December-2004
|
|
|
December-2004 |
   
|
 |
 |
 |
                  
News Archives
|
 |
December 2004
Endless Greasy Tales of the Greedy Grabbing Generals By Ayaz Amir
We may be begging the Americans for F-16s and there may be more admirals than ships in the navy - and, come to think of it, more air marshals than fighter squadrons in the air force - but when it comes to creating comfy nest eggs for senior military officers, patriotic hearts and minds can rest assured we beat other militaries hollow. At an Indo-Pak talking shop in Islamabad a couple of summers ago, I met a Lt Gen Oberoi from the Indian army (I forget his first name) who told me that when he was director-general, military operations, in Delhi, his counterpart in 'Pindi was Lt. Gen. Pervez Musharraf. I couldn't help saying that this just went to show how much better off we were than India. In India, DG, Mily Ops, usually remained just that. In Pakistan they had the option of becoming presidents of the republic. The connection between military upper mobility and the gigantic strides taken by defence housing is obvious. The military's commanding position on the national horizon is the key factor pushing military privilege. Just a month ago while on a freebie trip to Sri Lanka, for one of those inevitable seminars on Indo-Pak relations, I asked Lt Gen Sarabjeet Chahal who had just retired from the Indian army - his last posting commandant of the National Defence College - whether he had a house given him by the army. No, but on his own he had bought a house in Gurgaon, South Delhi, for good measure adding that their housing policy was lousy. It set me thinking about the great progress in this sector on our side of the border. A retiring general not only has a house, if he's worth his salt, he has several, besides residential plots in cities here and there and the obligatory 50 acres of agricultural land which every general, admiral and air marshal thinks it his birthright to be gifted with in Bahawalpur. Unless born unlucky, he'll also have a job in Fauji Foundation, Army Welfare Trust, or the hundred other avenues for employment now open to the fighting senior ranks of the Pakistani military. Gen McArthur could have had no idea what his famous observation would mean in Pakistan: soldiers don't die, they fade away. We've done a variation on this theme, senior soldiers, in one form or another, sticking around forever. And we are worried about the president's uniform. As if his taking it off would usher in the democratic revolution we all await. Parliamentary democracy is now in such a state, call it mauled, that it seems no better than an adjunct or extension of General Headquarters. There is a directorate-general for everything in GHQ. Why not, in the fullness of time, a DG Democracy? But to return to defence housing. As you approach 'Pindi from the south along the Grand Trunk Road, in the fork formed by the road to 'Pindi and the road to Islamabad a massive defence housing project is coming up, its scale so impressive that it appears to dwarf all other national endeavors. A more effective recruiting poster for PMA, Kakul, would be hard to imagine. For this great adventure in housing tells you two things at once: where real power lies and which is the surest ladder to success in this country established, as we never tire of reminding ourselves, for the greater glory of Islam. Defence housing societies in Karachi and Lahore are tucked away in relatively far-off corners. This one hits you smack in the eye for it guards the approaches to 'Pindi, a defence housing colony with its camouflage off, so to speak. Gen Musharraf said some time ago in Karachi that the army did housing schemes better than anyone else, which was the reason why houses or plots in them fetched such handsome prices - excellence, in other words, earning its just rewards. Truer words were never spoken. For housing colonies threaten to become the military's leading speciality, quite beyond anything to do with tanks, artillery or other aspects of military professionalism: the one field mastered above all others. In a way this is good for it makes the Pak military about the strongest factor for peace in the subcontinent. A military into housing in such robust fashion is a military that much less inclined to jump into battle for the right or wrong reasons. Our peace overtures to India - aka the fine art of unilateral concessionism, whereby we make all the concessions while India looks on impassively in the confident expectation of more - thus have a solid underpinning. Even the Americans, our godfathers in the peace process, couldn't have figured this one out - that the way to sub continental peace runs through Pakistan's defence housing societies. Now for a digression: competing with the army in the real estate business is someone for whose entrepreneurial ability my admiration knows no bounds, Malik Riaz of Bahria Town, whose success in this field has been phenomenal. If while approaching Pindi and Islamabad you see signs proclaiming the budding wonders of Defence Phase 1 or 2, there are an equal number pointing to the glories of Bahria Town. Bahria means navy and when the scheme was first floated people thought the navy was behind it, resulting in a mad scramble for applications and plots. Of course the navy had nothing to do with it, but the person who should have challenged the misperception did nothing about it: Pakistan's most famous naval chief, Grand Admiral Mansoor ul Haq, subsequently jailed for corruption in the famous "submarine commission" case. Later, much later, the navy went to court contesting Malik Riaz's right to use the name "Bahria". While the case is still pending Malik Riaz continues as proprietor of the "Bahria" housing label, this in a country where it has never been easy to run afoul of the defence establishment. This should give some idea of the clout this Pakistani Donald Trump enjoys. A couple of months ago at a function in 'Pindi a retired lieutenant-general from Chakwal came up to me and said that his land had been forcibly occupied by Bahria Town. I asked in amazement: "In Pakistan a Lieutenant General's land forcibly occupied?" Former Army Chief, Gen Aslam Beg, who was standing nearby, said: "If the presidency can be occupied, why not some land?" A smart thrust, admittedly, but one which I thought missed the point. I was expressing astonishment not at the army's competence in seizing the presidency - no surprises there - but at a private individual's ability to mess with a retired lieutenant general. Then remembering that this particular officer was on the wrong side of events on October 12, 1999 - one of the very few officers who went along with Gen Ziauddin Butt's appointment as army chief by Mian Nawaz Sharif - I understood. When the tables were turned on Gen Butt - my Lawrence College schoolmate, Lt Gen Mahmood of 10 Corps, leading the pro-Musharraf assault on the Prime Minister's House - there could be no greater sin than association with the defeated Butt. With an Achilles' heel like this, it must have been easy to take advantage of the hapless general. (Lesson for all generals: never be on the losing side.) Some months ago, however, Bahria Town outdid itself by taking out half-page ads in leading newspapers proclaiming the opening of a special executive sector for distinguished citizens 'who had made a name for themselves in national life'. In this sector 100 plots were said to be reserved for military personnel, 100 for the higher judiciary, 100 for senior mandarins and, something which met with my wholehearted approval, 100 for senior journalists. What's more, all at half the prevailing price. Splashed for a few days, this ad was suddenly withdrawn, never to be displayed again. I hate to think that Bahria Town for once lost its nerve. - Courtesy Daily Dawn
MQM Leader says 1947 Partition was a Blunder and Wants India to Allow Mohajirs to Return
Altaf Hussain Says Idea of Pakistan Was Dead at Its Inception By Arun Rajnath
The NDTV quoted him as saying: "The division of the subcontinent was the biggest blunder...it was not the division of land, it was the division of blood." He wants India to open its doors to every Mohajir, the Muslim refugees who went to Pakistan after the partition. "I appeal to the politicians here to forgive the people who left and let them return," said Hussain. Talking about Pakistan, Hussain said: “The scenario is so depressing that leadership of the day openly admits that the country would fall apart if the army did not run its affairs. What does it tell you? To me it signifies a telling blow to the very idea of Pakistan, a homeland for the Muslims of the subcontinent, and the two-nation theory, which continues to wreck untold miseries on the people of this region for the past five decades. “Muslims are fighting and killing each other on the basis of tribal and linguistic affinity, sectarian strife is worse than ever before. Mosques and madrassas are but flourishing businesses. The less educated the Pesh Imam, the more popular and affluent he is likely to be. The advocates of Jihad, a medieval concept to tame the infidel, are wantonly killing followers of the faith as they visit places of worship. “Perhaps the idea of Pakistan was dead at its inception, when the majority of Muslims chose to stay back after partition, a truism reiterated in the creation of Bangladesh in 1971. If you need further evidence, look at the plight of 300,000 stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh for three decades in their passage to the chosen land. Unwanted by both Bangladesh and Pakistan, led by an unknown destiny,“ he said. The NDTV report described Hussain as the clear star on the second and final day of the Hindustan Times Leadership Initiative conclave in Delhi. It said in an emotional speech lasting about an hour, Hussain spoke about human rights abuses against Mohajirs in Pakistan, betrayal by former prime ministers Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto and the need to find a peaceful solution to the issue of Kashmir. “The choice before us in Pakistan today is not Musharraf or democracy but between army and even more army,” he said. NDTV said Hussain, who started life as a taxi driver in New York, has his own take on how to start afresh on Indo-Pak relations. "When you reach a dead end, your car cannot move ahead. What option do you have? Reverse the gear on the car and go back to where we started...when we were one country," said Hussain. Explaining why he was part of a military government, Altaf Hussain said his party was not comfortable with the political arrangement. "Why then, you may well ask, are we a part of the Government, which perpetuates army rule by undermining democracy and its institutions. We have paid a heavy price for pursuing our political objectives in a country where democracy is controlled. Given the circumstances which prevail, our desire to serve the helpless deprived and exploited peoples of Pakistan have indeed led us into political arrangements which we are neither comfortable in nor would deem desirable in better circumstances," he said. Following is the Full Text of the address of MQM Founder and Leader, Altaf Hussain: The Management of Hindustan Times, Distinguished Guests and Honorable Speakers: Assalam-o-Alaikum, Namaste, Sat Sri Akal and Good afternoon: On behalf of my party and on my own behalf, I congratulate Hindustan Times for the Leadership Initiative series of lectures. I sincerely hope it develops into a successful forum to further the search for global peace and prosperity. I am indeed honored and privileged to be invited to share the stage with some of the most eminent leaders of my generation and to offer my humble views before such a distinguished audience. It also happens to be my first address in the land of my forefathers and I am, therefore, particularly mindful of the historical opportunity to try and place my views on partnership with this great country for a better world. Ladies and Gentlemen: There are more than 190 countries in the world today. They all communicate with one another directly or indirectly. In this age of Information Technology it is not possible to conceal facts for any length of time. Common folks are in a better position to assess facts from fiction. India has made giant strides in the field of IT and is recognized as the world’s largest democracy. Soon after independence India got rid of the prevailing feudal system thereby strengthening the democratic institutions. The developments of this democratic process not only kept the armed forces at bay but also provided a boost to education the masses. General education brought about a Middle Class, which started to play its crucial role in Politics as well as in business. The democratic process in India proved the linchpin for its industrial advancement, particularly in the field of IT. It is forecasted that in the coming 15-20 years India will become one of the strong economies in the world, if the rate of progress continues. For a country’s partnership and growth it is essential that the economy move in the right direction. Before I proceed to take up the topic of the day, I would like to take the liberty of briefing you about the emergence, philosophy and the political journey of the MQM so far. We are the third largest political party in Pakistan. We stand for equal rights and opportunities for all irrespective of color, creed, caste, sect, gender, ethnicity or religion. We strive tirelessly for tolerance, religious or otherwise and oppose fanaticism, terrorism and violence in all their manifestations. MQM is committed to the introduction of an entrepreneurial free market economy good governance and independent judiciary capable of dispensing justice, transparent accountability, free Press and participation of women in all spheres of life. Our immediate political objective is to change the corrupt medieval feudal political system of Pakistan. We are, therefore, the only genuine party of the lower and middle classes, totally devoid of feudal lords and army Generals. The support that we enjoy from the people of Pakistan has been amply demonstrated in our performance during consecutive elections of 1988, 1990, 1993, 1997 and 2002. Having started in March 1984 as a Mohajir Qaumi Movement out of the frustration of Mohajirs in Sindh, our track record today encourages even the Sindhi-speaking people from the rural areas of Sindh, who were led to believe by the Pakistan establishment that we would end up usurping their rights, are joining us in large numbers. Why then, you may well ask, are we a part of the Government, which perpetuates army rule by undermining democracy and its institutions. We have paid a heavy price for pursuing our political objectives in a country where democracy is controlled. Given the circumstances which prevail, our desire to serve the helpless deprived and exploited peoples of Pakistan have indeed led us into political arrangements which we are neither comfortable in nor would deem desirable in better circumstances. The choice before us in Pakistan today is not Musharraf or democracy but between army and even more army. The very religious parties created by the army facilitate to see through constitutional changes which debilitate democratic processes in the long term and on the very next day take to the streets try to make the world believe that they are the vanguard of the fight to restore democracy. To place our politics in context, I would also like to briefly touch upon the loot and plunder of the wealth and resources of Sindh and Balochistan, including the denial of their legitimate share from the federal revenues and ever so increasingly their due share of water, the consequences in terms of the rural areas and the severe environmental damage are there to be seen in both the provinces. Ladies and Gentlemen: The scenario is so depressing that leadership of the day openly admits that the country would fall apart if the army did not run its affairs. . What does it tell you? To me it signifies a telling blow to the very idea of Pakistan, a homeland for the Muslims of the subcontinent, and the two-nation theory, which continues to wreck untold miseries on the people of this region for the past five decades. Muslims are fighting and killing each other on the basis of tribal and linguistic affinity, sectarian strife is worse than ever before. Mosques and madrassas are but flourishing businesses. The less educated the Pesh Imam, the more popular and affluent he is likely to be. The advocates of Jihad, a medieval concept to tame the infidel, are wantonly killing followers of the fait as they SOMETHING places of worship. Perhaps the idea of Pakistan was dead at its inception, when the majority of Muslims chose to stay back after partition, a truism reiterated in the creation of Bangladesh in 1971. If you need further evidence, look at the plight of 300,000 stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh for three decades in their passage to the chosen land. Unwanted by both Bangladesh and Pakistan, led by an unknown destiny. Ladies and Gentlemen: The rights of the people who migrated to Pakistan from Muslim Minority Provinces of the Subcontinent were usurped and they had to face highhandedness and injustices. We formed the Mohajir Qaumi Movement against these injustices. To crush our Movement baseless accusations were made and were termed “traitors”. We were targeted through State oppression in 1993, during the Army Operation against the MQM, General Elections were held. The Army imposed a ban on the MQM to contest these elections from a few constituencies to allow the army’s created group to win the elections and to demonstrate to the world that the people of urban centers of Sindh do not support the MQM. On this illegal and unconstitutional basis, the MQM decided to boycott the General Elections in protest. On our appeal, the people of Sindh successfully boycotted the General Elections also witnessed by the international observers. As a result, the entire election process became dubious and then the high army official requested us to take part in the provincial assembly elections. With assurances of free and fair participation in the elections – on a 48-hour notice, we participated in the provincial elections and the people overwhelmingly bestowed their mandate in favor of the MQM. If the charges of terrorism leveled against the MQM had been true then the people of Singh would have supported the army operation against the MQM and in the presence of army they would not have effectively boycotted the elections and would not have given their mandate to the MQM. However, the people’s mandate was not respected and the State operation continued unabated against the MQM – and we were even not allowed to peacefully protest against the operation within the country. No one can prove that we have pleaded anybody else’s case except our own at international platforms including the UN. We did, however, seek moral, political and diplomatic support from the countries, which stand for democracy and human rights. My representatives have met officials of the United States and many European countries because we were pushed against the wall and forced by our own government to take our case world-wide because they remained arrogant and hell bent on not providing rights and oppressed us militarily instead of sincerely and meaningfully negotiating with us in accordance with the democratic norms. Mutual understanding and awareness of each others problems will certainly help to reduce tensions in the region. 06. We must also begin to look at possible arrangements for strengthening regional security co-operation. This probably would prove to be most difficult under the present circumstances of prevailing tensions in our region. But it is also therefore a necessity. Varying systems of co-operation in security matters could be designed and adopted between different states with the objective of reaching regional security co-operation at a later stage. In conclusion, it may be pertinent to state once more that cultural heritage need not be a divisive force. We must and I believe we can ensure that our diverse cultures, yet our common heritage contain the seed of unity within that diversity. If we worked together we can draw strength from the richness of our civilizational traditions in order to give life to a new and modern South Asian unity. I truly believe that today we have arrived at the threshold of effective action to realize the dreams and aspirations of our people; freedom from poverty, from ignorance, under-development and from constant conflict which could best be achieved through regional unity of South Asian States. I thank you. Ladies and Gentlemen: May I now revert to the topic of the Seminar and with your permission to make references to our party wherever appropriate. The title of the conference “India and the World: A Blueprint for Partnership and Growth” has a welcome optimistic connotation. The themes of the future for the people of South Asia are indeed partnership and growth. Obviously, the first requirement for either to happen is that peace and normalcy must prevail. For much too long, Pakistan and India have been at odds. If we look around, we see unrest in Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bangladesh, Afghanistan is still looking for peace. India and Pakistan, being the two largest in the region, need to demonstrate magnanimity and the necessary political wisdom and desire to truly seek peace. If this be so, it should be possible to pursue a meaningful, sincere and a composite dialogue with an open mind. I wish to take this opportunity to place on record the sincere appreciation of the MQM, and my own. of the recent initiatives by successive Prime Ministers of India, President General Pervez Musharraf and all those who may have been involved or contributed to the same. It is imperative that the current ambience be maintained to enable the process to evolve gradually. We see the approach in first tackling the issue of creation of processes necessary for carrying on the dialogue as a wise one. It is quite clear that the necessary architecture is now slowly but surely falling in place in a manner, which would impart continuity to the dialogue process itself. It is also heartening that a wide-range of outstanding issues is being simultaneously addressed at several levels. It should be clear to all concerned that there can be no military solution to any of the contentious issues. Let alone the issue of Kashmir. Neither for that matter can resort to militancy and extremism. The mindless loss of lives, endless human rights violations and continuing depletion of developmental resources to deal with civil strife cannot be justified under any circumstances. As a representative of a persecuted minority forced to live in exile and to grieve the loss of colleagues and supporters day after day through extra-judicial processes, I can well understand the agony of the Kashmiris. Over 17,000 Mohajirs have been killed including leaders, supporters and their relatives during army and state operations. Thousands of Mohajir families have been rendered destitute because either their breadwinners were extra-judicially executed, arbitrarily arrested or forced into hiding or exile. My 66 years old brother Mr Nasir Hussain and his son 28 year old Arif Hussain were unlawfully arrested in the presence of their entire neighborhood. They were brutally tortured for three days and on 9th December 1995 and then extra and then extra judicially executed. Both were non-political citizens of Pakistan. The total number of casualties in the four wars, including Kargil, was in excess of thirteen thousand. Most estimates suggest that already more than fifty thousand lives have been lost in Jammu and Kashmir alone causing misery and grief to family members, distorting the normal pattern of life and virtually destroying the local economy. Who benefits from all this? Can the people of Pakistan and India afford it? Can they afford the diversion of these resources from their own development programs, health programs and education? Definitely not. Two million students are being taught currently in about 50,000 madrassas run by right-wing religious parties totally outside Government supervision to promote a medieval ideology leading to the generation of 15-20 thousand new militants every year, year after year. Who will detoxify the society? How will they be reintegrated into the mainstream? I pay tributes to the Muslim leaders and intellectuals of India for maintaining moderation and not pushing the Muslims towards fanaticism and Jihad. Ladies and Gentlemen: The Confidence Building Measures contemplated to bring the people of both countries closer must be implemented vigorously. Let there be free people to people contact. Let there also be cultural and social contacts, sporting contacts, political contacts, economic contacts, and diplomatic contacts to further peace and harmony. Presently, part of the region and therefore her people equally deserve to freely interact with the people of adjoining states of India. However, denial to reopen the Khokrapar Munabao border and Ferry Service between Karachi and Bombay is nothing but stifling the rights of the people of Sindh. The people of Sindh are forced to take an expensive route via Islamabad to obtain to obtain visas and then Lahore to catch the train or the bus. It is now incumbent on the governments of India and Pakistan to re-open the Visa Office in Karachi, which would further better the relationship. Ladies and Gentlemen: I have recently aired a few thoughts on “Realism and Practicalism” copies of which are in this hall. I will appreciate your comments on it. The spirit and essence of it is that we must accept the ground reality without blinkers. The reality today is that India and Pakistan are at loggerheads and as a result the region is in turmoil. Dialogue between India and Pakistan should be pursued in diversity and should not be a hostage to Kashmir issue only. Practicalism seeks ways for common or agreed grounds. When we talk of Kashmir, there are several procedural and allied issues, which crop us. Is it a bilateral issue? Do the people of Kashmir come into the equation? I have a habit of speaking freely without mincing my worlds. I intend continuing to do so and gladly invite my critics to correct me on the credibility and the plausibility of my views, objectively, in India, Pakistan and internationally. To deal with Kashmir, there has to be a basis or opinions on which the talks could take place. What could those options be? In the recently talked about “Chenab Formula” an option? Is “Dixon Plan” an option? Could formalization of the Line of control be an option? Are there any more options that we may not know about? We also talk about the UN Resolutions, could they be enforced? If it was enforceable, why has it not been enforced in the past? What have Tashkent and Simla Agreements and the Lahore Declaration yielded? Practicalism and Pragmatism call for acceptance of what is in existence or has been in existence instead of arbitrary new ideas. I understand that the people of Kashmir are also aspiring for independence, even for this option, negotiation has to take place. Negotiation is the primary condition for all options. The Line of Control could well be used as the basis to begin negotiations by virtue of being a ground reality, which has existed for the past three decades. I am saying, use this as a basis or option to begin talks until such a time that a practicable alternative option is found. What is wrong with it? If both countries resolve that crossing this line would be considered as aggression, doesn’t it in lay men’s terms amount to an international border? If not, what is an international border? And, if this is not an option then what options are we left with, another war? We have fought three wards over Kashmir, the governments may have achieved political victories and defeats, but what did the people achieve? Body bags of the soldiers and civilians, more widows and orphans, more taxes, contribution to war funds poverty and backwardness. And, if we remain intransigent and squander this opportunity, the cost to be paid in the long term could be horrid. Before I go further I would like to quote the Prayer of St. Francis of Assisi (1181), “Where there is hatred, let me sow love.” On the spirit of this prayer I would like to request both the countries India and Pakistan, to stop sowing the seeds of hatred and start sowing the seeds of love. My plan is to let good sense and logic prevail and to let our peoples prosper. Let us divert critically required funds from defence to social and economic sectors. Our children need education; our villages need clean drinking water, electricity, medical care, everywhere there is a crying need for employment, better civic amenities and transport facilities etc. Let common sense prevail over arrogance and political expediencies. Let us arm our children with education, health and hygiene than nuclear bombs and missile. I applaud President General Pervez Musharraf for making a bold and courageous statement discarding plebiscite as an option. I had always maintained that it was never a practicable or implementable option. Ladies and Gentlemen: The United States of America, now the unipolar power of the world and her western allies have historically supported the dictatorial and monarchical rulers in the developing world for their short term gains and opposed moderate, liberal and enlightened Middle Class, as their sustained foreign policy. Their policies and mind set have always been Election centric. They failed to calculate the long-term repercussion of their foreign policies. These authoritarian and monarchical rulers deliberately promoted religious, sectarian and ethno-linguistic fanaticism on the strength of the unbridled support of the west to protect their rules. Oppressed their people produced Osama-bin-laden, Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussain. And, now to rein in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US and her allies has to wage a global war against terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq. As a result of these wars, thousands of innocent people are being killed and millions of people are facing the wrath for no fault of theirs but their rulers. Infliction of atrocities is resulting in psycho reactionary actions amongst millions. It is now essential for the US and her western allies to review their policies, they should now support and nurture the modern, enlightened Middle Class who are capable of dismantling the religious, sectarian and ethno-linguistic fanaticism and establish genuine democracies which would be mutually beneficial for their people and the West. In case of Pakistan, the historical and sustained support of Feudal-Mullah-military alliance by the United States and West has already proved negative and has permeated rampant corruption, bad governance, denial of rights to smaller province, illiteracy, impoverishment, unemployment, frustration amongst general populace and above all the religious sectarian and ethno-linguistic fanaticism and violence. South Asian countries in general and India and Pakistan in particular need do no more than draw lessons from Europe, whose post-wart history is roughly the same length as our two nations. The European Union, which emerged out of the dictates of the economic well being of its people and the desire to fully actualize their individual potential in a collective manner, is a live demonstration of the possibilities that can be envisaged by the dynamic minds of visionary leaders. We should yearn for the day when we have a Common Union, perhaps even a Common currency while maintaining our sovereignties and dignities intact. We have the SAARC more in form than in content due to the rancor, which has blinded us. South Asia remains of the most integrated regions of the world. We are looking forward to the implementation of the SAFTA (South Asia free Trade Agreement) in January 2006 as outlined in the SAARC declaration of January 2004 in Islamabad. The creation of a free trade zone along with some degree of economic integration of SAARC countries could turn the region into a huge regional economic market, second only to China in terms of size. If futuristically developed along with a network of roads and railway connections to South East Asia and Central Asia the future of our seceding generations would indeed be bright. Restrictions on bilateral trade have forced both countries to import goods from third countries, which could have been traded for more economically and efficiently from each other. Indo-Pak trade would ensure cheaper raw material, low transportation, less insurance costs etc resulting in potential for quality products at competitive prices for consumers in both countries and larger markets for manufacturers. Having resolved the external issues, South Asian countries in general need to put their houses in order. They should stop discriminations on the basis of ethnicity, religion or descent. I request the Government of Pakistan to recognize and indemnify all the religious and ethno-linguistic and minorities and treat them equally to foster a sense of ethnic linguistic pluralism and nationalism. All the Governments in the past have deliberately strengthened ethno-linguistic particularism in Pakistan under the rubrics of majority and power. In democracy, only the members should not count. A state becomes successful only when it is truly able to accommodate the aspirations and the needs of its minorities. Pakistan should genuinely strive to devolve power to the provinces making them fully autonomous, reserving for the Federal administration only Defence, Foreign Affairs and Currency. If the Federation of the United States of America can remain stronger by having fully autonomous states then why should one assume that Federation of Pakistan would weaken if the provinces have fully autonomous status? Mainstream political forces, including the MQM, equipped with liberal and progressive ideological underpinnings have the capability of transforming Pakistan into a democratic and progressive state at peace with itself and its neighbors. They can deliver good governance, an independent judiciary and freedom of the media. The purpose of this conference is to discuss and prepare a "Road Map" for the economic, strategic and political future of India in relation to the world and the regional countries. To attain this objective we should find out the "Key" to achieve positive results, which is peace in the South Asia region. The region is the first gate to be opened for, and then we should proceed to open the second gate, which is the World. The word "Peace" is catalyst to positivism, success, prosperity, harmony, better economy, better understanding and relations with their neighbors. If the regional countries have peace and better relations then it would ultimately draw the remaining world towards the region. The peace is the only and only "Key" through which India could have improved and long lasting relations with the world but for this peace has to be established in the region first. The benefits that could be drawn by the South Asian Countries including Pakistan through peace could never be achieved through the use of nuclear weapons, atom bombs, chemical and biological weapons and a massive army. India and Pakistan have considered each other as enemies since independence but now to achieve the sacred objective of peace, better and long-lasting relations, both countries have to engage in a meaningful and sincere dialogue and cease all hostilities against each other. Finally, I think South Asia needs to have a comprehensive human rights code that protects the people from unbridled state power. Freedom from poverty, hunger, illiteracy and provision of basic services be part of the human rights of the people of the sub-continent and our governments should be promoting an environment in which the people of the sub-continent achieve what people of other regions have achieved through peace and co-operation.
Benazir Reveals Plot to Kidnap Dr AQ Khan and ISI Links to Nuclear Black Market Special SAT Report Issue No 83, Mar 14-20, 2004 | ISSN:1684-2057 | satribune.com LONDON: Pakistan’s former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has admitted that she introduced the infamous Pakistani intelligence agency, ISI, to the international nuclear black market, specially the scientists belonging to broken up states of the Soviet Union, trying to sell Uranium. In a long interview with an Indian web site, rediff.com, published in a series of five articles, Benazir also disclosed a plan made in 1989 to kidnap famous nuclear scientist Dr AQ Khan from Pakistan, to keep him in a Muslim country and to blame her government for the failure to protect him. “There was one other thing I may have inadvertently done [and that] was introduce them (ISI) to the international black market,” she told Shyam Bhatia, who interviewed her in London. “At that time my parliamentarians would come to me in Parliament House and say they had been approached by Russian scientists wanting to sell enriched uranium, this was in '89-90. There were Soviet scientists who were starving, they weren't given their salaries, they were poor, they wanted to meet me and I didn't want to meet them. “They approached the government, parliamentarians, so here they come and tell me, 'We don't have to worry if we can't make uranium, we can buy uranium. Okay?' I thought it was a trap set up by the intelligence. So I then sent them to the ISI to investigate.” Benazir recalled: “Unfortunately, if it was not a trap, I introduced the ISI to the network. I sent the information to the ISI and I never got a report back. I assumed it was a trap because I never got a report back. I remember this incident because it didn't happen just once. The first time I said 'no, no' and thought it would die. But it was persistent and when it was persistent I sent it to the ISI to investigate.” Revealing the plot to kidnap Dr AQ Khan, Benazir Bhutto said the plan involved some journalists who were to be used to take Dr AQ Khan out of Pakistan for performing a pilgrimage. But she clarified that the country was not Saudi Arabia. “In 1989 I learned from one of the journalists who were tied to the elements trying to overthrow my government that one of them planned to take AQ Khan to a Muslim country and keep him there. They told him they would take him on a pilgrimage -- it's not Saudi Arabia -- they would go for a pilgrimage and keep him there. “I saw this as an attempt to embarrass me by suggesting that Benazir Bhutto is anti-Pakistan and she's a security threat and she's responsible for the disappearance of our nuclear scientist. So I passed orders that no scientist could leave the country without government permission. And security guards,” the former prime minister revealed. The following is the full text of Benazir interview: Can you tell us how Pakistan started its nuclear program? Actually, India started developing its nuclear program in 1961 or '62, maybe even earlier. My father was a minister in 1962 and he tried to get Pakistan to also start a program from 1962. The Indians had not detonated anything, but he negotiated and tried to get material from different countries. He was able to get a peaceful nuclear reactor from Canada that was put under Kanupp [Karachi nuclear power plant] inspection. He was also able to talk to other countries -- I don't wish to go into the names of those countries -- but he talked to other countries from 1962 to help Pakistan develop a nuclear program. In four years he left Ayub's [military ruler Field Marshal Ayub Khan] Cabinet. That was in 1966. By the time he came back to office in December 1971, this was not his priority because Pakistan had disintegrated and our priority was to first consolidate residual Pakistan so that it would not break. In those days there was a lot of talk with Manekshaw [Indian army chief General S H F J Manekshaw, later promoted to Field Marshal] saying he would get another present for the Indian people, and the ANP [Awami National Party of Khan Abdul Wali Khan] was getting support from Afghanistan, which was blessed by the Soviet Union, to spur secessionist movements in the Frontier [North-West Frontier Province] and Baluchistan. So we had a lot of other priorities, the main one of which was to save Pakistan. Therefore my father didn't concentrate on this nuclear thing. I was then at Harvard, I used to come back for the summer vacations. In 1974, when the Indians detonated the nuclear device, my father announced at a press conference that Pakistan will develop a bomb "even if we have to eat grass." When did the scientific work start? In 1974 my father had already got a group of scientists who had been working on the nuclear reactor and I think it was the plutonium process. This was in the context of the PAEC [Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission] which he established. Actually, it wasn't the PAEC, it was still only Kanupp. He established PAEC and he established Kahuta Laboratories. So there were laboratories established at Kahuta, which were renamed AQ Khan Laboratories much later. I knew of it as Kahuta laboratories by '77, I don't know what it was before. The main person around it was Munir Ahmed Khan, who became chairman of PAEC, and my father put together the team of scientists for this and he followed two paths to nuclear status. One was the reprocessing plant and he negotiated an agreement with France for a reprocessing plant and then he did a uranium enrichment plant. How did AQ Khan get involved? When he learnt that we were to make the nuclear bomb and eat grass if need be, he approached my father and offered his services. He must have flown in, I don't know how he did it. He said, 'I can assist' and later from press reports it was known that he had been working and he had some blueprints. Right? But he offered. Maybe because he was a patriotic Pakistani who, hearing that the prime minister of Pakistan wanted to make [one], gave his own. Didn't (then US secretary of state) Henry Kissinger threaten Pakistan in those days if it went ahead with the nuclear program? He said, 'We'll make a horrible example of you if you test. Okay?' That was around August 1976. The French did cancel the reprocessing plant agreement, but the uranium enrichment continued. At that stage there was this Islamic bomb article and they started spreading [rumors] that Libya had funded it. I believe that story was being spread by Zia [Pakistan's military dictator General Zia-ul Haq] and his intelligence because my brothers had set up Al-Zulfiqar and they were launching an armed struggle for the overthrow of Zia's regime. Zia was very scared of them. His plane had been attacked, his key minister Zahoor Elahi had been killed. So he was very scared of what they would do and they were the first people, like the Tamil Tigers, who were prepared to face death but bow down before him. I was launching a peaceful movement and a democratic movement and I had studied in America and had a lot of influential friends. To discredit us he wanted to say that these people had connections with Libya and that's where the money came from. But it had nothing to do with Libya. I can say 100 percent it had nothing to do with Libya because, although I cannot say who helped and aided us in our technological advancements, again for reasons of state, I know who did and it was not Libya. You came back to Pakistan in 1986. Then? I was under house arrest or Karachi prison, Sukkur prison, Sihala police station, house arrest in different places from 1977 to 1984. I went abroad for medical treatment of my ear, I came back in '86. I was briefly rearrested. I first came back in 1985 for Shah Nawaz's [Benazir's younger brother Shah Nawaz Bhutto who died in mysterious circumstances in France] funeral. I was arrested, but I was released to go and attend his magisterial investigation. Then I came back in '86, then I was again arrested, and I became prime minister in '88. Did you keep in touch with all nuclear events in the intervening years? No, I didn't. After my father died, I lost all contact. Those people didn't know me. Munir didn't know me, he knew my father. In 1988 when I became prime minister I became aware that AQ Khan and Munir didn't get on... AQ disliked Munir and found it very difficult to work with Munir. He was junior to Munir. But when I became prime minister there was a bunch of scientists who had come to see me. Of course, when I became prime minister they tried to keep me out of the nuclear loop, even though the most important issue was the nuclear issue and there was a sense of paranoia that our nuclear laboratories could be attacked by Indian planes, or Israeli planes. Israel had attacked the Iraqi nuclear reactor, so there was a lot of concern that our nuclear program would be forced to roll back and that they could be destroyed totally. I had to deal with this and when I became prime minister it was one of the first issues I had to deal with. It was an issue raised by the United States, it was an issue that every Western ambassador raised with me -- fears of nuclear proliferation. I did not know it then, but now I know that since 1987 Zia had offered to help Iran with a nuclear reactor. This has come in the press, that he had offered this to or decided on a military strategic command. What is now known is that after defeating the Soviet Union, Zia wanted to defeat America. Everyone in Pakistan used to say, 'Amrika nay ek kutta pala, Zia-ul Haq uska nala.' They used to say this and what people don't realize is that in Pakistan at the mass level Zia was so abused that it was all for the nuclear program, this was because he was an American dog. They used to call him 'Amrika ka kutta', they never called him by his actual name. He tried to tell everybody that he was not doing it for America, but for Islam and after defeating the Soviet Union he was going to defeat America and make Islam the greatest power in the world. So somewhere after 1987, according to press reports, he offered this to Iran... When you became PM, did the military keep you out of the enrichment plant at Kahuta? I don't remember, I really don't remember. I think I may have been to PAEC, but I don't remember if I went to Kahuta. I would really have to check the records to see if I went or not. They tried to keep me out of the nuclear program. By bypassing you with papers? Right, but I put myself in it in December [1988] because this was the biggest issue. I asked the army chief and he said, 'It's got nothing to do with me, it's the president.' I asked Ishaq Khan [then president Ghulam Ishaq Khan] and he said, 'There's no need for you [to know].' I thought, I'm the prime minister and there's a war going on, a political war, where the president is trying to say the army comes under him, security comes under him, the nuclear program comes under him. But my party would say no, we have a parliamentary system and parliament is the elected body and security issues must come before the parliament and the prime minister is head of the parliament, so she must be involved in security discussions. Otherwise she becomes a glorified municipal mayor, which is what Ishaq and the military had Nawaz Sharif [then opposition leader and later prime minister] saying. So did you have no contact with the nuclear establishment? I picked up the phone and called Munir, whom I knew very well, and I picked up my phone and he said who else knows, Qadeer Khan. They both turned up to see me. So then the president and military establishment decided they had to deal with me, they could not bypass the prime minister. Because, while they might say they had no power over the military, I could sack the scientists and then what would they do? Or I could take the press into confidence, I could take parliament into confidence. So then, because I asserted myself, the president called me up within hours of my calling the scientists and telling them I want a briefing, where we stand, where are we? What did the president say? He said, 'Come, we'll have a meeting together.' So then we decided to set up a command committee. Originally, the program was under the prime minister who was the chief executive. When Zia took over as president, he kept himself as the head of it because under Zia the chief executive was the president. So it went to the president and army chief. When I became prime minister, they tried to keep it with the president and army chief, but later they inducted me and it became the president, the prime minister, and the army chief. We would meet at the presidency and, when we wanted briefings on anything, we would call the scientists. So in 1988 uranium enrichment was running at 93 percent, which is weapons grade level? Enrichment was at 93, but we had done a cold test by... well, we decided about the proliferation and we decided it was important first to achieve a certain level. So they did a cold test around January '89. So that was without the nuclear core? I don't know how cold tests are done. But they said before I gave any guarantees to the West, I must have a cold test to see if everything works. Between January and March the cold tests were done. I don't know if they did it in January or they did it several times, or what they did. But it was completed by March. Because I told them how many bombs do we need to destroy civilization? I said who will be left to destroy civilization? Okay, we need some in case one gets wiped out and another gets wiped out, some degenerate and something else happens. I said, 'You tell me how many you need.' And what did they say? I don't want to get into that, there are certain things that I feel I must keep quiet about. So I said whatever you need, you keep that much. But beyond that we don't need. So we figured we had enough, we didn't need and we would give the statement that for confidence-building, to protect our laboratories we would not export. I could not understand why the Americans were insisting on exports, that there should be no exports. But they and IAEA [the International Atomic Energy Agency] -- and there were meetings in Vienna with my adviser for defence, he was also part of the enlarged committee. So by 1989 Pakistan had an operational nuclear capability? Yes. A stockpile existed by then? Not only a stockpile but bomb components existed and it was only a question that we put them together or did not put them together. So not putting together the bomb components meant a time lag, which the West said gave it confidence that nothing would be done impetuously. But there must have been huge political pressure from the West at that time. As I said, the sense of paranoia that our sites would be blasted out, our laboratories. Everyone was concerned, even the military was concerned. The army was concerned, the president was concerned, the Pressler amendment was there. Soviets were withdrawing by February and there was concern that as soon as the Soviets withdrew we would no longer be a frontline state in the fight against Communism. And that is when our nuclear installations could come under attack. So we had a very narrow time frame during which we could actually negotiate to satisfy international concerns. I didn't want to keep it secret. There was the question of how do you continue secretly? So I thought that rather than have a secret or covert program if we had achieved our security needs, we could have an open policy of what we had intended to do. So we had non-intrusive verification because the Americans claimed their satellites could pick up the volume at which the enrichment plant or the gas centrifuges worked. So they could pick up whether we were doing 93 percent or not. And at the time we were negotiating what I remember is going from 93 percent to 60 percent. Not going to 5 percent, which is non-weapons grade. So there was a kind of cutback in a way, a self-imposed restraint? Yes. In that first period of your prime ministership? Yes. So what were these non-intrusive inspections? That the satellites could pick up the speed at which the enrichment plant was working so with those revolutions -- because at 60 percent you beat at a certain level and at 90 percent you beat at another level. Were you surprised by the nature of the non-intrusive inspections? It must have come as a shock. I don't know, this is what I was told, you do so many things in government that the way you retain your memory is to retain what are the important things. I don't remember who told me, but I was told the Americans would be able to monitor what we were doing. So at that stage in 1989 you gave them the reassurance that you will not put the components together? Yes. And you imposed the voluntary self-restraint of cutting back to 60 percent [enrichment]? Yes. So the amount, the volume of highly enriched uranium decreased? Yes, so then if you want to make more weapons you have to take that 60 and go to 90. So you always have the option. What we said was that so long as our security is not threatened, we will not put the device together. So we kept open the option of putting our device together in the event of what we perceived as a security threat, which to our minds meant that if India detonated a device we would have the option of putting it together and, if there was a war, and we felt it was necessary for our deterrence, we would be putting it together. So we did not rule out putting it together. Did you think this was realpolitik or a moral position you were taking? It was realpolitik and also a moral position which we also had long discussions on. There was also the argument made that why should we give [in to] America, we should try and see what we can do to disperse our capacity. We do have the uranium one. But I thought that was too messy and that would involve a whole secret network of trying to set up alternative laboratories because these were known. Also trying to shift the materials. I didn't like that. I argued how many times do we need to destroy each other and at the end of the day they agreed with me. In return for our restraint the Americans agreed to suspend the Pressler Amendment and give us the aid. Did they do that? Yes, $4.6 billion was the quid pro quo, whereas under Zia we got less, we got $4.2 billion for fighting the Soviets. But the Soviets were gone and we got $4.6 billion and, instead of getting 20 or 40 F-16s that we got under Zia, we got 60 F-16s. They weren't delivered because my government got overthrown in 1990 and the Americans alleged that we had crossed the line and that we had gone back to 90 per cent uranium enrichment. What about AQ Khan? AQ Khan and Munir didn't get on, but after overthrowing me I believe it was in 1990 that they separated them and made it the Khan Laboratories. I believe AQ has a huge ego. But he didn't have a huge ego then. The huge ego only started from 1990. When I knew him he was a modest man. I first came across him in 1988 when he came to see me with Munir. They seemed like government servants ready to carry out government orders. The prime minister had called them, they came. In one of his articles published in Hurmat, Qadir talks about the Partition deaths he witnessed at Bhopal railway station. He never mentioned that to me. He offered his services to my father, that was that. He talks about how he was mistreated when he crossed the border from India to Pakistan, mistreated by Indian forces. I only know that from 1990, around 1990-93, the two institutions of the PAEC and Kahuta Laboratories were separated. They were called Kahuta Laboratories, but their name was changed to AQ Khan Laboratories at some stage. Not under my government, but it was changed. After my election there was an attempt to woo him and since my father had made the nuclear device, there was also a need to have a symbol. I think it was after Nawaz Sharif detonated the nuclear devices that AQ became 'Father of the Nuclear Bomb.' But actually everything was done before. Khan never said anything to you like 'Prime Minister, we must teach these wicked Hindus a lesson'? Never. He was quiet, only spoke when questioned. He would come to me obviously with recommendations. By the time we had finished with the nuclear -- because we had this agreement -- all that was left with nuclear was miniaturization and preservation. And then I had established the missile technology board. I can tell you that in 1989 we established the missile technology board and he [Khan] saw me in that connection, he had discussions with me in connection with missile development technology. How did he move into missiles from bombs? That he would have to answer, but he saw me about it and Beg [then army chief General Mirza Aslam Beg, above left] saw me about it and I looked into the subject and I saw we were able to develop missiles that were short of MTCR [Missile Technology Control Regime]. So I agreed to develop Pakistan's [missile force]. We were worried because we were dependent on the F-16s for delivery, we didn't know that the plane could be shot down before it crossed or what would happen. So we needed missile technology. India had developed its own missile technology. I developed missile technology in 1989 and I made certain important decisions with regard to it. In 1993 when I went to [North] Korea it was to get their technology to compare it with our technology. But we had already developed when I was prime minister from 1989 in time for 1997. I was going to missile-test the Zulfiqar, which after my overthrow was called the Ghauri and which I thought was real mean pettiness. The world calls it the Nodong, but it was not the Nodong. Your second term as prime minister in 1993? 1993 autumn to 1996. I took over when Pakistan was bankrupt, it was on the brink of being declared a terrorist state, the first attacks on the World Trade Center had already taken place. The Americans had cut off all aid because of proliferation concerns. Where was the enrichment program then? Had it returned to 90 percent? When I took over they said it had gone down to 5 percent... so obviously somewhere along the time during Nawaz's term -- we were bankrupt, the [1993] World Trade Center attack had taken place and we were on the brink of being declared a terrorist state -- so perhaps in a bid to cool international tempers, they agreed to go to 5 percent uranium enrichment. Later you hauled Pakistan out of a crisis? Yes, the nuclear crisis in the first term and the terrorism crisis in my second term. Did you initiate the revival of the nuclear program in your second term? No, I didn't. I called them and asked, 'What line did we cross?' Nobody could find what line had been crossed. I thought it unacceptable as prime minister that we should lose the $4.6 billion package and lose all the F-16s and be isolated because of intelligence by the US. We never got the 4.6, it was all cut. We got whatever was the first tranche and the rest was all cut. There had been a quid pro quo and money had been released from '89 till 1990. But in the summer of 1990 [US] Ambassador [Robert] Oakley came to see me and he said they had picked up some intelligence reports that we are crossing the line. He didn't define it. I took it to mean that we are back to making weapons grade uranium. Because in my mind, for whatever reason, it stuck that they used to verify through the revolutions of the centrifuge. I told Oakley I would look into it, but he said, 'Not yet, I'm just mentioning it to you and I will come back to you.' The following month he came back to me and said, 'Yes, I'm making this officially.' He was sharing this with me. So then I informed Beg about it and I informed Ishaq [President Ghulam Ishaq Khan, above right] and said I want a meeting of the Nuclear Board where I planned to tell them about it and call the scientists to find out what was behind it. Ishaq told me, 'You are going abroad on a tour, we'll have a meeting when you come back.' I was going on a tour of some Muslim countries in connection with a meeting of some Islamic nations. There was to be a resolution on Kashmir, the Berlin Wall had fallen, the Kashmiri people had risen up, and we thought this was a good moment to press for their political freedom. The OIC [Organization of Islamic Conference] had never passed a resolution on Kashmir, so I traveled to a sea of Muslim countries between June and July 1990. When I was abroad in July the US sent a special envoy who I understand was Bob Gates [then deputy national security adviser to President George H W Bush] -- but this will have to be verified -- he was coordinating with the foreign office. First of all, they should never have let him come when I was going abroad because I was going abroad for six months, or three months, but they called him and then they said 'she's traveling'. Then they would tell me 'he's coming to see you in Bahrain', or 'he's coming to see you in Egypt', or whatever country I happened to be in. But he would never come, or if he would come the meeting would never take place. I felt I was a victim of a conspiracy. They were doing something, I don't know what they were doing, but they did not want me to call a meeting of that board. They would not want me to call a meeting of the scientists because I would find out. So what I think they did was sabotage that meeting and after having sabotaged that meeting, the meeting never took place. I went back to Pakistan, I told Ishaq, he set a date for the meeting at the end of July and one day before he cancelled it and said it would be in August. On August 6 my government was dismissed. What happened next? When I got back into government, I was curious and wanted to know what [had] happened. They said there was no explanation. Because of the lack of a satisfactory explanation, I said this would not do and asked what they proposed. It was then agreed [that] we would put security inside the laboratories, that we can monitor the scientists and ensure the scientists do what they are ordered. As far as you were concerned, were the laboratories still enriching at a non-weapons grade 5 percent? No, it was 60 percent when I left office. But when I came back to office they had committed to 5 percent. First of all, we had security outside the laboratories, right? Now we have security inside the laboratories from 1993 under a major general. So now there is no way a scientist can do anything independently without being monitored. Your concern was that someone was crossing the line and you didn't want that to happen? Yes, they had to follow government policy. To prevent anybody violating government policy -- one of the explanations given was that maybe some of the cores had degenerated, and to replenish the cores the scientists had started enriching. I said that was unsatisfactory because if the core degenerated then they must bring it to the attention of the prime minister and the board and then start, take our permission to redoing it to 95 percent. But to do it on their own was not right. Between 1993 and 1996 you did not authorize the revival of 95 percent enrichment? No, no. They had given a commitment of 5 percent and they kept it at that. Although our commitment was at 60 percent. Because they had brought it to 5 percent, we kept it for confidence because we always felt that the way to safeguard the program was through international confidence and that if the world was frightened of a Muslim bomb... in the case of India, India was not going to export it to another country because India wanted it for itself. There was no Hindu civilization of pan-Islamic view. In the case of Israel they were not going to give it because there was only one Israel. But in the case of Pakistan there was always a fear that it is going to turn into a replicating bomb that will be used in a series of countries. So there was a much greater fear about our bomb, or perhaps there was a greater fear about Muslims because half the problems are in the Muslim world. I don't know what was the fear in the world community, or maybe it was because of Israel. I can't say, but I can say there was a great deal of insecurity. At the same time, having nuclear status was a matter of security for Pakistanis and, sadly, though it was a weapon of mass destruction, it was a matter of pride because people felt we were as good as India. India had developed one, we had developed one. If their scientists are good, our scientists are equally good. So the bomb reassured the national psyche? In that sense it covered two aspects of the Pakistan national psyche and for a country that had been disintegrated and had gone through the horrors of partition and considered Kashmir under occupation, this was a saving grace, that we can compete equally with India. Is it possible that rogue elements assisted by the Pakistan military and jihadis started playing around with the nuclear program from 1990 onwards? It is possible, but not probable, for certain reasons. In 1989 I learned from one of the journalists who was tied to the elements trying to overthrow my government that those elements were basically the intelligence, the ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence] people and MI [Military Intelligence]. They were trying to overthrow my government, but these people had some journalists very close to them. One of them planned to take AQ Khan to a Muslim country and keep him there. They told him they would take him on a pilgrimage -- it's not Saudi Arabia -- they would go for a pilgrimage and keep him there. I saw this as an attempt to embarrass me by suggesting that Benazir Bhutto is anti-Pakistan and she's a security threat and she's responsible for the disappearance of our nuclear scientist. So I passed orders that no scientist could leave the country without government permission. And security guards. That means such scientists could never leave the country without the government's explicit knowledge? There was one other thing I may have inadvertently done [and that] was introduce them to the international black market. At that time my parliamentarians would come to me in Parliament House and say they had been approached by Russian scientists wanting to sell enriched uranium, this was in '89-90. There were Soviet scientists who were starving, they weren't given their salaries, they were poor, they wanted to meet me and I didn't want to meet them. They approached the government, parliamentarians, so here they come and tell me, 'We don't have to worry if we can't make uranium, we can buy uranium. Okay?' I thought it was a trap set up by the intelligence. So I then sent them to the ISI to investigate. Unfortunately, if it was not a trap, I introduced the ISI to the network. I sent the information to the ISI and I never got a report back. I assumed it was a trap because I never got a report back. I remember this incident because it didn't happen just once. The first time I said 'no, no' and thought it would die. But it was persistent and when it was persistent I sent it to the ISI to investigate. Is this the time Khan started going to Libya and Iran? Probably not Libya. I don't know, we need a full investigation to see whether the president changed the policy or the army chief defied the intelligence, or the intelligence defied the army chief, or whether elements of the intelligence bought over by Al Qaeda joined up with the scientists. We don't really know, all this is possible. So barring an investigation, my suspicion is that Iran happened between 1990 to 1993. Where does Libya fit in? Libya comes much later when I was overthrown a second time. Either they offered it to them then or maybe they offered it in my first term, I don't know. But in February 2000 Musharraf went to Libya. In July 2000 Musharraf's commerce minister and friend took out a full page ad offering nuclear related products for sale. The AQ Khan brochure was also made then. What happened was that in 1998 we detonated the nuclear device. I was expecting to be called by Nawaz Sharif and I was expecting to be asked for my advice on how to deal with the situation. I thought it was time for Pakistan to take the moral high ground by opening its laboratories and doing a cold test in front of everybody to say, 'See, we are a nuclear power', but not doing a hot test. But nobody asked for my views.
Opposition vows to oppose NSC bill March 13th 2004
ISLAMABAD:
The opposition on
Thursday made clear that it would oppose the National Security Council bill
the government plans to introduce in the National Assembly in the current
session.
Benazir condoles death of renowned
Kashmiri leader Ayub Thakur Pakistan Times Foreign Desk
The PPP chief also prayed to Allah to rest the soul of Dr Ayub Thakur in eternal peace and for patience to the members of bereaved family to bear the loss with equanimity
Benazir Bhutto condemns murder
of PPPP MPA
March 6, 2004 Wants judicial probe and sacking of
provincial government
PPP to begin anti-Musharraf campaign
February 27th, 2004
February 26th 2004
LONDON: Benazir Bhutto said today that she was approached several times when
she was Pakistani prime minister by military officials and scientists
seeking permission to export nuclear technology, but turned down their
requests.
Benazir Bhutto will return Pakistan in
current year: Zia
Musharraf acting like Yahya Khan: Benazir MONDAY, FEBRUARY 09, 2004 WASHINGTON : Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf is acting like the country's erstwhile military dictator Yahya Khan, claimed former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto over the weekend. Addressing a news conference here,
Bhutto demanded the formation of a six-member commission that should include
two nominees each of her Pakistan People's Party and the Pakistan Muslim
League-Nawaz and two nominated by General Musharraf to probe the nuclear
leak.. |
 |
Words of Shaheed
|
||||||
| Copyright © 2004-10 PPP USA. All rights reserved |
ISLAMABAD, December 10:
Army housing, and the real estate business in general, is an industry like
no other in Pakistan. The fastest bucks are turned here which explains why
so many ex-army officers are distinguished realtors. So many indeed that the
time may have come to consider teaching real estate as a separate subject in
the Pakistan Military Academy, Kakul. 
NEW DELHI, November 7:
Leader of the Sindh-based political party MQM, Mr Altaf Hussain stunned his
audience at an international conference on Friday declaring that the “idea
of Pakistan was dead at its inception.”
There was a great Prime Minister, the first Prime Minister, the father
of the present Prime Minister of India, who said, "We were too old, we
were too tired to oppose Pakistan, and Pakistan had to come into being.
But we hope that one day we will get together gain." I too hope so, not
that Pakistan will emerge as subservient to India but in the sense that
we will get together again as equal friends, in a common fraternity,
living in a common subcontinent and sharing the common effort of seeing
that poverty, ignorance and misery are wiped out. If there are any two
countries in world that are the poorest in the world, they are Pakistan
and India. Our resources might be tremendous, but the fact is that we
two are the poorest in the world. Yet in the last 24 years, we have gone
to war three times. Three times there has been conflict in the
subcontinent. I remember that Prime Minister of the Soviet Union once
telling me that even rich nations try to avoide war; poorer nations
should make a greater attempt to avoid war.