to put a façade of protest in the backdrop of tacit compliance.
If the US is adamant in pushing its own interests in Afghanistan and remains insensitive to Pakistan’s security, ethnic and other social concerns, Pakistan is well within its right to pursue its own ends of policy. After all, it was these objectives that formed the basis of Pakistan’s cooperation with the US in the war against USSR and allowed free access to Afghans for over two decades. More than 70 percent of the population in Afghanistan is ethnically, linguistically and culturally linked to Pakistan. Despite the Durand Line, the ethnic Pashtuns and Gujjars have been flowing to and fro for centuries. The Powindas, as we call them, have rights to grazing meadows, encampments and movements as if it was their own country. Cognitively, they are as much Pakistani as those living on this side of the divide. A deliberate effort is now being made to label this cross border movement as sanctuaries and lump the blame for failures on Pakistan.
Pakistan’s objectives have been consistent and the US was aware of these sensitivities once it embarked on its shock and awe in Afghanistan. To expect Pakistan to forego these historic, cultural, family and religious linkages to the chagrin of its public sentiments and long-term interests is tantamount to asking Pakistan’s surrender.
Agreed, that within the big power play, small countries enjoy little freedom of action, but as the war of non-state actors expands, the lesson is clear; it is possible to resist and defy superpowers with a cause that has public appeal. Non-state actors like Al-Qaeda, Taliban and the WikiLeaks have proved so and nation-states backed by its people must do so as well.
On the systemic spectrum of national power, these idiosyncratic notions of leadership, national character, morale and ability to seize fleeting opportunities is what all successful nations of the world have capitalised on. Many have reinvented themselves in crises. Vietnam, Sri Lanka, China, Germany, the Balkans, Iran, Venezuela and the people of Afghanistan poignantly demonstrate what national will and character can accomplish. Amongst these, countries have achieved indigenous self-reliance, while challenging the international equilibrium through prolonged struggles based on inherent motivations, dignity and self-respect.
The US too went through this phase during the American Civil War, but forgot the sociology of a conflict when it shifted its national purpose and strategy to the use of long arm for global dominance. As more economic centres to balance the US global dominance will emerge, the competition will stiffen and tensions heighten. Hence, before this multilayered balance of power stabilises, the US seeks to permanently entrench itself in the region to reap resource benefits and dominate the underbelly of Russia and China. In the bargain, it also establishes a strategic presence in the Islamic heartland that it perceives as a future threat much beyond the non-state actors.
In this quest to seize the global resources of the future, the US in the short- and medium- term will not hesitate to use its military’s long arm through fanning, prolonging and expanding conflicts in the zones of strategic importance. The entire arc from West to Central Asia is one such zone of conflict in which the US factorises Israel and India to act as two important citadels on the flanks. Pakistan and Afghanistan are in the eye of this storm.
This entire zone lacks democratic credentials. Most of the countries in the region are Muslim with dictatorships and kingdoms supported by the US. The publicly acclaimed US slogan of bringing democracy is a farce, to say the least. It supports dictators and divisive religious policies to cement its presence in the region to the extent of interventions at the micro levels. The US calls all the shots.
First in line are the dictators and kings who need a US umbrella for their survival, and reciprocate the services by allowing their sovereignty to be nibbled. Then there are countries vacillating between dictatorships and sham democracies with weak institutions, dependant on the US or Arab support for economic and political survival. These countries are also exposed to the strings of international financial institutions whose controls lie in Washington and represent another dimension of non-state interventionism. The Pakistani leadership will permit micro-management of its affairs and look the other way when US drones kill more innocent civilians than Al-Qaeda. Afghans will play sides and stack away millions of dollars just in case they have to make the run once they are ousted.
Third are the sea of emotions of deprivation, political marginalisation, betrayal, strong feelings of ethno-religious identity and surviving on the fringe. Their political leaders in power do not represent their feelings. These are the neglected lot whose emotions overflow the brim; who can act violently to preserve their national identity whilst some could fall victims to the extremist agenda. These are the downtrodden that hold the key to the fleeting opportunities of national character and morale.
It is time to admit that the resistance to US occupation in Afghanistan is as much indigenous as it was during the British Afghan wars and the Soviet invasion. It is not led by the Taliban alone, but also comprises politically and ethnically diverse groups such as Younis Khalis, Gulbadin Hikmatyar and Haqqanis. As the resistance increases, in Kanduz and northern Afghanistan, it also indicates that despite a decade, the fire of Afghan pride is conflagrating. If the US does not resort to engagement methods other than the long war, it assures that it will meet its biggest defeats at the hand of ragtags for the second time after Vietnam.
It is high time the US policymakers realised; once bitten, twice shy.
The writer is a retired brigadier and a political economist.
Email: nicco1988@hotmail.com

Mr Jinnah, as I knew him

just now Sameen Khan
I saw Mr Jinnah for the first time when he came to speak on the invitation of the Muslim University Union in the famous Strachey Hall. My class fellow and close friend Fasihuddin Ahmed, who was also a nephew of Dr Ziauddln Ahmed, the Vice Chancellor of the Aligarh Muslim University, asked me if I was going or wanted to go to hear Mr Jinnah speak. 1 said: “The hall will be full with students, how shall we get in?” But Fasih took me there and we entered the hall from the backside. We sat near the dice where students were piling up their autograph books to be signed by Jinnah. I think the Vice President of the University Union (the President was always a professor) was perhaps Shamsul Hoda/Haq from Bengal, who delivered an eloquent speech and prepared the audience for Jinnah’s speech. When his name was announced, there was complete silence in the hall. He delivered an eloquent speech and, perhaps, in this speech said: “Aligarh is the arsenal of Muslim India.” But the only sentence that I remember till now is “build your character”, and since then I have tried to do just that. That was my first encounter with Mr Jinnah.
The next year in April 1944, when I was in the 10th class, Jinnah came again to Aligarh, which had become the centre of the Pakistan Movement. One day, Ahsan sahib, our warden in English House, called and asked me to collect all the boarders, have them properly dressed in the Aligarh uniform to be taken to Habib Manzil - where Mr Jinnah was staying - for a photograph with him. So, I collected all the boarders of English House and took them to Habib Manzil. The cameraman was ready and the chairs were already placed there with a high chair for Mr Jinnah. Ahsan sahib asked me to go to Jinnah and bring him for the photograph. So, I went upstairs - Jinnah was signing the autograph books of the students - and said: “Mr Jinnah, the English House is ready for the photograph with you.” He replied: “I will be with you in a minute.” I led him downstairs to the place where the photograph was to be taken. However, the chair that I had reserved for myself, besides Mr Jinnah, was occupied by a friend and I rushed to the corner chair. So this was my first meeting and ‘conversation’ with Mr Jinnah.
All of us in English House passed the Matriculation Examination. I was informed about it by Ahsan sahib by a cable in Naini Tal, where we had gone for summer holidays. Obviously, my mother was very happy and my uncle of Rampur told me that he is going to have a function and also invite Nawab Raza Ali Khan of Rampur. But when I told him that I shall only salute him in a normal manner and not as his subject, the dinner for the nawab had to be cancelled.
A few days after passing the exam, I received a letter from the Commander-in-Chief of the Royal Indian Air Force offering me a commission in the air force primarily due to Dr Ziauddin Ahmed, who had developed a high-level PR with the upper echelons of the British ruling class from which the students of Aligarh benefited. However, my mother was adamant and she said: “My son is not going into the Royal Indian Air Force at all.”
Soon my mother, who was fed up with the Rampur’s conservative society, where she had to play the second fiddle to the Begum of Rampur, decided to shift to New Delhi. So after a brief stay in Darya Ganj in old Delhi, we shifted to New Delhi. Meanwhile, I had been admitted to St Stephen’s College, Delhi.1 went there for admission - with a second division - with my two uncles. l went inside to meet the principal and he asked me a question in English. I replied in the same language with confidence .He wrote on my application form “admitted” and said “go and pay the fees.” My uncles were surprised and also so happy as if they had been admitted to the college. From the very next day, I started going to college and my friends in college were Ainuddin and Sabharwal - two hefty students from Rajputana (Rajashtan) - who came to be known as my ‘body guards’. l played hockey in college in the second eleven in which Sabharwal was the Centre-Forward, Ainuddin was the Left-in and I was the Right- in. Soon enough, as going to college from New Delhi twice was too much and because of my growing interest in politics, I had to stop playing hockey. But my friends used to miss me in the hockey field.
Meanwhile, I wrote my first letter to Mr Jinnah, which has been published in the book by Syed Shamsul Hasan, the permanent Secretary of the All India Muslim League, named Plain Mr Jinnah. My letter is dated November 16, 1944, and contrary to Pakistan’s present ruling hierarchy Mr Jinnah replied to me on December 13, 1944, which are also published in the same book. It was the result of that letter and prompt Mr Jinnah’s reply that I and my mother met him the same day and we entered the Pakistan Movement together.
Since our two cars were sold in Rampur because of the petrol, my mother on the advice of Begum Husain MaIik, the President of the Delhi Provincial Women’s Muslim League, bought the car. I started going to college in a car and it placed me in the super-elite of the college and the Delhi University. I joined the History (Hons) classes because of my good marks in the preparatory class in all the subjects, which were held in the university for all the honours and MA students of all the colleges, including Hindu College, Anglo-Arabic College, Ramjas College and most important of all the lndra-Prasth College for women. The honours and MA classes for History were held in the university in a room, beside the office of the Dean of Arts and Chairman of the History Department, Dr I. Qureshi.
My class fellows there were Ziauddin Temuri of the Moghul Royal Family, Manzur Ahmed belonging to the family of Dr Nazir Ahmed – the great scholar of Urdu, Karni Singh - the heir apparent of Bikaner, a scion of the Sikkim Princely family and Zebra Hilali - sister of Agha Hilali and Agha Shahi, and a leftwing firebrand of the All India Students Federation (pro-communist) Hem Lata, who took notes for me whenever I was late. Hem came close to me not merely because she was attractive, but because both our ideological leanings were towards the ‘left’. It was because of whom I went in the students procession of all the three groups of students organisations - All India Students’ Congress (pro-Congress), All India Students Federation (pro-Communist), and All India Muslim Students Federation (pro-Muslim League) - protesting against the trial of the Indian National Army stalwarts in LaI Qila, Delhi. However, I came close to not merely Jinnah, but also Liaquat Ali Khan, Nawab Ismail Khan and Chaudhry Khaliquz Zaman, who were the most prominent leaders of the Muslim League.
Moreover, my former class fellow and close friend in Aligarh Fasihuddin Ahmed had started publishing a fortnightly called the Pakistan Times of which I was appointed as the Special Correspondent in Delhi, as it was possible for me to meet the leaders of the Muslim League and the Congress Party. Subsequently, I became active also in the All India Muslim Students’ Federation and in the Delhi Muslim Students Federation, in which in the elections for the ‘presidentship’ Ale Hasan Bilgrami defeated Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan, but Liaquat Ali Khan took it in his stride and did not react against Bilgrami. Meanwhile, Nasim Ahmed, who had come from Lahore, was elected the Secretary of the Delhi Muslim Students’ Federation and was primarily responsible in urging me to take part in politics and also in the federation. Meanwhile the Secretary General, who was from Assam, won the Provincial Assembly elections and became a minister there, so Syed Imdad Altaf Hussain became the Acting Secretary General of the federation.
As the Muslim League had no paid workers like the Congress Party, its wing in Delhi was completely dependent on the Delhi Muslim Students Federation. Obviously, Aligarh Muslim University students played a primary role in the success of the Muslim League, both in the Provincial and Central Assembly elections and in the creation of Pakistan. But we being in Delhi had easy access to meet Mr Jinnah, Liaquat Ali, Nawab lsmail and Chaudhry Khaliquz Zaman and other top leadership of the Muslim League. So all four of us - Imdad, Ale, Nasim and me - who held no office in the federation, played an active role in the Pakistan Movement in Delhi. And since I had at my disposal two cars one for me and one for my mother, Noorus Sabah Begum, who became active in the All India Women’s Muslim League, we both became active in the Pakistan Movement. So we either went ourselves, if there was a problem to be discussed with Mr Jinnah, or were summoned by the great man.
Nehru, who in the interim government was the Minister for External Affairs in the Viceroy’s Executive Council (Cabinet) to project himself in Asia, had organised an Asian Relations Conference. As far as, I remember it was held in February 1947 at the Purana Qila. Most of the delegates were staying at the Constitution House. I and Nasim gate-crashed in the conference and also reached the podium where Mrs Sarojni Naidu was presiding.
Jinnah called all four of us to his house. He told us: “The Muslim League is boycotting the conference called by Nehru, but we want to meet these delegations.” I asked him: “Mr Jinnah - whom do you want to meet specially.” He replied:-”I want to meet Sultan Shahriyar, the Deputy PM of Indonesia, who is staying in Nehru’s house.” I said: “But we need a letter of invitation from you for him.” Immediately, he gave the letter to me and said: “Sameen, you can gate-crash in Nehru’s House.” I put the letter securely in my pocket. So we rang up Yunus Khan, then Nehru’s Secretary, who was a nephew of Abdul Ghaffar Khan, the Frontier Gandhi. He gave us the time for 4 pm the next day - then the time for taking tea.
So all four of us, as requested by Khan, we went upstairs .While we were going upstairs Nehru was coming downstairs and he told me: “Please go and sit in the drawing room in front of you.” We all sat there, the bearer brought us tea and some biscuits, as was the custom then. Then came a good looking young lady, Indra Gandhi, who poured tea, and finally Shahriyar entered. When the young lady left, I first gave Jinnah’s letter to Shahriyar and then explained that he wanted to meet him, but he could not come to Nehru’s house. Shahriyar said: “Young man, I also wanted to meet Mr Jinnah - you fix the time and let me know.” So, this was my first diplomatic coup.
Due to my frequent visits to Jinnah’s house, he asked me to do some of his personal chores.
Once Jinnah said that he wanted a driver, so I called Arbab Khan, who was a Pathan. I took him to his house, and as Mr Jinnah was busy in some important meeting, Ms Jinnah came out. I told her that Mr Jinnah wanted me to bring a driver, so I have brought him, but she said: “Mr Jinnah does not like bearded drivers.” So with some difficulty, I explained that to Arbab, but did not exactly tell him what Ms Jinnah told me about her brother. Some time later Jinnah was strolling on his lawn. He saw me and asked about the driver. I said: “I brought the driver, but Ms Jinnah said that you do not like bearded drivers.” He got and said: “Who said I did not like bearded drivers.”
During one of my visits, Mr Jinnah asked me: “Where will you go for the Eid prayers - the Jami Masjid.” I replied: “No, I shall go to the Khooni Darwaza mosque, which is midway between Old and New Delhi at Feroz Shah Kotla.” He said: “l am going to Bombay and I shall pray there.” I must, here, mention and emphasise that “Mr Jinnah was not an irreligious person at all.” In 1911, with the advice of Maulana Shibli, Jinnah presented the Wakf Bill before and as a member of the Imperial Council with a view to validate the Wakfs, which because of an earlier decision of the court had been invalidated leading to the sale of the properties by the Muslims, - especially the landlord class.
During the Pakistan Movement, and later in the 1937 session of the Muslim League in Lucknow, passed a few resolutions. After the passing of the Lahore Resolution in 1940, the Muslim of India were convinced of Jinnah’s political acumen. The public used to say: “Mr Jinnah cannot be fooled by the British and cannot be bought by the Congress Party.” So they followed him blindly to achieve Pakistan .They came to listen to his speeches in English and although they did not understand a word, they believed in him.
The people who had nothing to do with the Pakistan Movement, and who had never met or seen him, in trying to make him a ‘secular’ minded person, always cite the speech that he made to the Constituent Assembly in Pakistan - had he made that speech on March 23, 1940, he would have been hooted down by the public. They also forget all the speeches Jinnah had made earlier and during the Pakistan Movement. Imagine a person, who is seriously ill, going all the way to Khyber Pass and making an announcement of the withdrawal of the Pakistan army lock, stock and barrel from the tribal areas of Pakistan. And it was because of this announcement that the tribals reached Srinagar in five days.
Finally, a person terminally ill comes all the way from Quetta to open the State Bank of Pakistan and to state about an Islamic Economic System for Pakistan. Can this be done by a ‘secular’ person for a new country which he created for the entire Muslims of the subcontinent?
The movement for the independence of India and the creation of Pakistan were the greatest freedom movements after the American War of Independence of 1776. So the entire world press was covering it - but they were only after two persons Jinnah and Gandhi - as all the others including Nehru and Liaquat were subservient to them.
As regards the secularist point of view, I must emphasise as to what could have been the ostensible reason for the partition of India if Pakistan was to be a secular State? When the Raja of Mahmudabad following the precepts of the two professors of Aligarh Muslim University, who had raised the question of an Islamic State - due to tactical reasons Mr Jinnah did not accept his point of view then as it may create divisions in the All India Muslim League and the Pakistan Movement. When the Pakistan Movement was about to achieve its objective, Jinnah knew that he was about to create a separate Muslim State and that state shall ultimately become an Islamic State.
Finally, when he said that Pakistan shall not be ruled by a theocracy - the basic reason was that unlike Christianity there has not been a theocracy in Islam and the Muslim World throughout its history. That is why the question of separation of Church and State, as in the West, especially in the US - there has never been a movement for the separation between the Church and State in Islamic history as the Khilafat existed till 1924.
I would finish this article on the Quaid-i-Azam Mohamed All Jinnah with a verse of Allama Iqbal, who is popular not merely in Pakistan, but also in Afghanistan, Iran and Tajikistan:
Hazaron saal nargis apni be noon pe rooti hal,
Barn mushkil se hota hal chaman meIn didawar paida.
The writer is barrister-at-law,
Email: Sherpur@yahoo.com

FMCT Rejection

WITH the first plenary of the 2011 session of the Conference on Disarmament due to be held in January in Geneva, the National Command Authority in Pakistan — the body tasked with shaping the country’s nuclear policy — has declared that Pakistan will not support a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty unless existing stocks of fissile material are also made part of a treaty. The position taken by the NCA is not surprising. Pakistan’s nuclear programme is explicitly linked to that of India and the argument here is that an FMCT which does not take into account existing stocks of fissile material would put Pakistan at a permanent disadvantage because of India’s greater existing stockpiles.
While the facts are often shrouded in mystery, here’s what is argued by experts and policymakers in Pakistan. India’s civilian nuclear deal with the US, its growing conventional military superiority over Pakistan, its long-term plans for a ballistic missile defence system and its interest in dangerous war strategies such as Cold Start are all believed to put pressure on Pakistan’s declared goal of maintaining a credible minimum nuclear deterrent. The more offensive and defensive capabilities the Indian war machine acquires, the more Pakistan would need to ensure its own nuclear deterrent is viable. An FMCT negotiated without taking into account existing stockpiles would mean Pakistan would be at a permanent disadvantage in the nuclear equation with India because of India’s alleged greater fissile material stockpiles.
Yet, experts outside government circles suggest the real motivation may be that Pakistan has fissile production facilities which are expected to come online soon, meaning that a treaty any time soon would render those investments useless. Meanwhile, the WikiLeaks cables suggest that key army personnel may also have opposing views on the FMCT: DGMO Gen Javed Iqbal was allegedly in favour of the treaty, arguing that the Indo-US nuclear deal would allow India to pull away in the long term; SPD chief Gen Khalid Kidwai (retd) was opposed to the treaty. Perhaps key though is another suggestion buried in the WikiLeaks cables: if the US were more willing to address Pakistan’s strategic concerns, the possibility of a deal on the FMCT would increase.

WikiLeaks: A tool of psy warfare

General Mirza Aslam Beg
The WikiLeaks revelations confirm the obvious, more than what it informs us about the darker corners of “US diplomacy, cloaked in securitocracy.” In fact, it is a cyber war, in the new game of psychological warfare (PSYWAR), targeting individuals and countries to cover up the shame of defeat of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and also the 2006 Israeli war on Lebanon. A cyber war has been launched, impacting public opinion globally, and focusing on three objectives:
One, to cause defamation of the countries that had a role - direct or indirect - in the defeat of the US and its allies in Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan, and thus to create mistrust amongst them, so that they are not able to challenge Washington’s future plans in the region.
Two, to create conditions for a civil war in Afghanistan, and through this reduce Pakistan and Iran to subservience - something they have not been able to achieve since the last 30 years.
Three, to establish Indian hegemony over South Asia, including Afghanistan, in order to protect USA’s strategic interests in the region.
The technique used in making these revelations is typical of psy operations approach, of mixing truth with lies in a manner that the truth gets submerged under the lies, as is in the case of the leaked documents. The report has not said a word about Israel, nor does it give any disadvantage to the US in the implementation of its policies in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and other Muslim countries, which have been particularly targeted. WikiLeaks betrays the role of a country with resources to break the secret code of the US diplomatic order, because it is not possible for an individual like Julian Assange - the fugitive - to accomplish such high profile task. The disclosures, no doubt, have created ripples around the world, but will subside as it is looked into with a deeper perspective, about its source, intent and purpose.
The US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, expressed concern over the WikiLeaks revelations and resolved to prevent such happenings in the future. But the question is, did she not know what the WikiLeaks were up to, and why could they not be stopped in time and the website blocked? It could be checked, but if the US government so wanted, however, did not because they are part of the game.
Over the period, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia have drawn closer to each other; Turkey is also looking east and a kind of strategic consensus is emerging. Then the multibillion dollar gas pipeline agreement has been signed with Iran, although Pakistan does not have enough funds for the project; in addition, China is also willing to support its time-tested friend in the project.

Talks are the only route in Afghanistan

Ahmed Rashid

I recently traveled to Afghanistan, where I met with Karzai, Petraeus and four former Taliban leaders now living in Kabul. It was clear that the various parties all view the situation through different prisms, but there were also some causes for optimism.In separate interviews, the four former Taliban leaders all voiced a similar message: Serious talks are possible, but only if Taliban leaders are able to operate from a neutral venue. They see Afghanistan as being under US occupation, and Pakistan’s intelligence agency, they say, tries to manipulate the Taliban there. They believe the group needs to operate from a more neutral country, and they raised several options, including a Persian Gulf state such as Qatar or Sharjah, part of the United Arab Emirates, or countries such as Turkey, Germany or Japan. The four men I spoke with are all former senior Taliban officials who occupied high office in the late 1990s, when the group ruled Afghanistan. They did not want to be identified for security reasons. Some had been captured and held for several years by US forces before being freed, and they all now live quietly in Kabul under heavy government guard. It is well known, however, that they remain in touch with the clandestine Taliban leadership, and the Kabul regime has used them as go-betweens in the past. Since 2008, the interested parties have been discussing (in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere) the possibility of talks. But they have not moved forward into serious negotiations. Publicly, Taliban leaders based in Pakistan still mostly deny that talks have taken place and insist that the US will be defeated in Afghanistan. But the four former Taliban leaders in Kabul acknowledged that conversations have occurred and offered similar suggestions for moving them forward. In an interview at the presidential palace, Karzai told me that he too would like to see talks move forward. He said he had been trying to persuade President Obama to move beyond merely supporting Afghan government talks with the Taliban and getting the United States involved directly. That, he said, is what the Taliban has told him it wants. Petraeus told me he believes that the Taliban will negotiate in good faith only when it has been weakened through military action. He said the movement also must publicly disassociate itself from Al Qaeda. In the meantime, he said, the relentless US surge should continue to pound the Taliban. The strategy, he said, has depleted Taliban leadership in the south and east of the country. Petraeus said that in a three-month period ending in mid-November, NATO and US forces killed or captured 368 Taliban mid-level leaders and killed 968 foot soldiers. But aspects of the troop buildup have put the US at odds with Karzai, who told me he wants night raids and the targeting of Taliban leaders stopped immediately. NATO’s hopes of withdrawing most of its forces by 2014 — expressed clearly at the summit last week — depends on the still-uncertain capability of the Afghan army and police to take over by then. Though improving somewhat, the Afghan army and police forces are plagued with high rates of desertion, illiteracy and drug use. This year the United States will spend $12 billion on training and equipping the Afghan army and police force. Many Americans are skeptical about why the Taliban would want to talk now rather than simply wait until NATO’s planned withdrawal by 2014 and try to seize power then. But the leaders I spoke with said that although the Taliban has had some successes and still has a large pool of potential recruits, it is exhausted by the war, having taken heavy casualties, and would like to see peace. There have been strong hints that the Taliban is ready to forsake jihadist groups, including Al Qaeda, that want to use Afghan soil for nefarious ends, something the US is likely to require as a precondition of talks. The most sensible among the Taliban recognize that they were unable to run the country in the 1990s and that they would face a similar problem today. Better than trying to grab power now and being isolated by the international community and denied money and aid, they would support a power-sharing agreement with Karzai. Such a deal could be reached at an international conference like the one in Bonn in 2001 that bought Karzai to power but excluded the Taliban. The former Taliban leaders said they would have no objections to international mediators participating in such talks. Of course, talks between the two sides would have to be preceded by confidence-building measures to increase trust and help bring the Taliban leaders in from the cold. These overtures would then be followed by negotiations about the shape and form of the next government. In Washington, the Obama administration remains sharply divided between civilian advisors pressing for an exit strategy and the Pentagon, which is pressing for a clear military victory. But the latter is highly unlikely, and the former will require negotiations to be successful. The writer is a Pakistani journalist and author of several books on Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia. —The Los Angeles Times

NATO security syndrome

I M Mohsin

9/11 was a terrible tragedy which remains a mystery evwn now as we are enter in to the 10th year of waiting. Enjoying worldwide sympathy, the neo-cons named OBL/Al Qaeda as the suspects. It was then initially manipulated for a regime-change in Afghanistan. Subsequently Iraq was occupied by the US under the fraudulent slogan of Iraqi WMD involving a regime-change culminating in the hanging of the dictator, Saddam Hussain. While the US agencies left no stone unturned for fooling their own people, Tony Blair and Italy’ Berlusconi sold their souls to the Devil for peanuts to provide grist to the neo-con mills making false-flags. After the killing of more than a million Iraqis and about half that number of Afghans, reportedly, the US remains scared of Al Qaeda. This is made clear by the way President Obama has to terrify his countrymen, like his predecessor, every now and then as the US faces a disaster in Iraq and a quagmire in Afghanistan. In to the 10th year of the Afghan war, which transcends the Soviet agony, the people in the US treat it as a lost war and much worse than the Vietnam debacle. The Afghans appear to be seeing the Taliban as victorious against the foreign troops which carried the NATO emblem. No wonder, the International Crisis Group’ Claire Truscott in the latest article on the issue asserts, “There is little evidence that the operations have disrupted the insurgency’s momentum.” The war in Afghanistan has further destroyed that country as atrocious bombing has remained a regular feature of waging the war by the foreign forces. It even now stays as the major issue between Karzai, US’ man in Kabul and his mentors as the civilian deaths keep going up. The killing of civilians in such raids by the foreign troops figured even in Lisbon’ NATO Summit as the most important issue which should have embarrassed Obama. Similarly it is destroying US goodwill in the area. The foreign forces may be using this malpractice for many reasons. First, it may be an atrocity but then who can hold the perpetrators accountable under the International Law which becomes a dead-letter in this case. Second, it may be contempt for the locals inspired by the Empire-complex. Third, since the US is addicted to ‘outsourcing’, this wrongdoing is seen as an easy way-out instead of engaging the enemy regardless of the ‘co-lateral damage.’ Lastly it could also be out of the fear of the opponents who are greatly supported by the topography, tradition and their religious duty to fight the foreign troops. In the last over 9 years, US/NATO have tried all fair and foul means to make the Afghans submit to their diktat. Despite being awfully outgunned, the Afghans have stuck to their tradition of putting up a fight , particularly against foreigners, till the latter cry ‘halt’ suing for peace. George Bush was a naive guy who did not know where London was even while he was being sworn in as the US President. With such funny exposure/experience, he could be easily misled by the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld etc. It is a known fact that most of the neo-cons were maintained their links with the oil lobby like their President. As against that Obama is well-informed, intellectually sound and also has had the experience of other continents. Such brightness coupled with rich experiences should have produced a more mature policy which could bail the US out of the hole in to which it is stuck. He appears to be failing to deliver as he is being undermined by ‘special interests’/vicious lobbies which control the US. A case in point is the a highly misleading remark made by Mark Sedwill, a former British Ambassador to Afghanistan and a top NATO envoy currently therein, alleging that the Afghan children were better off in terms of security. He opined on the BBC, “The children are probably safer here than they would be in London, New York or Glasgow or many other cities,” he said,.....” On top of that, President Obama is being reviled on any pretext by the Rightwing which has much of the US wealth. The book ‘Obama’ wars’ by Bob Woodward attempts to show how the current President has to try tremendous tightrope walking to pander to the fear-complex ignited by the neo-cons by exploiting 9/11. The American people now appear to be dogged by economic woes but the lobbies keep on ringing alarm bells every now and then to grind their own axe which puts the Administration on the back-foot. Such a Perspective complicates the handling of the war in Afghanistan which, despite the linguistic spin in use, is being lost by the foreign troops. Thus Gen Patraeus is forced to describe the predicament as ‘uneven’ while his President after the Lisbon Summit claimed, “We are achieving our objective of breaking Taliban momentum.” As against that the British Defense Chief Gen. Sir David Richards, stressed that “NATO now needs to plan for a 30 or 40 year role to help the Afghan armed forces hold their country against the militants,” as per the Daily Mail. The Americans have to demonstrate that their lives can’t be held hostage to false flags like Anthrax and the British Airways ‘suspected hijackings’ which now emerge as having been spilled for political benefit by George Bush’ Administration. Condemning such antics, Paul Craig Roberts emphasizes, “There has not been a successful terrorist act since 9/11, and thousands of independent experts doubt the government’s explanation of that event” in his article entitled TSA Gestapo Empire recently”. He concludes, “Who is cowing Americans into submission, terrorists or the TSA Gestapo?” US must reconsider their approach to the AF-Pak. Following the neo-cons a myth is being reinforced that Al Qaeda causes scares among the Americans at home and abroad and the US is fighting as an underdog. CIA Chief, Panetta’ recent statement wherein he guessed that the enemy-organization had just about a hundred members in Af-Pak becomes a practical joke. This would imply that US is help-less before a body of ‘terrorists’ created in 2001 through propaganda. Moreover, the Superpower is facing a defeat in Afghanistan due to Al Qaeda’ manipulation of the Taliban. The American public has to take serious interest in their policy vis-à-vis Al Qaeda etc. If US gives a poor account of itself this time round, it would stand ousted from the area. Her allies like Pakistan may also have to pay for their mistakes despite all the sacrifices they may have made. The latest Wikileaks do little credit to the way US has been treating Pakistan. —The writer is a former Secretary Interior.

Side-effect

Harris Khalique Before the Wikileaks made headlines internationally and a hype was created in our national media around stories linked to Pakistan, how many of us really thought that the world is a just place, international diplomacy is all about truth and human values, and our own ruling class, civilian and military alike, is visionary, prudent, independent and united among its ranks to serve the poor people of Pakistan?
I don’t know that much about other countries but in Pakistan, if we already thought as much of our dodgy state of affairs even before the release of a quarter million cables by Julian Assange and his team, what are we freaking out for? The leaks only confirm the assessments done all along by independent analysts and political commentators of our internal and external situations, the key players involved at all levels, of those who have clout and those who call the shots.
Let us begin with King Abdullah’s assertions about Iran and his soft corner for Nawaz Sharif vis-à-vis Asif Zardari. Who else but Pakistanis are witness to the Saudi-Iranian battle of overpowering each other played out in our own mosques, imambaras, streets and neighbourhoods? Saudis dread seeing any other Muslim country in the region raising its head. They have paid billions to the US and its allies to raze Iraq to the ground.
Besides, in Pakistan they have invested hugely in promoting a certain brand of extremist Islam which later turned militant with some factions taking on their own masters, the Saudis and the Americans. Saudis are comfortable with Nawaz Sharif for he is a confused Sunni Muslim who paid respects at the Sufi shrine of Data Ganj Bakhsh in Lahore, true to the tradition of his family and Pakistan’s majority, while at the same time viewed Wahabi Saudi rulers as caliphs and servants of Islam rather than kings put to the throne by British colonial support in the twentieth century. Part, short-term economic interest, and part, absence of any knowledge of history. Sharif spent his negotiated exile in Saudi Arabia too.
Is the information new to us that Benazir Bhutto got past both NRO and her return to Pakistan with General Musharraf through US and British support? And today, whether President Zardari wants his sister Faryal Talpur to be his heir or not if he is ousted, she is already making crucial decisions in the party?
Well, don’t we know that in Islamabad the American Ambassador has a vice-regal status? However, some of us may not know that this status is granted to her/him by our own rulers, even without being sought. The new ambassador of the US, Cameron Munter, has termed the Wikileaks disclosures unfortunate. Neither he nor his predecessor Ambassador Patterson have come out to deny or dismiss the information shared through these leaks.
This kind of audacity where substantiated allegations are simply rejected is only possible with our political leadership and state institutions, be it JUI’s chief Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman or our Foreign Office. Our own journalist-turned-diplomat Wajid Shams-ul-Hasan, high commissioner to the UK, has said that Wikileaks only embarrassed the US.
He is so right. Pakistani elite is flagrant, unashamed and truly pragmatic. If 80 out of 180 million living below poverty line, 50 per cent children of school-going age out of school, 75 mothers dying daily during childbirth, more than 11000 innocent people killed in bomb attacks over the past six years, fail to embarrass them, yeh Wikileaks kis khet ki mooli hay? (Wikileaks is worth crap to them, I mean.)

The writer is an Islamabad-based poet, political analyst and adviser on public policy. Email: harris. khalique@gmail.com

WikiLeaks and Pakistan’s dysfunctional state

The WikiLeaks saga has reconfirmed the status of Pakistan as a client state. Its leadership — civilian and military — as a matter of routine, involves external actors in matters of domestic policy and power plays. We knew this all along but the semblance of documentary evidence confirms the unfortunate trends embedded in Pakistan governance systems. However, the orthodoxy that it is the West which interferes is not the full story. The inordinate influence exercised by ‘friendly’ Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia, is also a sad reminder of how warped Pakistan’s way of living is.
India is the principal enemy; and our Saudi and Gulf friends wish the other neighbour, Iran, to be bombed. We are obsessed with “legitimate” security interests in Afghanistan. This is a dysfunctional state of being and has made us addicted to western aid, leveraging global great games and denying that regional cooperation is in our ultimate self-interest. Such delusional ways of looking at the world has made the state splinter and devolve authority to non-state actors, which can advance its security policies.
What is the picture that emerges from the cable-mess: A president lives in fear of being assassinated; the army chief ‘considers’ options to dismiss the elected president and then changes his mind because he “distrusts” the alternative — Nawaz Sharif — even more! The state benefits from American largesse and hates it at the same time. Civilian leaders regularly reiterate their support to the US — the second A in the power trinity of ‘Allah, America and the Army’. Sadly, nothing new. Yet, deeply disturbing.
Those who thought the lawyers’ movement has altered the course of Pakistani history, or that the re-emergence of civilian politics was going to shift the balance of power between the civil and the military, were wrong. Pakistan’s security establishment remains in charge of the country except that it no longer enjoys a monopoly. There are civilian allies of the non-state actors now who can adequately warn banned terrorist outfits of an impending crackdown (which is what Shahbaz Sharif did with the Lashkar-e-Taiba, according to a leaked cable).
The centre-province, civil-military and ideological fissures define the state of Pakistan in the 21^st century. Of course, the conduct of Western powers does not help either. The US ambassador moves around the country reminiscent of the way a viceroy mediated warring domestic parties. The influence of the Saudi kingdom illustrated by their biases and sectarian worldviews dominates our policy considerations.
Pakistan cannot continue to function like this. It has moved to a situation where its dependent ruling elites are disconnected from an exploding population and embroiled in an intra-bourgeoisie conflict, thereby paving the way for short-term political instability and medium-term crisis of governance. Whether we like it or not, the world is rightly worried about a nuclear state unable to govern itself. It’s about time Pakistanis woke up and re-examined their obsession with outsiders destabilising the country. Who needs enemies when our ruling classes are playing the game so well?
Published in The Express Tribune, December 3^rd, 2010.

The flip side of diplomacy

Posted By Mahir Ali On December 1, 2010

“THERE`S no art/ To find the mind`s construction in the face,” King Duncan says while reflecting on the treachery of one of his closest associates. “He was a gentleman on whom I built/ An absolute trust.”

At this point in Shakespeare`s , the eponymous protagonist enters the stage, dramatically signifying that the betrayal of Duncan is going to be repeated, this time with considerably more dire consequences.
Latter-day diplomats are, of course, supposed to finesse the art of concealing the mind`s construction from the face in most of their interactions abroad. But their genuine thoughts are thereafter usually communicated to their employers. These employers, as well as the employees, have an obvious interest in preventing these candid assessments from becoming public knowledge.
If by some chance they do, efforts at damage limitation inevitably follow. Hence the folk at Foggy Bottom have lately gone into overdrive in an effort to pre-empt the effects of the quarter of a million diplomatic cables that WikiLeaks began publicising this week.
It would have been extremely entertaining to overhear some of the conversations representatives of the US State Department have been having with foreign governments in recent days. However, notwithstanding the intermittent embarrassment, the likelihood of serious ructions between the US and any of its allies is fairly small.
This is partly because it`s hardly a revelation that a great deal of hypocrisy goes into relations between nations in a world where `pragmatism` is a common weasel word for sidestepping principles. Besides, the WikiLeaks contain no information that is classified as top secret. Up to three million Americans reportedly had access to the electronic database from which the leaked cables were extracted.
And, furthermore, the media organs that are collaborating with WikiLeaks in publishing the information have been careful to hold back, in consultation with the US government or its allies, anything that could be deemed as detrimental in the context of national security concerns.
The leaking is likely to go on for weeks, but chances are the more sensational revelations have already been made. And in most cases they serve only to confirm existing suspicions. Is there any serious cause for surprise in the fact that Iran`s Arab neighbours are wary of its intentions and potentially supportive of military action against it?
It`s hardly a wise stance even if their sole concern is self-preservation, given that Saudi Arabia and the smaller Gulf states are hardly likely to remain unscathed in the event of yet another regional conflagration. But that`s another matter, as is the fact that even Iran`s token democracy is anathema to the despotic potentates to its southwest.
Similarly, while it`s interesting to know what US diplomats think of Silvio Berlusconi and Vladimir Putin and their suspiciously close relations, such concern is no more shocking than the fact that it doesn`t tend to be publicly aired.
Candid character assessments are, for the diplomats and the political personalities concerned, among discomfiting aspects of the leaks. The easiest escape route is denial, as in the case of the Pakistani spokesman deriding the veracity of the Saudi king`s purported opinion of Asif Ali Zardari. Iran`s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has opted for the same path, dismissing the revelations about Arab leaders calling for American attacks on Iran as part of a psychological warfare campaign.
At the same time, many of those critical about WikiLeaks are not hesitating to cite them selectively in attempts at self-justification. Ahmadinejad relishes the implication that all too many US diplomats double as spies, while Pakistan feels that the cables relating to its refusal to allow Americans access to its nuclear facilities and particularly its processed uranium kind of exonerate Islamabad from the charge of unquestioning servitude to Washington.
And, back at Foggy Bottom, even Hillary Clinton, while excoriating the leaks and the motives behind them, doesn`t mind capitalising on the implication that US diplomats are dutifully doing their best to keep their employers informed about what`s going on in various parts of the world.
Similarly, Israel — one of the only close US allies not to have been wrong-footed by any of the leaks thus far, which has inevitably sparked spurious conspiracy theories — has little objection to the reminder that its concerns about Iran`s nuclear capability are shared by a number of Arab leaders.
A number of right-wing American commentators, meanwhile, have expressed the view that anyone associated with WikiLeaks ought to be treated as an enemy combatant or even as a terrorist. No one associated with the Obama administration has gone quite that far, but there`s enough hostility towards the man behind WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, for the rape charges against him instituted in Sweden to be looked upon with suspicion.
It doesn`t follow that he`s innocent, of course, but a great many influential people would be gratified were he to be arraigned on criminal charges rather than political ones.
Given the high moral ground he has sought to occupy, it would no doubt be disappointing were he to be found guilty, but that would hardly detract from the value or the validity of all that WikiLeaks has revealed during the past year, including huge tranches of intermittently fascinating information about the misguided wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The significance of the latest leaks has been exaggerated by proponents and detractors alike. But their availability is nonetheless fascinating. Far too many nations frequently wait decades before releasing even ostensibly unclassified information.
In a world constructed mainly on falsehoods and half-truths, occasional outbursts of relatively unvarnished verity deserve to be welcomed — even though the likely consequence is greater secrecy rather than less dishonesty. The Guardian`s
I haven`t had the opportunity to peruse former Anne Patterson`s dispatches from Islamabad, but columnist Simon Jenkins compares them with “missives from the Titanic as it already heads for the bottom”, and the analogy doesn`t sound particularly far-fetched.
On the other hand, when the queen of Foggy Bottom attacks the leaks as “an attack on the international community, the alliances and partnerships, the conversations and negotiations that safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity” — without, mind you, questioning their veracity — the lady does protest too much, methinks.
mahir.dawn@gmail.com

Gen Kayani foiled US plan for civilian control over Army

WikiLeaks says General using parliament, govt while staying in background; Hamid Gul accused of ordering suicide bombings in Afghanistan; King Abdullah proposed implanting tracking chips on Guantanamo detainees; Mubarak told US to allow dictator in Iraq
WASHINGTON: Chief of the Army Staff (COAS) General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani used the Pakistani civilian government for military purposes from behind the scenes and very effectively foiled the US plan to ensure civilian control over the military under the Kerry-Lugar Bill, according to a confidential diplomatic dispatch of the US embassy in Paris to the State Department on January 22, released by Wikileaks.
The dispatch, while referring to a correspondence from the head of France’s Pak-Afghan Inter-Agency Cell Jasmine Zerinini, stated that General Kayani’s opposition led to the conflict on the Kerry-Lugar Bill as it was going to result in greater civilian control on the military.
According to the released documents, General Kayani has learnt from the mistakes made by former military ruler Pervez Musharraf. He is using parliament and the government while staying in the background, the documents allege. In this way, he is becoming an obstacle to any major change in the country’s policy pertaining to Fata.
Zerinini’s correspondence also stated that the West had lost the opportunity to crush the Afghan Taliban with Pakistan’s help. The correspondence stated that with aid coming in from the Gulf states, the Haqqani network has grown too strong, that defeating it will not be easy for the Pakistani military.
Meanwhile, Hamid Gul, the former chief of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), has been accused in several of the leaked documents of regularly meeting al-Qaeda and Taliban commanders to order suicide attacks in Afghanistan.
Hamid Gul, while responding the allegation, said that the United States orchestrated the mass leak of war files to scapegoat him for its imminent withdrawal from Afghanistan. He told the Financial Times that the US had a hidden role in the publication of thousands of classified reports through the Wikileaks website.
“I am a very favourite whipping boy of America. They can’t imagine the Afghans can win wars on their own. It would be an abiding shame that a 74-year-old general living a retired life manipulating the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan results in the defeat of America,” he said.
The Financial Times said Hamid Gul’s name appears in about 10 of roughly 180 classified US files that blame the ISI supported Afghan militants fighting Nato forces. The former ISI chief told the newspaper the US had lost the war in Afghanistan, and that the leak of the documents would help the Obama administration deflect blame by suggesting that Pakistan was responsible.
Another leaked cable revealed that Saudi King Abdullah proposed implanting Guantanamo detainees with electronic chips to monitor their movements after their release. “I’ve just thought of something,” Abdullah blurted during a March 2009 meeting with the White House counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan.
The two were discussing the fate of 99 Yemenis still held at the time in the controversial US military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The king proposed the prisoners be implanted with electronic microchips so that after their release they can be tracked “with Bluetooth” technology, a leaked US embassy report on the meeting said.
Abdullah explained that “this was done with horses and falcons,” according to the memo. But “horses don’t have good lawyers,” Brennan replied. Some Chinese officials do not regard North Korea as a useful ally and would not intervene if the reclusive state collapsed, according to leaked US State Department cables.
In one cable by the US ambassador to Seoul, a top South Korean official is described as saying North Korea has already collapsed economically and would fall apart politically within two or three years of the death of leader Kim Jong-il.
Chun Yung-woo, then the vice foreign minister for South Korea, made the assessments in February, according to The Guardian and The New York Times. US Ambassador Kathleen Stephens wrote that Chun cited private conversations with two high-level Chinese officials who “believed Korea should be unified under ROK (South Korea) control,” said The Guardian.
Chun said the younger generation of Communist leaders in China did not regard North Korea as a useful or reliable ally and would not risk a renewal of armed conflict on the Korean peninsula, it reported.
China voiced concern to the United States about “momentum” to reform the Security Council and warned it would not accept Japan in an expansion, according to another leaked cable. In a secret cable obtained by Wikileaks, Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei told a US diplomat that China “was concerned by ‘momentum’ that was building on UN Security Council reform.”
Another leaked cable revealed that China was “scared to death” over a visit by US Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is outspoken on human rights, and rejected her request to visit to Tibet. Egypt’s spy master revealed his service recruited agents in Iraq and Syria to counter Iranian support for militants in his country, revealed US diplomatic cables published by Wikileaks.
Omar Suleiman told US top military commander Admiral Michael Mullen in a 2009 meeting that Iran had tried to recruit Bedouins to smuggle weapons into Hamas-controlled Gaza and that Egyptian security had rounded up a cell of Lebanon’s Iranian-backed Hezbollah.
“‘Iran must pay the price’ for its actions and not be allowed to interfere in regional affairs,” the US Cairo embassy cable published this week, dated April 30, 2009, quoted Suleiman as telling Admiral Michael Mullen.
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak advised the United States in 2008 to “forget” about democracy in Iraq and allow a dictator to take over.
Mubarak made the comments during talks with visiting US congressmen to whom he also admitted that he was “terrified” by the possibility of a nuclear Iran, in the cable sent home from the US embassy.
Another interesting leak reveals that Britain’s Prince Charles “does not command the same respect” as Queen Elizabeth II. Amitav Banerji, political affairs director at the Commonwealth secretariat, was quoted on the question of whether Charles would succeed his mother to the head of the 54-country organisation upon her death.
According to the leaked memo from the US political officer in London, dated June 11, 2009, Banerji “acknowledged that heir-apparent to the British Crown, Prince Charles, does not ‘command the same respect’ as the Queen.”
Another leak showed US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton questioned the mental health of Argentina’s President Cristina Fernandez, asking US diplomats to investigate whether she was under medication.
Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez criticised Clinton’s comments on state television and expressed his “solidarity with the president of Argentina”. “Someone should study Mrs Clinton’s mental health ... She feels superior to Obama... Because she is white, she feels superior to the black president,” Chavez said.