PAKISTAN Special

By: Shaukat Qadir

India would be better off trying to negotiate a state of peaceful coexistence with Pakistan, rather than follow a course that is bound to be self-destructive

Finally, some American analysts have acknowledged that New Delhi is actively involved in destabilising the Pakistani province of Balochistan. They have also come to the realisation that it is also funding some of the Taliban.

Foreign Affairs, a journal published by the Council for Foreign Relations in Washington, has published this discovery, supported by the large variety of speakers at a round table conference held recently in Washington.

The speakers at the conference included Christine Fair, a senior political analyst formerly at the RAND Corporation; Stephen Cohen of the Brookings Institution; Sumit Ganguly, an Indian-born American citizen; and Ashley Tellis, the author of “India’s emerging nuclear doctrine”, published by RAND in 2001.

When Ashley asked me to comment on his work, I wrote back: “You have provided India with a nuclear doctrine that no one in India could have come up with, and have legitimised it through the RAND.”

With such participants, the conclusion is indisputable, but the US chooses to consider the evidence inconclusive. Though not when the evidence is against Pakistan!

I am prepared to believe that Pakistan, through Bangladesh, is involved in supporting insurgencies in India. The reasons are obvious: India is a far larger country, with greater resources and, in due course, is likely to outstrip Pakistan, economically and militarily, unless bled constantly.

Indian involvement to destabilise Pakistan is less easily understood, except as a tit-for-tat response, because it cannot take possession of Balochistan, and if Pakistan implodes India will face disastrous consequences.

A tit-for-tat response has its own logic and, in the wake of the Mumbai attacks, many Indian analysts, convinced of the Indian military’ inability to gain a decisive victory against Pakistan, suggested this policy.

One of them, Bharat Karnad, ex-member of the Indian national security advisory board, even sent me his article for ‘comments’. However, if the outcome of such a policy is as obviously self-defeating in the long run; perhaps India would be better off trying to negotiate a state of peaceful coexistence with Pakistan, rather than follow a course that is bound to be self-destructive.

I am a reluctant believer in conspiracy theories, but the writings of Charles Ferndale, Norman Finkelstein, Uri Avnery and Israel Shahak — not to mention Noam Chomsky — have half-convinced me that central to the Israeli Zionist — mind you, all Jews are not Zionists; Jews have their extremists, just like Muslims and Christians and Hindus have theirs — survival theory is that no regional power in its vicinity should be capable of confronting it militarily. Thus Iraq’s nuclear capability had to be destroyed, Iran prevented from getting there and, since Pakistan is already there, it must be destroyed from within. If this be so, theorists contend that the US and India are unwitting pawns in the hands of Israeli Zionists.

That would explain a number of inexplicable pieces of information. However, many of these could also result from the ineptitude of the CIA, a conclusion I strongly subscribe to, as well as policies for short-term political gains by Indian politicians. Take your pick.

The vast, silent, and irrelevant majority amongst the Mehsud tribe have no love lost for Baitullah, the undisputed Taliban leader of their tribe. I am reliably informed that he is rolling in dollars and has access to highly sophisticated light weaponry. Now he could have got these from a number of sources; India, Israel, Iran, Russia, or even the US.

I am also reliably informed that Baitullah Mehsud is in possession of highly sophisticated communication equipment and what are presumably homing devices. That narrows the field a little: Israel, the US, or Russia.

I am also, not so reliably, informed that there are strong rumours afloat that Baitullah Mehsud has been in touch with the CIA.

We know for certain that the Pakistan army has been asking the US for help in ‘taking out’ Mehsud and has on at least four different occasions provided the US with accurate information of his location over a period of twelve to twenty four after the US was informed, but he was never targeted.

We also know that US drone attacks have been more successful in the last few months and that their kill ratio of militants to innocent people has increased dramatically in favour of militants killed.

However, if my information is correct, that there are less than twenty hard-core Al Qaeda personnel present in each tribal area, not a single one of them has been successfully targeted. In fact, almost all of the militants killed in the Mehsud area were lowly soldiers, many of them Uzbeks and, according to some Mehsuds, some of those killed included those who disputed Baitullah’s leadership.

With a puzzle as disconnected as this, the dotted lines can be connected in many different ways to lead to widely divergent conclusions. I will leave it to the readers to arrive at their own conclusions. However, I will adjure them to bear in mind that the US refused to target Baitullah Mehsud on a number of occasions, despite Pakistani requests and accurate information on his location for many hours, and that no really high value target has ever been hit in the Mehsud area.

Each time a hit on a high value target has been claimed, it has been refuted within hours, sometimes days, occasionally even months later.

I leave it to you to dot the lines, but this time I am almost certain that there is a conspiracy; let each of you decide where it leads.

P.Symonds has been just to the point while exposing US' designs and stretegy. You see how it all fits in. You see what's behind all the hu ha about terrorism. You unleash terror so you get away with terror. Age old imperial game but this time Washington’s moves will not go unopposed...

BY: Peter Symonds

Comments by China’s ambassador in Islamabad last Thursday highlight the reckless character of the Obama administration’s escalating intervention in Pakistan. By pressuring Islamabad to wage an all-out military offensive against Islamic insurgents in the Swat Valley and neighbouring districts, Washington is not only destabilising Pakistan but raising tensions in a highly volatile area.

Speaking to Pakistani business leaders, Chinese ambassador Luo Zhaohui pointedly voiced concern about the growth of “outside influence” in the region. He singled out the US in particular, saying that China was worried about US policies and the presence of a large number of foreign troops in neighbouring Afghanistan. While reiterating China’s support for “the fight against terror,” Luo declared that US strategies needed some “corrective measures”. He added, “These are issues of serious concern for China.”

Luo’s unusually blunt remarks came just one day after US President Obama spoke to his Chinese counterpart, President Hu Jintao. While a number of issues were discussed, the escalating war in Pakistan was clearly high on the agenda. This first publicised phone call between the two men came as Obama met with the Afghan and Pakistani presidents over US strategy in the two countries. While Hu reportedly offered his cooperation, Luo’s comments express China’s underlying fears over growing US influence in South Asia.

Last week’s tripartite summit in Washington signalled a major upsurge in military violence in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Under intense pressure from the US, the Pakistani army has launched a large-scale offensive against militants in the Swat Valley in which hundreds have already died and hundreds of thousands of civilians have been forced to flee. The summit, however, involved more than discussions on military cooperation, outlining comprehensive plans for the closer economic and strategic integration of the two countries into an American sphere of influence.

China, which has longstanding ties with Pakistan, is obviously disturbed by these developments. As Ambassador Luo told his business audience, more than 60 Chinese companies are involved in 122 projects in Pakistan. He noted the “close liaison” with Pakistan over the security of over 10,000 Chinese engineers and technical experts in the country. In fact, Beijing has previously insisted on reprisals over the abduction and killing of Chinese citizens by Pakistani militants as well as military action against Islamic Uighur separatists from western China taking refuge in Pakistan.

More fundamentally, Beijing regards Islamabad as a crucial partner in its own regional strategy. China devoted considerable resources to building up Pakistan as a counterweight to India after the 1962 Sino-Indian border war. Pakistan is the largest purchaser of Chinese arms and, according to the Pentagon, accounted for 36 percent of China’s military exports between 2003 and 2007. Chinese technical assistance was critical to Pakistan’s nuclear weapon and ballistic missile programs.

In return, China received the green light to build a major naval/commercial port facility at Gwadar, a coastal town in Baluchistan. The port is the linchpin of Beijing’s “string of pearls” strategy to establish access for its expanding navy to a series of ports along key sea routes across the Indian Ocean—above all, to protect oil and gas supplies from the Middle East and Africa. For its part, the US, which regards China as a rising economic and strategic rival, is determined to maintain its military, including naval, predominance.

US-China tensions over Pakistan only highlight the deeply destabilising role of Washington’s aggressive intervention, firstly in subjugating Afghanistan, and now in seeking to bring Pakistan more directly under its sway. The escalating conflict in Pakistan is a direct product of the US-led invasion of Afghanistan, which the Bush administration forced Pakistan to support under the threat of becoming a military target itself. Widespread opposition inside Pakistan and Afghanistan to US actions has fuelled a growing insurgency that threatens not only the US occupation of Afghanistan, but a full-scale civil war in Pakistan.

US imperialism, under the Obama administration, is determined to exploit the very disasters it has created in order to advance its strategic interests throughout the broader region, especially in energy-rich Central Asia. By doing so, Washington is fundamentally altering the precarious strategic balance and threatening to draw the other major powers into the vortex.

China is not alone in its fear of US designs in Central Asia and the presence of large numbers of foreign troops in Afghanistan. Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the US has been seeking to establish military alliances and economic ties with the newly established Central Asian Republics. Washington exploited its invasion of Afghanistan to establish military bases in Central Asia for the first time. Afghanistan and Pakistan also provided a potential alternate pipeline route to extract energy riches from the region. In response, China and Russia, which both regard the region as their backyard, came together in the Shanghai Cooperation Group to counter expanding American influence.

Neighbouring India is also watching events in Pakistan with trepidation. While quietly applauding Washington’s pressure on Islamabad to wage war against “terrorism”, New Delhi is concerned that Pakistan’s closer incorporation under the American umbrella may lead to the downgrading of the US-Indian strategic partnership, which only developed in the late 1990s. The weakening of rival Pakistan, against which India has fought three wars, is no doubt welcomed in New Delhi. But its replacement by a US client state, or worse its collapse into chaos, would only confront the Indian establishment with new uncertainties.

The entire region remains a potential powder keg. The Cold War certainties that divided the world between the Soviet and Western blocs have been replaced by new tensions and rivalries. Tentative steps by India and Pakistan to resolve their longstanding disputes, especially over Kashmir, have all but stalled. Efforts by China and India to improve relations have moved slowly. Each continues to eye the other with suspicion and to intrigue at each other’s expense in Nepal, Sri Lanka and Burma.

The most explosive ingredient in this volatile mixture is the attempt by US imperialism to use its military superiority to offset its long-term economic decline. Far from easing tensions, the installation of the Obama administration marked an aggressive new turn in the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan aimed at advancing US ambitions. Last week’s comments by China’s ambassador are another sign that Washington’s moves will not go unopposed.

By: Dr Akmal Hussain

The speech by Sufi Muhammad, leader of the Tehreek-e Nifaz-e Shariat-e Muhammadi, before a huge crowd in Mingora (Swat) last Saturday, represents a critical moment in the crisis of the Pakistani state. It clearly laid out the ideological framework within which the Taliban seek to achieve power and establish governance in Pakistan.

The Sufi specified the following six important postulates, which made clear the strategic objective of overthrowing the existing constitutional order of Pakistan:

1. He asserted that sharia (as interpreted by the Taliban) is seen as divine law.
2. He defined a Muslim not just in terms of someone who believes in the Oneness of God and the fact that Muhammad (PBUH) was the last prophet of God, but as one who supports and helps to implement the sharia.
3. He stipulated that the existing democratic order was an “un-Islamic system of the infidels” and that supporting such a system was a great sin.
4. The persistence of the “un-Islamic system of the infidels”, in his view, would destroy Pakistan and that he and his supporters would defend the country in the sense of attempting to establish their version of the sharia.
5. The superior courts of Pakistan were seen as part of the un-Islamic system of infidels and therefore rejected as institutions where legal appeals against qazi courts were to be made. Instead, he claimed that such appeals would be made before the soon to be formed institution of Darul Qaza.
6. The Nizam-e Adl (the system of justice established in Swat) as an application of the Taliban version of sharia under the “peace deal” was seen by the Sufi as only the first stage of the implementation process of sharia. According to him, sharia would be completed when it encompassed the institutional structures of Pakistan’s polity, economy and education.

These six postulates taken together constitute an ideological clarion call to all Muslims to join in the struggle of the Taliban to overthrow the existing democratic constitutional order in Pakistan for the establishment of their version of an Islamic state.

In this sense, Swat, like the other areas in the NWFP occupied and governed by various Taliban groups, is a base area from which the ideological, political and military struggle to establish a Taliban state in Pakistan is to be conducted.

Of course, the government regards the compromise in Swat as a “peace deal”, even though the TNSM has clearly stated that they will only provide peace if their version of sharia is implemented. The question is: Will they stop at Swat or pursue their broad strategic goals in the rest of Pakistan once Swat is secured?

Clearly there is a high quality military mind behind the Taliban strategy. In the first phase, large swathes of FATA were captured and a system of governance established by the Taliban at the level of a system of justice, the provision of livelihood for the poor, and a system of recruitment and military training. In the second stage, they enlarged their territorial control over some of the settled areas of the NWFP.

At the same time, guerrilla raids were conducted on key targets in the major cities of the country. The purpose was to undermine the confidence of the citizens in the ability of the state to fulfil the most basic function in terms of which it seeks legitimacy: protection of life of its citizens.

In the third stage, there is a shift from the valleys to the urban centres where strongholds have now been established. These strongholds of urban guerrillas are located in major cities such as Peshawar in the north, Lahore in the east, Multan and Karachi in the south and Quetta in the west. Pakistan is encircled by urban guerrilla forces poised to unleash mayhem of an intensity and scale unprecedented in Pakistan. If and when this happens, it could be a prelude to takeover.

The events in Swat fit a pattern of strategy that is slowly being unveiled. Only time will tell whether the Swat deal will give “peace in our time” as Chamberlain put it or will constitute what Churchill called the “end of the beginning”.

For many Pakistanis who are now leaving the country, this is the beginning of the end. It is time for the government, the military and the people of Pakistan to grasp the significance of the historic speech by Sufi Muhammad.

BY: SHIREEN M MAZARI
The big picture for Pakistan should be more visible now in terms of what the US agenda is for this country. But that agenda has been carefully operationalized since the opportunity presented itself to the US in the form of the terrorist attacks of 9/11 – in which, by the way, no Pakistani was involved. Some of us have been highlighting that agenda for some years since, and also pointing out how complicity of our leadership was a requirement for that agenda to continue moving ahead. And what is that agenda?

Clearly, it involves the US creating space within the tribal areas to move in militarily and eventually restructure the whole Muslim nuclear entity of Pakistan. Attacking civilians and thereby creating chaos and panic which would inevitably lead to a mass displacement and add to the pressure on the central government in Islamabad. Also, knowing full well – after all if we can conclude that such killings will create more space for extremists and terrorists, one can assume the US analysts and advisers must have done the same – that by unleashing a war against our tribals and abusing our sovereignty they will create more space for the terrorists; and thereby more reasons to further destabilise us from outside while we face increasing attacks from our home-grown terrorists. Let us not fool ourselves – the US is no friend but a powerful enemy and its ultimate aim is to defang us in terms of our nuclear assets. Already the statements have become more honed in terms of our nuclear assets – both directly, in terms of a bizarre fear that our nukes will fall into "terrorist" hands even though it is the US that seems to have a problem of loose nukes (remember the US planes flying with such weapons only last year?); and, indirectly, by having their politicians and some international agencies build up a crescendo of Pakistan being the most dangerous country in the world and a new "war zone".

That was the first phase of the plan for Pakistan. As the US war on terror has unfolded in our part of the world, we have suddenly seen the emergence of a Tehrik-i-Taliban, Pakistan and countless other militant groups – some of whom were raised and funded by the CIA in earlier years and may well have sustained that linkage. The most aggressively loyal Pakistanis of the tribal belt have now been turned into challengers of the writ of the Pakistani state. Is it not worth understanding why and how? We are being forced into accepting the US war now as "our war" although in reality while we are facing a severe threat from extremists and home grown terrorists, our fight against these forces has to be different from the US war on terror. That is still not our war but is in fact fuelling and aggravating our terrorist problems.

Now the US has moved to phase two where it is actually seeking direct intervention on the ground before it finally puts international pressure on us to hand over our nuclear assets – showing the world how Pakistan has indeed become a "war zone" in which the international community must intervene to take charge of the nuclear assets. Of course, the US would then offer to head such a mission. Seems far fetched? Then recheck what has been happening in terms of US policy vis a vis Pakistan since 9/11 and the statements emanating from the US at the official and media levels.

As for us Pakistanis, we are being confronted with a two-front war: against a qualitatively new terrorist threat in terms of suicide bombings and the growth of a violent extremism; and, against an indirect war being conducted by the US against our long term survival as an independent nuclear state. But, as I stated at the beginning, none of the US agenda would be feasible without the support of the Pakistani rulers. Unfortunately this support has been there from the start but now it has reached new proportions.

During the Musharraf government we were given many briefings to the effect that the US and NATO/ISAF could only intrude aerially into our space with our permission. As a perturbed pilot informed me the other day, he was shocked to learnt that apart from the UAVs flying into Pakistani air space, NATO and ISAF aircraft are flying round the clock tactical missions in Pakistan. Apparently, they have been cleared by our controllers' to fly tactical in FATA, "Pukhtunkhwa" and Balochistan. The Musharraf government had also given unprecedented access to the US in terms of bases and intelligence. But our democratic leadership has gone even further in affecting unilateral compromises, including it now appears permission to hit and kill our own people, which impact our very survival as an independent nuclear entity.

Regardless of how our own Goebbels tries to explain away the Zardari interview to the Wall Street Journal, the quotes speak for themselves and nor has a correction been sought or offered on either side. First there is the absurd style of reference President Zardari uses when talking of Pakistan and its institutions as his personal fiefdom, "my F-16s", "my security personnel" (that is the military) "my war" and so on. And of course he wants the world to "give me" $ 100 billion!

More damaging though is his declaration that not only is he "an American friend" but that the US is carrying out Predator missile strikes on Pakistani soil with his government's consent. His logic for insisting the US support his government also undermines Pakistan because he seeks to show that if he falls our nukes will fall into terrorist hands. Is this how he protects our national interests? Now if his wish of accessing our strategic institutions with his cronies and the like is fulfilled, we may as well hand over all our assets to the US – and now, by default, given the Indo-US strategic partnership, to India.

But then, they say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and it seems our president has no understanding of our history since he declares grandly, "India has never been a threat to Pakistan". Please, Ms Rehman, at least teach him some basic history and you do not have to use Pakistani sources either! As for his comment on the Indo-US nuclear deal – which even more rational US analysts have decried as a factor in upping the nuclear arms' levels in South Asia, our ignorant President sees it merely as the "largest democracy" in the world "getting friendly" with the "oldest democracy" in the world!

In fact, he sees his own country simply as a backyard to serve Indian development. As for the poor Kashmiris, they have been labelled "terrorists" for seeking liberation from Indian occupation! To our shame, a Pakistani ruler's effigy was burnt for the first time since 1979, in Baramulla town in Occupied Kashmir with 400 Kashmiris defying curfew to express their anger at the Zardari labelling of the Kashmiri freedom fighters as "terrorists". So far, Zardari has certainly been good news only for the US and India!

If Musharraf was forced to compromise with the US – although now his compromises appear miniscule when compared to what the present government is giving to the US – to ostensibly sustain himself in power then what is our present leadership so worried about in terms of the US? Are there still some dangerous skeletons despite the NRO that the US can utilise to keep the democratic dispensation in line with its eventual goal of ending the nuclear Pakistani state as we know it?

If the present trends continue we may well eventually confront a civil war across the country. This is exactly the situation the US is seeking to come in fully and set up its own quisling set up. As we and the US know, there have always been many in our leadership only too willing to play that role. As for the present leaders, their embarking on the road to power may well have been prepared in Washington, but it is Pakistan's realities that will ensure their stay in or removal from power. Can they manage to get out of the US embrace to see their own realities?

As I write these lines, somewhere in US Bush and Co are giving final touches to intended action plan against Iran . Indicators are that US is very much likely to go ahead with it’s plans within forty or fifty days from now.

Extraordinary and impressive preparations have been made for it which include strategic positioning of US forces in and around gulf and successful placing of pro US governments in countries like Germany, France and Italy (CIA, MI-8 and Mossad must have worked over time to achieve this) Additionally the strategic petroleum reserve of US has been beefed up to last for     at least three years in the event of a disruption of oil supplies. Needless to point out the horrendous impact of this enormous oil buying spree of USA on world economy. Are US’ European allies also busy storing the precious commodity for that rainy day? Sure they are.

What exactly will USA’s action against Iran be like? Will it be confined to bombing of the nuclear facilities and infrastructure alone or it will also commit it’s ground troops? In the first case US will obviously attempt to bomb Iran back to the Stone Age, causing obvious disruption to oil supplies to the countries like China in particular and Europe in general. This may well be a brief campaign spread over a couple of months. In the second case (though it seems less likely) committing ground troops will essentially mean a forced regime change and  physical occupation of Iran’s oil facilities (as in case of Iraq) leading to a  consolidation of US’ position in the region that will actually mean presence of US (or so called NATO forces) in Iran for a long time in future.

But why act against Iran at this point of time? Reasons are few but clear. One, Iran ’s becoming a symbol of defiance against US in the Muslim world is unacceptable to Zionist world. In this role Iran actually appears to have taken over the traditional role of Muslim World’s leadership from Saudi Arabia . Therefore like Libya and Iraq, Iran must also face the menace and be punished well and proper.  Two, by only targeting Iran, USA aims to achieve other strategic benefits in context to China, Asia and Middle East . And since Obama almost surely destined to win the presidential campaign, is understood to be against the plan against Iran, Bush is hell bent on fulfilling it’s commitment to Israel (and the Zionist world) before departure from white house.

One may wonder as to what can be likely reaction of China . So far Chinese leadership has resolved to confine themselves to the development of Chinese economy and look the other way when it comes to US’ adventurism. Of late it has however been visibly busy adopting measures to secure the long stretching sea lanes that remain vital for it’s ever increasing oil supplies. How far can it tolerate a direct impact on oil supplies caused by a US action against Iran remains to be seen. However an underestimation of a likely reaction by China may prove to be a very serious mistake on part of USA .

What does it all implicate for Pakistan who is already bleeding and struggling to survive in the post 9/11 times?  Just the other day Mike Mullar was here. One can safely assume what guarantees and support he may have been seeking from Pakistan besides the usual absurdity covering the so called “war on terror. “

Needless to mention the advance elements already placed in Pakistan like Helliburton, G4S and an assemblage of various NGOs that remain poised to take on an active role and keenly support US forces when time comes. These are the elements that will eventually host and facilitate launching of operations of companies like Blackwater.

An action against Iran is going to translate into compounding of Pakistan ’s wows in many ways. Rebellious Baloch Sardars are likely to be more active after discovering a larger playfield as they may be eyeing the parts of Balochistan in Iran and Afghanistan too. There will be a sure upsurge in activities of BLA and Jandullah who are already being actively supported by CIA for ulterior motives. Turmoil in NWFP is already risen way up the red marker.

In fact in the aftermath of bombing of Iran, USA is likely to create conditions that may facilitate a compromise of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal no matter what assurances Musharraf and clan give on the supposedly flawless command and control system deployed by army.

A matter of great concern is the now sure infiltration of CIA (and it’s allied agencies) into ISI that is virtually crippling it’s work in NWFP and Balochistan in particular.

With Pak Army at the advance stage of decay where it’s top brass remains busy in happy golfing and duck shooting, a corrupt bureaucracy, intellectually and morally bankrupt politicians and hapless and miserable masses…there remains almost no room for hope.

Question is where will it all stop?

USA is a hog gone berserk who will eventually meet it’s end sometime not in a very distant future. How far it will succeed in ravaging the country after country in the Muslim world cannot be said for sure because it is not likely to stop after complete destruction of Iran or even Pakistan. Countries like Malaysia and Indonesia and Saudi Arabia lie further up it’s path.

Muslim world has no choice in the face of this nuisance but fight back. To survive it must resist the ugly monster or perish. At the end of the day it’s the sons of soil, the poorest of poor, the oppressed and the beleaguered the likes of Taliban, that will take up the final fight and do the job,for it’s from the ashes and despair, a new flame of potent resistance will finally appear that will consume this menace called USA.

There is nothing more dangerous than a resourceful idiot ….Scott Adams

Is Mr. Bush the idiot who attempts to be resourceful at the expense of world citizenry?

The Bush White House with its democratic war doctrine has threatened world peace and by using coercion and threat of war is bent on depriving Iran of civilian nuclear technology, even though Iran has not violated the NPT. Yet, in a move that defies all logic, Mr. Bush has offered Saudi Arabia nuclear technology. Given the Kingdom's past attempts to gain access to nuclear weapons and its record on human rights violations, either his sanity is questionable or his motives.

According to documents released from the British National Archives under the 30 year rule (dated December 12, 1973 and marked 'UK Eyes Alpha'), it was revealed that after the 1973 war, "[that] British intelligence believed the United States was ready to take military action" that is, invade, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, "to prevent further disruption to oil supplies" and "to secure control of their oil fields".  The jittery Saudis, cognizant of a possible future invasion, offered to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq's Osirak-reactor which was destructed by Israel in 1981. As late as 1985 Iraqi and Saudi military and nuclear experts were co-operating closely, the extent of which cooperation included sending Saudi nuclear scientists to Baghdad for months of training.

Between 1985 and 1990, up to the time Saddam invaded Kuwait , payments were made on condition that some of the bombs be transferred to the Saudi arsenal. Muhammad Khilewi, the second-in-command of the Saudi mission to the United Nations Khilewi brought with him more than 10,000 documents he obtained from the Saudi Arabian Embassy. The cache included transcripts of a secret desert meeting between Saudi and Iraqi military teams a year before the invasion of Kuwait . The transcripts depict the Saudis funding the nuclear program and handing over specialized equipment that Iraq could not have obtained elsewhere.

The defector's documents also showed that Riyadh had paid for Pakistan's bomb project and signed a pact that if Saudi Arabia were attacked with nuclear weapons, Pakistan would respond against the aggressor with its own nuclear arsenal. What Khilewi did not know was that the Fahd-Saddam nuclear project was also a closely held secret in Washington . According to a former high-ranking American diplomat, the CIA was fully apprised. The funding stopped only at the outbreak of the Gulf War in 1991. The fact that the CIA was aware of this, could explain why Khilewi was not granted federal protection when he abandoned his UN post and became an opponent in late June 1994.

Given that Saudi Arabia is a pariah state like Israel and attempted to obtain a nuclear bomb, much like Israel , perhaps the logic lies in their penchant for democracy that makes it acceptable for Bush to give them nuclear technology. Israel , a democracy for Jews only, violates the rights of Muslims and Christians, the latest such incident being orthodox Jews setting fire to hundreds of copies of the New Testament in an act of violence against Christian missionaries. Saudi Arabia has no tolerance for any religion other than Islam. In that women have no rights and political dissent is punishable in Saudi Arabia, should not stand in the way of this ally having a nuke; especially since their backdoor friendship with Israel is invaluable.

Aside from the glamorous Plaza hotel in N.Y., co-owned by Israel 's Elad Group and the Saudi-based Kingdom Holding Co., the neoconservative's propaganda machine certainly makes the Saudis a trustworthy partner – in some corners. In early September 2005, Bin Talal bought 5.46% of voting shares in News Corp. This made the Fifth richest man on the Forbes World's Richest People, the fourth largest voting shareholder in News Corp., the parent of Fox News. News Corp. is the world's leading newspaper publisher in English. Saudi Prince al-Waleed bin Talal boasted in Dubai his ability to change the news content that viewers around the world see on television. No doubt with their nukes, they will be able to change a great deal more! The pertinent question is, what has been changed thus far for this White House to give nukes to an oppressive regime, known to have pursued nuclear bombs, and with a history of terrorism, be it training the Taliban or allegedly, or to have a tendency to send over terrorists, the 15 or the 19 hijackers on 9/11 and spread Wahhabism?

In 2004, after the illegal invasion of Iraq , a foundation was created and controlled by a consortium in which the key players were the Carlyle Group and the Albright Group. The purpose of the consortium was to secretly transfer some $57billion Iraqi debt owed to the government of Kuwait after the invasion. Under this deal, $2billion would be given to the consortium with half of it going to Carlyle. This was not an easy task as the time the world was willing to forgive Iraq's debt for reconstruction and the consortium had offered to use its 'influence' to 'maximize Kuwait 's debt collection (Nation). Carlyle's benefits were endless.

During the 2006 war, while Israel bombed Lebanon, Carlyle profited greatly – as did the Saudis, the U.S. , and of course, Israeli. The systematic destruction [of the Middle East 's only democracy] translated into significant opportunity for the Carlyle Group and with the 'crisis, they announced a $1.3 billion fund for investment in the region. They were not alone. The rush was on. The big investment banks -- Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers – all increased their presence in the region. Israel, the perpetrator as the benefactor, received an increase of USD 500 million additional in aid package from the U.S. in September of the same year (Ynet news).

And was it not wondrous indeed that John Bolton was able to hold off the United Nations Security Council for 33 days and nights before a cease-fire could finally be declared?

Perhaps for more importantly for the Bush administration and Israeli hardliners, the Saudi rulers are fulfilling their ultimate desire – the destruction if Islam. These fanatic Wahhabis are destroying the birth place of Mohammad and all traces of it, and replacing it with parking lots. The same oil-rich orthodoxy that pumped money into the Taliban as they prepared to destroy the Bamiyan buddhas in 2000 is now destroying Islam's two holiest cities, Mecca and Medina, which date back to the lifetime of the Prophet Mohammad1,400 years ago. This is the highest cooperation possible from an ally, well deserving of nukes.

While the Saudis are being rewarded for their cooperation, they must remember that prior to the 1979 Iranian revolution, the Shah was an ally who cooperated with the United States and Israel . His oppressive regime was given nuclear technology too. Today, in spite of its peaceful use, the civilian technology is being used to declare war on Iran . The Saudis who are fond of $5 million diamond covered Mercedes while the Palestinians are being incarcerated and starved, should be mindful their friendship will not be for long. After all, they are sitting on top of the world's biggest oil reserve; and Mr. Bush is not the idiot we think he is.

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is an Iranian-American studying at the University of Southern California , Los Angeles . She is a member of World Association of International Studies society, Stanford. Her research focus is U.S. foreign policy and the influence of lobby groups. She is a peace activist, essayist, radio commentator and public speaker.

BY: MUHAMMAD DAUD MIRAKI, Director Afghan DU & Recovery Fund
It is interesting that people describe different periods in history with existing adjectives in use in each respective period. To judge an era as either beneficial or harmful, people in different periods in time used their respective linguistic terms such as good, comfortable, bad and evil describing the ambiance created by a regime, ruler or empire. Rarely, have people resorted to events as descriptive indicators of their experience in a particular period in time; instead, they used linguistic means, namely, adjectives in describing some period in history as either good or bad. The reason for this is that each period in history has established terminology in use denoting the events, phenomena and social reality around them. For example, the Stalin era could easily be described by words such as evil, or Stalin and his crimes could easily be viewed as manifestation of evil. Although American academics of the Jewish faith have used 'holocaust' describing the mass murders of Stalin's era as a type of descriptive synonym equivalent to the Jewish experience under the Nazis. To my knowledge, no one has used one current event or social phenomenon in place of existing adjective as a type of antonym trying to describe another current event, until now. The reason that compels me to do so in this paper stems from the ineffectiveness of adjectives in describing our current state of affairs.

The boundless murders committed by the government of the United States under variously false pretexts make the government of the United States and its armed forces 'Killers without Borders'. The group that I chose to use as an antonym in describing the heinousness of the United States crimes worldwide is 'Doctors without Borders'. The reason I chose this group to serve as an antonym in this essay is rather straightforward. That is, 'Doctors without Borders' engage in benevolence with the sole purpose of saving lives irrespective of national borders, while, the US policy makers and armed forces serve as 'Killers without Borders' ready to murder innocent people without the slightest regard to basic human decency, national sovereignty or official borders.

The group 'Doctors without Borders' as its name connotes are doctors who do not value political and geographic borders in bringing life saving treatments and medicines to the needy whenever violence and disease have taken their toll on the poor and the disenfranchised. There are no material gains for these selfless doctors except the intangibles, feeling that they have done something good and decent amidst vast indecency in the world today. This group does not care about peoples' political affiliations, religious beliefs, national origin or ethnic descent. After all decency does not recognize the world in such clear terms as the evil portrayed and perpetrated by the United States of America. The government of the United States with the blessing of majority of its people 52% voting for Bush---have chosen the role of a gigantic mass killer aimed at satisfying its lust for material gains and imposing sheer pain on other people, who choose to be different.

Similar to 'Doctors without Borders', the United States does not recognize borders, however, contrary to the 'Doctors without Borders', the US does not aim at helping the poor and the needy, instead, it targets the weak militarily, depriving people of lives worldwide under the false banner of democracy and liberation.

Strategies of the Killers Without Borders

The Uniquely effective Use of the Word 'Democracy' : The significance of language as the crucial tool in human existence can not be looked at as a mere tool of communication. Language does not only serve as a tool of communication, but it also plays a crucial role as a major component of social structure. What I mean by social structure is any relatively stable pattern of social behavior. Hence, the function of language is much broader than is apparent at the outset. It is essential to realize that language is the tool of socialization and an effective tool of dissemination and diffusion of culture. Since culture does not remain still, the agents of socialization along with tools of socialization adjust accordingly. Agents of socialization are families, schools, peer groups, and media; they change with the passage of time as is evident for every adult in his/her middle age. What used to be 'cool' at their youth is no longer cool at adulthood. The use and meaning of some words are appropriate at certain point in one's life, but they lose their meaning from the intended with passage of years and decades. This is especially true for various descriptive jargons and phrases used by colonial powers describing their political and economic intent of subjugation of the conquered people in different parts of the world. For example, when Napoleon entered Egypt, he portrayed himself as someone who had come to civilize the Egyptian or for that matter any other people. Hence, Napoleon saw himself as a liberator than an occupier. The pertinent phrases of the early European powers were christianization and civilization. These words were appropriate from the perspective of the colonial powers in that time, after all, 'what was good for the Europeans had to be good for everybody else in the world'. Thus, the imposition of values and denigration of other cultures and religions are nothing unique to the current global hegemon, the United States, but rather inherited from its European predecessors.

With the advent of the British Empire, the above-mentioned phrases were still in use but were used selectively in different parts of the world. For example, in regions where Islam was the dominant religion the phrase christianization would be dropped and instead, they would use the phrase civilization and modernization, respectively. Slowly, civilization as the choice jargon would be almost entirely replaced by modernization and modernity and technology. Incidentally, every colonial power's aim was to obtain raw materials from the conquered regions, and then the resultant manufactured goods would be transported back to the conquered regions and sold to the populations there. What could be more profitable than this, especially, when raw natural resources are secured for free? It is worth mentioning that the British would also employ the corrupt elite in the conquered lands and use these influential locals as front in dealing with the population. Today, we see the same thing with a different form.

The United States copied some of the methods of the British; however, the US is much more efficient in portraying falsehood under the guise of phrases that are valued every where. As I mentioned that different deceptive phrases were used by colonial powers in different times and places, the phrases the US chose are democracy, liberty and freedom. These phrases are significant worldwide and transcend national borders and different regions. After all, these phrases envisage fundamental human necessities and god granted rights. However, these phrases would not find meaning unless presented in tangible manner to the conquered people and people worldwide. This is when local puppets from the region that have sold out and chose to exchange their dignity for some dirty dollars and authority, become tools of dissemination and diffusion of falsehood. This is similar to the British practice, but much more sophisticated. The sophistication of the mechanism the US uses is not really the invention of the United States but rather it is the consequence of globalization, which made travel from different parts of the world easy and facilitated opportunities for foreign nationals to receive education or seek employment. These foreign nationals became ideal instruments of manipulation. Although they chose to sell themselves out for prospects of power and money, they also serve as an effective smoke screen for the conquered region. For example, in Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, who was an asset of the US intelligence agencies, the CIA especially, served as a tool of the US hegemony; thus, he provided the tangibility needed behind the phrases democracy, liberty, and freedom.

How this works is rather effective. The effectiveness is two folds and has two groups of consumers, local and global.

1) The use of the word democracy manifests legitimacy in the eyes of subjugated local people and portrays a glimpse of hope for the future of local people. This is especially true when the subjected population has suffered either from induced civil wars, such as in Afghanistan orchestrated by the CIA after 1992 or from US installed and supported dictators, such as Saddam Hussein of Iraq.

2) The US attempts to use democracy as a vehicle of legitimacy to audience worldwide as if though people worldwide were ignorant had narrow sources of information as do Americans by being glued to their television sets.

The appointment of Karzai in Afghanistan and Alawi in Iraq are portrayed to the world as fruits of US foreign policy success. Now let's explore what these fruits of democracy have brought to their respective regions.

In Afghanistan, there are thousands more widows today than there were before the US invasion. There are more than 32,000 Afghan civilians - a conservative number - who have lost their lives to the US bombing. This number reflects only those victims who lost their lives from October 7, 2001 to the first three months of 2002. Moreover, there are thousands more orphans today than before the US invasion. These orphans are roaming Afghan streets and alleys, sleeping in cemeteries and bombed buildings, only to die from cold weather and disease. The other dreadful consequence for these orphans is the high rate of kidnapping. These orphans are kidnapped and then sold into slavery and prostitution or they serve as candidates for harvesting human organs to be sold to the highest bidder. Orphans are not the only ones that are kidnapped, but rather, due to the insecurity in different parts of the country, criminals target children of various backgrounds for these heinous purposes. Another tragedy that dwarfs all others is the heavy contamination of Afghanistan with uranium isotopes after the US used bunker-buster bombs and cannons using uranium projectiles. This incidentally is the "gift" that keeps on giving since uranium has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, a perpetual death sentence has been imposed on the entire nation.

Words to Convey Action: Besides being a tool of communications, language also serves as the most effective tool in conveying action. After all had it not been for language how would one distinguish an evil deed from a good one? Incidentally, it brings fort the argument of chicken and egg, whether language existed first or actions and circumstances contributed to the evolution of language. This essay is certainly not the place to argue the anthropological and philosophical aspects of this issue. However, some individuals argue that action itself is a tool of communication. If this assertion were true, could one imagine what would one person do in order to show another person to distinguish a good deed from an evil one? Perhaps, the first person would have to kill another person to convey evil, while feed another to envisage what he/she means by good. But thankfully, we have been blessed with languages as effective tools of communications.

In addition to the primary function of language, language also serves as a vehicle for the conveyance of action through the use of common as well as technical words. These words could convey action either explicitly or implicitly. We use and interpret action from spoken words on daily basis. For example, if I said that I will drive to nearby town, I have explicitly expressed my intentions, however, if I said, the nearby town is a good place to work, the listeners could deduce that I might be looking for work in the nearby town. Moreover, one needs not to use long sentences to illustrate a particular action; instead, an effective use of key words is ample to establish an intended action. This is evident in the rhetoric of this administration trying to envisage righteousness. When GW Bush used the word tyranny in his speech, he wanted to imply to the public that his actions are those of a liberator not of an oppressor. Bush and his flock of cowards used the biblical words of good and evil in his first term, again trying to distinguish himself as a god-fearing man going after evil individuals.

The continuous use of these words has conditioned the American public in an effective manner. Since Americans are glued to their television sets and their entire worldview comes from television, they become truly the ideal mass sheep to be conditioned and used in ways that they would not acknowledge being part of.

Shameless Media Pundits: The most complicit in this global murder is the US corporate media and the shameless so-called journalists and experts. Sometimes one can not help but to ask how degrading a human being becomes in order to earn a living. Perhaps, earning a living is not the issue, but rather being part of a mass deception is a complex game of flawed semblance and semantics. But amidst this tragedy of murder and deception, one discovers how low a massive industry and individuals stoop for material gains. This fact becomes apparent when reporters from large media outlets and newspapers talk on shows or express themselves in writing.

Incidentally, I was watching the Charlie Rose Show when Thomas Freedman of the New York Times appeared on his show to discuss the Iraqi election. When he was talking about the United States occupation of Iraq, he would use his index fingers in the air to present occupation in a quotation mark, illustrating as if this "occupation" is not really "occupation" but rather liberation, yes liberation. Furthermore, the same cowards of the US and Western media would not dare to report facts, in fact, they are the vehicles whereupon the conditioning mechanism succeeds in this country. This, off course, does not exonerate the American consumers; after all, they have alternative media Internet, library, but more than anything else they have their brain to rely on.

When the CIA dog, Johnny Spann lost his life in the prison uprising in Northern Afghanistan, the media was talking about this character continuously. In fact, his widow was invited to the State of the Union. When confronted by reporters, the family of this CIA agent wished the other American, John Walker Lindh - 'the American Taliban' - to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. These people fail to realize what was their son the CIA agent - doing in Afghanistan in the first place? Perhaps, one of the readers would say that the reason US invaded Afghanistan was because Bin Laden attacked the US, and the Taliban gave him sanctuary. There is no need for me to debate that point here. Those that are curious should know that it is amply established that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were part of an inside job aimed at facilitating global hegemony. But the US media could care less that more than 1200 young men were slaughtered by the US B-52 bombing in the prison uprising and another 3500 lost their lives by being sealed into transport containers in northern Afghanistan. The containers were shot when the prisoners screamed for air and water, and their bodies were dumped in Dasht-e-Lailia desert in Northern Afghanistan.

Another example of media's cowardliness is the reporting of conflict in Palestine. When Israelis entered the Jenin Refugee Camp, where they killed civilians, destroyed their houses and deprived them of food and water, the coward media outlets were exhibiting sorrow for the loss of 13 Israeli soldiers, not the poor Palestinian refugees. This discussion went on until the Palestinian spokeswoman Hanan Ashrawi was shocked and questioned the decency of the television reporter and other American analysts on that show. This dirty game wherein Muslim men and women lose their lives in the hands of few mass murderers in Washington and London is a well calculated scheme concocted by morally corrupt academics at US academic institutions in order to justify what amounts to world domination.

Corruption As An Effective Tool: Moreover, another ironic tool that these Killers without Borders, use is that of corruption. It is a sociological fact that in order to control a family, one has to introduce corruption into the family and expose the family members to corrupt and degenerative behavior. Once that occurs, the family disintegrates by itself. Hence, corruption and collapse of moral values serve instruments of family disintegration. Family disintegration brings about what the 19th century French Sociologist Emile Durkheim would refer to as anomie. This is especially true in Kabul. The use of money and consumerism and opportunities for prostitution, drinking, gambling and other degenerate activities have brought about textbook sociological situations that have facilitated the disintegration of the basic institution of society, namely family.

This method is very effective among the Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara minority communities. The reason for the failure of the material enticement among the Pashtuns Afghans Afghanistan’s major ethnic group is the strong traditional family values and the rigid enforcement of those values among Pashtun households. For example, if a Pashtun woman compromised her dignity, the only outcome she would certainly encounter would be death because indignity is one among a handful things Pashtuns can not tolerate in their lives, and that is why, they are very protective of the female members of their family.

The classic mechanism the Americans and their coward allies use is the mechanism of luring females into training and job creation. Most of the time these women would end up in a US military base where they supposedly would get training, instead, they encounter funsex, drinking and partying. Tajiks are extremely susceptible to the aforementioned degenerate activities, but they also include Uzbek, Qazel Bash, and a few Hazara women.

There are 5 to 6 porn cable television channels free of charge available from 11 PM until 6 AM. The youngsters watch these movies and become immune to the whole notion of immorality associated with such behaviors. In addition, prostitute houses from India, Turkey, China and Thailand among others opened outlets in Kabul. These prostitute houses facilitate opportunities for young men who watch porn on television, to try to rob or engage in some other deviant behavior to come up with the needed money for attending these brothels.

The magnitude of deviation and corruption is so acute that no where in the world has the sex pill Viagra been so much in demand as in Kabul. Furthermore, condom manufacturers have sponsored radio station in order to increase its sale margin. The best democracy one could fuck, as one individual said.

Divide & Conquer - Another Tool: The instrument of divide and conquer is also employed in Afghanistan that is evident in the rhetoric of Karzai and his American handlers in naming some Taliban as moderate while others as extremists. It is also important to keep in mind that the Americans used the principle of divide and conquer effectively in using one ethnic group against another whereby they put in motion the electoral processes. In order to understand how these processes were put in motion some concise background is in order. Since Afghanistan is a multiethnic society, the fear of domination of one ethnic group over the other serves as an effective tool in luring ethnic groups to engage in actions that would impede the other ethnic groups from undermining their rights.

After the fall of the Soviet installed puppet regime in 1992, the subsequent infighting was fought along ethnic lines, although for strategic purposes alliances between opposing ethnic groups did take place. However, for the most part, the minority groups Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara dominated the post-1992 government in Kabul, and they resorted to targeting the Pashtun population in Kabul and in the north; thus, undermining them as a majority. Although Pashtuns also took to revenge and retaliatory measures during this era, which was followed by the emergence of Taliban as a reaction to the blatant violations committed by the minority groups. This period struck a severe blow to the Pashtuns' ego and their pride. The situation became worse when the Taliban regime collapsed. This was yet another blow to the Pashtuns' identity, especially that the Northern Alliance--composed of the same minority ethnic groups that dominated the post-1992 regime--played a key role in the US anti-Taliban campaign. The Bush administration took advantage of the dynamics at hand and played the majority against the minorities and vice versa. In light of the lengthy hostilities, Pashtuns had to 'sell their soul to the devil' and participate in the mock election and vote for the puppet Hamid Karzai even though he is America's stooge. The difficult decision Pashtuns in Afghanistan took was based on keeping the minorities at bay; otherwise, the minorities would have occupied the position of authority. This was indeed the proverbial double edge sword.

Therefore, inter-group conflicts along the mocked symbols of legitimacy, namely, election/democracy and the blunt use of force are some of the tricks of these 'Killers without Borders'.

However, the US officials are quite amateurish in their view of Afghanistan; they fail to comprehend Afghan history. For a foreign power to fail and bog down in Afghanistan, there need not be large armies of resistance, instead, effective groups of resistance break foreign enemies incrementally through attrition until they are too frail to get up.

The situation in Iraq is equally dim. According to a study by the British Journal of Medicine, the Lancet, more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians lost their lives subsequent to the US-British invasion of Iraq. In addition, thousands of widows and orphans are the byproduct of this cowardly invasion. Though the uranium contamination was prevalent after the first Gulf War, it has become much worse after this second invasion and occupation. Iraqi women are forced into prostitution either by hunger and homelessness brought on by the US. Criminal elements roam around the country eager to make money even if they sell women's dignity. Oh, I almost forgot, this should not matter to the US since this is considered freedom for women and women rights. Another uncharacteristic situation in Iraq has been the widespread sale and use of illicit drugs. There were never any trade or consumption of illicit drugs in Iraq. On the same token, opium and heroin were wiped out by religious decree under the Taliban regime, but now, drug production in Afghanistan has gone up exponentially alarming the United Nations to the extent to forecast a dim future for Afghanistan since it had edged upon becoming a narco-state. The drugs produced in Afghanistan, are transported by the US intelligence and military agencies to different parts of the world including Iraq, where a drugs market has emerged that serves not only Iraqi addicts but also transported to the Gulf States including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other oil rich nations.

Why Killers Without Borders?  The reason I chose to call this article 'Killers without Borders' stems from the methods of killings. These methods are as follows:

1. The invasion of another sovereign nation is the blatant violation of international law, which the US government has no regards for. Since the fall of the former Soviet Union, the US has become the sole superpower. This status entails military, economic and consequently political weights. As usual, the US abuses its economic and military power for political gains in the United Nations as it was apparent in the wake of the Iraq war. At that time, the Bush administration was blatantly intimidating and bribing smaller nations and fail to even acknowledge the existence of its European allies. In the European arena, Bush's poodle, Tony Blair did the necessary barking. It is important to keep in mind that it is no surprise that the US is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court; had it been a signatory to the court, the US government would have been one of the most visible defendants tried for war crimes.

2. The second aspect is dependent upon the first one for the most part. Due to the economic and military might of the United States, other nations are eager to accommodate their airspace for the US fighter jets and rockets. Some nation-states such as Pakistan--which is nothing but an overused and undervalued prostitute pleasing the US government--would not even require the US armed forces to ask for permission. Therefore, the US jet fighters and tomahawk missiles crisscross national borders as if they did not exist. After all, 'everyone' wants to be on the good side of the global killer.

3. In this process to please the US's imperialist ventures, smaller nations target their own citizens suspected to be against the American aggression. This was especially evident in the case of Pakistan. As I mentioned, Pakistan as a country and its establishment constitute the omnipresent prostitute to please the US government. Thus, it was no surprise when a US State Department official stated publicly that a Pakistani would sell his mother for a few dollars.

4. The fourth characteristic of the 'Killers without Borders' is the facilitation of opportunities for other corrupt regimes to oppress domestic opposition and murder many under the rubric of some concocted legitimacy. For example, in light of the so-called 'war on terror', regimes worldwide have found easy ways to get rid of individuals deemed political troublemakers. The government of Uzbekistan, China, Russia and Algiers have used the label of the war on terror, to suppress and prosecute oppositions.

5. The fifth aspect of the 'Killers without Borders' is the use of the weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Specifically, the use of uranium munitions--bunker-buster bombs, canon rounds and projectiles--not only contaminate the land where they are used but also contaminate neighboring countries. Since uranium alloy used in these weapons pulverizes upon impact, it becomes aerosol. This way the dust becomes susceptible to wind pattern and water flow. Since wind and water are not confined to a geographic area bound by political borders, people across borders become ill and die.

6. The US's indiscriminate bombings force people to abandon their homelands and become refugees in a neighboring countries. In the process of displacement, refugees die on all sides of borders, as it was evident in the case of Afghanistan when the US started bombing. Furthermore, for the thousands forced to flee their homes, survival becomes the only issue. Hence, to survive, people resort to disparate actions, which sometimes result in the loss of lives in the host country. So, death is brought upon the victim population in different forms.

Killers share certain universal characteristics--by no means exhaustive--that include disregard for the victim, considering the victim less human, rationalizing their crimes among many other characteristics. A killer could have many motives for perpetrating his/her inhumane and gruesome action. The motives could initially not be murder but rather another degenerate undertaking such as robbery, sexual attack, or simply an argument had gone sour and the individual enraged and reacted in an miscalculated manner, killing the other individual. When there are actual motives for murder, they could range from revenge to utter hatred of the targeted person. In some instances, an individual might be a psychotic, and some schizophrenic urges might have resulted in heinous actions. The above-mentioned scenarios would happen in a defined geographic location, wherein the offender(s) might reside. The crime committed by individuals in their own respective enclaves, confine them within the bounds of legal infrastructure of that enclave. When murder is committed in a defined geographic location, the offender could be held accountable for committing murder under defined local laws. The guilt of the person is defined by the action of murder alone. In the case of the United States, the mechanism of murder is obviously different but is also heinous, complex and boundless, and is not subject to any legal imperatives since it does not value any rule of law including its own.

Hence, the US forces and supporters as 'Killers without Borders' are different from common murderers in certain specific ways. It is worth mentioning that this list is no means exhaustive.

First, the perpetration of murder by the United States is indiscriminate, brutal, and recognizes no geographic boundaries. For example, the US mercenary murderers commit their murders by targeting large number of people in a locality, followed by targeting those civilian rescuers that would attempt to help the victims of the first wave of attacks.

This practice was witnessed and reported by the UN officials and condemned when the US armed forces targeted Afghan civilians.

During the month of December, 2001, another liberation attempt was carried out by the 'brave' men of the US armed forces when they killed 52 civilians, mostly women and children in the village of Niazi Qala in Paktia province. The British newspaper, The Time published the following account of the tragedy:

"non-combatant women and children were chased and killed by U.S. helicopters during an attack on an Afghan village that left 52 dead."

According to the newspaper, in the initial strike in this village 10 women and 25 children were reported killed but later, a UN spokesperson, Stephanie Bunker said:

"After the women and children were killed in the village, a second group of civilians fled the attack and were gunned down by U.S. helicopters. All fifteen of the fleeing villagers were killed. A third group of civilians, who were trying to rescue survivors, was also killed by the U.S. military according to Ms. Bunker."

Similarly, in Jalal Abad, when the US jets bombed a mosque where people were praying, many civilians were killed at the entrance of the mosque. The survivors ran to help the wounded, however, it was not long before they were also targeted and became added numbers of collateral damage. The US forces use this practice of mass murder also in Iraq.

Second, the murders are not perpetrated in a defined time and space, but rather the use of the weapons in the murders leaves a legacy of perpetual death--killing for generations to come. This aspect of the crime of these 'Killers without Borders' is the most dreadful and heinous of all. The US armed forces rely heavily on uranium munitions. They use bunker buster bombs made of uranium alloy dropped by fighters jets and bombers, and uranium projectiles fired from the A-10 warthogs and AC-130 gunships. The heinous nature of murder through these weapons of mass destruction becomes evident in all sphere of the targeted population. In Afghanistan, the US use of bunker buster bombs has made the mountainous regions of east, southeast and southwestern parts of the country uninhabitable.

Third, the murders are committed in a very uneven plain field, wherein the victim is absolutely devoid of any means of self defense, while the US killers do not look at the nameless faces of their victims because these murderers are too much of cowards to fight face to face. Instead, they kill from 35,000 feet using B-52s.

Fourth, despite the heinousness of their crimes, the US killers are shameless to even admit their wrongdoing; on the contrary, they label their murders with descriptive terms such as liberation, freedom and democracy. In fact, after murdering thousands of innocent people, the United States wants and expects the targeted nation to acknowledge gratitude for bringing them democracy. This dirty public relation job is left to the puppets they put in place such as Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan and Allawi in Iraq.

Fifth, the US killers - Killers without Borders - unlike individual murderers in society refer to their victims as objects, namely collateral damage. Contrary to individual murderers when caught by law enforcement apologize in the sentencing phase, the US murderous government does not show any remorse. Instead, it usually releases statements barely touching the issue. For example, a White House spokesperson would say, "the United States regrets any loss of innocent life." Incidentally, when the surviving family members approach US officials asking for compensation, they are literally pushed away. For example, when widows and children approached the US embassy in Kabul expecting to be compensated for the loss of their homes---not family members---the US military personnel pushed them away.

Sixth, in countries such as Afghanistan where dignity dictates daily life, a murderer intent on taking revenge would not go after some body,s female family members because it is considered an indignity. The US mercenary murderers, who kill for money, and do not know anything about dignity, had taken Iraqi women hostage in order to force male family members to surrender. For example, in Fallujah, Iraq, the US coward armed forces went to arrest a young man who led local insurgents, however, he was not home. This prompted the US armed forces to drag the Iraqi man's sister, a young woman named Fatimah. The reason for Fatimah's arrest was to force her brother to put down arms and surrender. In the process, Fatimah along with other women in Abu Ghraib prison was raped many times. Until she wrote a letter and secretly passed it to the resistance through a third party. In that letter, she said the following:

"My brother Mujahideen in the path of God! What can I say to you? I say to you: our wombs have been filled with the children of fornication by those sons of apes and pigs who raped us. Or I could tell you that they have defaced our bodies, spit in our faces, and tore up the little copies of the Qur'an that hung around our necks? God is greatest! Can you not comprehend our situation? Is it true that you do not know what is happening to us? We are your sisters. God will be calling you to account about this tomorrow."

She continued,

"By God, we have not passed one night since we have been in prison without one of the apes and pigs jumping down upon us to rip our bodies apart with his overweening lust. And we are the ones who had guarded our virginity out of fear of God. Fear God! Kill us along with them! Destroy us along with them! Don't leave us here to let them get pleasure from raping us! It will be an act to ennoble the Throne of Almighty God. Fear God regarding us! Leave their tanks and aircraft outside. Come at us here in the prison of Abu Ghurayb."

The poor soul concludes with the following plea:

"I am your sister in God (Fatimah). They raped me on one day more than nine times. Can you comprehend? Imagine one of your sisters being raped. Why can't you all imagine it, as I am your sister. With me are 13 girls, all unmarried. All have been raped before the eyes and ears of everyone.

They won't let us pray. They took our clothes and won't let us get dressed. As I write this letter one of the girls has committed suicide. She was savagely raped. A soldier hit her on her chest and thigh after raping her. He subjected her to unbelievable torture. She beat her head against the wall of the cell until she died, for she couldn't take any more, even though suicide is forbidden in Islam. But I excuse that girl. I have hope that God will forgive her, because He is the Most Merciful of all.

Brothers, I tell you again, fear God! Kill us with them so that we might be at peace. Help! Help! Help! WaMu'tasimah!"

As a result of the emotional letter from Fatimah, her brother targeted the Abu Graib prison with rockets killing 68 American soldiers including Fatimah and other prisoners. At last, Fatimah's wish of welcoming death over the indignity that was brought upon her and other females by these Killers without Borders, the Americans.

In light of the crimes of these killers and the scope of their exploitation worldwide, the question to ask is what could be done. In the case of common murderers, law enforcement officials and police look for culprits and eventually bring them to face the consequences of their crimes. In this case, who is going to bring the US armed mercenary cowards to justice, and who is going to bring the people of this country at the least the 52% of them to justice and hold them accountable. The answer is simple, no one can because the victim nations do not have a comparable military force to take revenge; the United Nations-- and its coward Secretary General is instrument of the US's legitimacy. In fact, the misuse of international law and the United Nations as a rubber stamp are some of the ways the United States want to fool the world. Furthermore, the US refuses to become a signatory to the Court in Hague because the US government realizes that its soldiers and officials would be summoned to face their victims.

Thus, the alternative is to resort to improvisation, a poor man's weapon since the dawn of time. This improvisation is referred to as terrorism and the US and her allies saw to it to use the UN equally effective to tackle the issue of "terrorism."

Again, my question is what is the alternative? Let, me guess, write letters of complain, Right!! No, the only way a beast could be stopped in its tracks to force it to stop after all a beast does not listen to reason, if it cared about reason, would it commit such heinous crimes? Off course, not. Professor Ward Churchill provided the answer to this question, when he said that "the US needs more 911s."

Well, I have news to the United States and her government, you have dug a nasty deep hole for other people simply for being different, but be assured that you will end up in that hole and remain there until disintegrate. No one needs to do that; you as country are doing it to yourself. Everyone in the world is a spectator standing on the sideline, watching the last crawl of the United States until it crumbles.

Now let me touch upon the noble and selfless deeds of the Doctors without Borders and see how it stands against the actions of the Killers without Borders, the answer is simple. The actions of Doctors without Borders signify the best of humanity whereas those of the Killers without Borders are the lowest humanity could stoop to.

Yet another brilliant article by Dr Mazari, highlighting how a compromise of Pakistan's sovereignity is being very brazenly facilitated by incompetent Pakistan governmet. How the new prime minister and his cabinet views these advancements and what is their aproach towards checking this dangerous trend is yet to be seen. Indicators are not very encouraging, though. It is obvious that these dwarfs are only busy killing their time in tackling the matters of a lesser importance and are incapable of objectively assessing the present threat to Pakistan's very existence.

BY: SHIREEN M MAZARI
While the nation continues to watch the "back and forth" drama over the restoration of the judges issue, increasingly aware of where it will all end; and while the poor look beyond the judicial issue to the basics of survival in the face of rising costs of staple food and utilities; scant attention is being paid to the rapid threats to the country's sovereignty that are emerging from different quarters that are linked together in an overarching strategic partnership – that is India and the US with the UK an avid supporter. If one only examines events that took place April 23 to April 29 and connects them up, it becomes clear that either by default or by design Pakistan is in danger of losing its sovereignty.

To begin with, take the incident of April 23 when NATO forces (actually US forces) along with some Afghan soldiers attacked FC posts in Bajaur Agency. What is intriguing is the way in which this direct assault on the country's sovereignty was explained away. First we were told that it was a misunderstanding. Then some of us were told that in fact this action was in response to firing from across our side of the international Pakistan-Afghan border.

However, on exploring further it transpires that the firing from our side took place a day earlier so the violence from the US troops was not an immediate response to the firing -- although it is difficult in any case to actually assess the exact spot of the initial firing given the nature of the border. Instead, this was a pre-planned operation, conducted a day later, targeting our FC posts at a time when there were a few FC personnel on duty, and involved 600 US troops along with Afghan soldiers as well as helicopter gunships and tanks! Also, the attack continued for a fair length of time so that the FC was able to call in reinforcements -- again not simply an immediate response to fire from militants! Instead, it seems the US military deliberately targeted our paramilitary forces – to teach them some sort of "lesson".

Interestingly, this attack came a few days after reports that US commanders were seeking to widen their attacks inside Pakistan . Worse still, some of our border posts were occupied by the US-Afghan combine -- but we kept quiet and there was no contemplated retaliation. Why?

Now we hear that the peace talks with our tribal people are breaking down. Clearly a mischievous hand can be discerned, especially when one sees the bizarre story of a handbill being circulated in Peshawar inviting people to join the Taliban. The Taliban have denied the authenticity and, on this count, they are probably right because the language being used -- for instance the words "Janat ka direct ticket" -- is more in line with western advertising ruses than Taliban language! Also, the mobile number given in English makes little sense as does the fact that the handbill is in Urdu rather than in Pushto. It would appear the timing is directly an effort to sabotage the ANP's political strategy of dealing with the tribal issue and it does not take too much intelligence to understand who is indulging in such dirty tricks.

To add to efforts at our demoralisation, last week also saw the French Prime Minister declare that Pakistan will "fall" if France leaves Afghanistan ! Honestly, is this what we are being reduced to? Nor is this all. British Foreign Secretary, Milliband, who seems to find no other place to give him the sort of feel-good sense that Islamabad does, has decided to explain to the world on our behalf that "Pakistanis voted for democracy nor Talibanisation"! So are we supposed to feel more confident about ourselves after this statement?

But the British must be feeling pleased with us these days because in another clipping of our sovereignty we have now allowed the British to deploy an airline liaison officer at Islamabad airport -- in other words, the state of Pakistan has delegated its powers to Britain to block the departure of passengers from Islamabad to the UK! Is this a reciprocal renunciation of a chip of our independence? Are we going to be allowed to have similar privileges at British airports to block the travel to Pakistan of undesirables from Britain -- especially "sleeper" terrorists? Of course not! This also happened in the seven-day time period being discussed here, which seems to have been particularly good for those seeking to undermine our sovereignty as a nation.

For it was also in this period that we had former Indian National Security Adviser, Mishra, suggesting that India become part of the US-EU or NATO combine to fight terrorism in Pakistan ! This is like Pakistan suggesting we help India fight terrorism in its northeastern provinces or Hindu extremism in Gujarat ! But we do know that the US is seeking to bring India militarily into Afghanistan and one really wonders when we will react strongly to these efforts -- when it is already too late? Incidentally, the US continues to adopt its arrogantly imperial approach towards Pakistan and now we hear that despite paying the market price for the F-16s, we are not going to get the cutting edge technology India will get with its F-16s. Clearly the F-16 saga will not alter, but let us hope we are not reduced to wheat and soya beans again!

Of course, we are still going the extra mile, unilaterally, to support India on all fronts. We have now agreed in principle that India can export wheat to Afghanistan through Wagah – opening up the long sought after land route by India . Hopefully, this decision will include certain safeguards like ensuring that the transportation from Wagah to the Afghan border is done by Pakistani transporters and that India pays a transport levy. Since the decision has been taken on principle, one must wait to see how it is operationalised, but to allow India physical access through Pakistan 's sensitive areas surely cannot be contemplated. Will India allow us to transport foodstuff to Nepal through the land route from across India ?

At least some political leaders are showing a commitment to reciprocity with Mr Nawaz Sharif demanding a linkage between the Sarabjit case and the case of Pakistani prisoners languishing in Indian jails. No one seems to have shown any sensitivity to this issue at all. Even more critical, commutation of Sarabjit's death sentence to life imprisonment should first be linked to an overall decision by the state to commute all death sentences and, in fact, move to end the death penalty which does not deter most murders and only penalises the poor -- many of whom are wrongly condemned for lack of a good defence. After all, if an Indian who killed innocent Pakistanis is to live why not the poor Pakistanis rotting on death row? Is a foreign life worth more than a Pakistani life for us?

Imagine if so much of our sovereignty was chipped away in a mere seven days, how much of it has already been lost after our embrace of the US-led "global war on terror" post-9/11! Has it all been willingly done?

This paper was written by Mahnoor Khan, a Karachi based educationist sometime back. Now that a lot has rapidly changed in the political arena in Pakistan, it's contents still remain a lot relevant for how the elected assembly tackle with the issues highlighted therein remains to be seen..

 BY: MAHNOOR KHAN

Context:  It has been frequently asserted in national and international media that the imposition of emergency by General Musharraf has been unanimously opposed in Pakistan . While there have been unprecedented protests from diverse groups, the outrage is by no means as widespread as one would expect. Here are just some of the arguments that protestors hear from their friends and colleagues:

1)      Why are you supporting corrupt judges? All the lawyers are politicized and doing this for their own publicity and power.

2)      What are you trying to achieve? Do you want corrupt politicians like Benazir or Nawaz Sharif?

3)      The media was overstepping its boundaries, and the judiciary also became too interventionist. So both were asking for a clampdown.

4)      Musharraf has been a great leader. Yes, he is making mistakes, but he is still our best and only option.

5)      Protests will just cause more instability.

6)      Things will return to normal, so we should just wait and pray for the best.

These are overt and subtle ways in which the emergency is effectively legitimized by the Pakistani elite. In the following piece, I have attempted to articulate my own stance on the issue, and address some of these arguments.

The “Missing People” Case and Judicial Courage:  In February of this year, my ride home from work one evening was interrupted by a sizeable demonstration on Shahra-e-Faisal. The protest – as a radio channel informed me – was against the unlawful abduction and detention of “missing people” by our notorious agencies, and was being staged by hundreds of family members and activists who had traveled to Karachi from distant areas of Sindh. As I waited in my car for the demonstration to pass, I wondered: why is the tragedy of forced disappearances not sparking the outrage that it should? Why wasn’t this protest widely publicized, and supported by the so-called civil society? And what was I doing about this? But of course this line of questioning never continues for long. I brushed off my guilt by resorting tothe classic “what can I possibly do” and “there is no hope” cynicism, unconsciously told myself that I am working for important (and more convenient) causes like education and health so I do have some sense of social responsibility, put on some music, and eventually drove off.

I kept following the issue though. I had already been reading about disappearances regularly in Dawn and Herald since 2003. Even Amnesty International, The New York Times, and the Guardian had established how more than 500 Pakistanis had simply been abducted by our intelligence outfits with no case and no trace. That under the garb of the “war on terror”, there was a systematic campaign to capture critics – not militants – but politics activists, students, poets, journalists, social workers, and academics belonging in particular to Sindh and Baluchistan. That instead of recognizing and addressing the exacerbated grievances of people under a neoliberal military-intelligence alliance, the state had decided to crush any expression of grievance with sheer inhuman violence. Some released detainees had harrowing tales of torture to tell. Even those who protested for the sake of their missing ones were humiliated and intimidated – recall the picture of the 17-year old son of a detainee whose shalwar was lowered by the police during a public protest in January this year, before being arrested.

One becomes conditioned to overlook the entire picture when reading about such atrocities on an everyday basis. And so I read about all this with a sense of real but remote “oh, it’s just so sad” concern. Over the course of this year, however, I became more interested in the issue of missing people. This, unfortunately, was not due to any change in my own conscience, but because the issue itself had become more visible – thanks to the legal petitions that the tormented families as well as the HRCP had filed. And the judiciary was responding.

Our state institutions have become so inept, exploitative, and unjust that when an institution finally does its job, we think it has become too “independent” and “active.” We conveniently forget that defending the constitution and fundamental rights is the core purpose of the judiciary around the world. And we fail to even acknowledge – let alone celebrate – the courage with which the expelled judges were withstanding the coercive pressures and bribes from various corners, in order to question long-standing injustices such as political persecution, shady privatizations, and illegal building practices. Which state institution has had the courage to tackle these issues? Most importantly, the judiciary was questioning the unconstitutional and outrageously criminal activities of our intelligence agencies, of which the plight of missing people is but one manifestation.

I will say it clearly: the renewed democratic spirit of the judiciary had been a source of relief for me. I, as a human being and as a citizen, did not have the time, interest, and decency to actually stand up for the sake of social and economic justice. But it was heartening to see that at least one state institution was working towards progressive change in this country. As the law of indifference goes, though, I only observed this process from a distance. And again, from a distance, I witnessed the lawyers’ struggle to contest the high-handed manner in which the Chief Justice was removed. I, surely, did not have the time or the courage. Plus, with all the pomp of the Chief Justice’s rallies, it was convenient not to take a stance. Indeed, why ever take a stance? It is so much easier to sit back, criticize, and be cynical. And to ease your conscience, tell yourself that your business is helping the poor, or that you do not-so-political charity work.

But now, with the emergency – with the wholesale slaughter of the judicial process and the violent suppression of civil society – I think it is simply imperative for me to take a stance. An informed stance. Yes, of course, like all state institutions, the legal institutions are also ridden with misconduct and corruption. At many critical junctures, the judiciary itself has contributed to the undermining of the Constitution.  But in recent years, it is only the judiciary that has had the courage to show that it has at least some sense of social and political responsibility. If it was so corrupt and power-hungry, why would it take up cases that challenge the elite and military-dominated status quo in the country? Following its own history, it would succumb to bribes and threats, and play along. But it didn’t. And the missing people’s case is the prime testimony to this courage.

The missing people’s case also underlines something that is often ignored in analyses of the emergency: the suppression of activists, journalists, students, and academics is not something new and sudden. Yes, the scale is large, and for the first time, elite human rights activists and professors have also been arrested. But we must not forget that this has been a long-term trend, and that a systematic campaign to capture critics has been an appalling state policy for at least four years now. Newsline, Herald, HRCP, national newspapers as well as international media have repeatedly covered the brutalities of this policy. While media channels may have exploded in Pakistan, let’s not forget that the South Asian Free Media Association named Pakistan the worst country in terms of the harassment of journalists in 2006. Hence, the current suppression of the media is also a stark manifestation of a continuing tendency.

Military Extremism and Musharraf’s Islamization:  Why are we so keen to assert that the media and judiciary have overstepped their bounds, but not recognize the extremism and interventionism of the military and the intelligence agencies? I will readily acknowledge that the media and judiciary have severe failings that need to be addressed. But how can we ignore that there is a fundamental asymmetry of power between a military-intelligence establishment on one hand and the media or the judiciary on the other? The Supreme Court and media can be massively irresponsible and corrupt, but they will never have the capacity to amass wealth and power, and terrorize citizens like the military-intelligence alliance that currently rules the country. Who will hold the latter accountable?

The military has become the biggest corporate entity and interest group in the country, and inserted itself in literally every economic, social and political institution including textbook boards, universities and highway authorities. All this has not been achieved “cleanly,” but involved massive corruption, intimidation, and back-door deals. It is different from regular “fill up the bank account” looting since it involves the setting up and expansion of a huge empire that grabs land, monopolizes markets, and dominates political and social institutions. This extent of political and economic dominance will live on regardless of the fate of today’s dictatorship. Amongst other devastating consequences, it has also severely affected the professionalism of the army – as argued by several analysts and retired military officers.

Repeated military rule in our country has not only stifled the process of democratization but also helped to promote religious extremism. Yes, Musharraf is no Zia, and as a person, may indeed be a secular guy believing in “enlightened moderation”. But this is no justification for overlooking the critical role that both the military and intelligence agencies have played in creating and supporting Islamist militancy. Have we forgotten that it was in Musharraf’s regime that a religious alliance was brought into power for the first time in Pakistan ’s history – and allowed to form a government in NWFP – while allsecular-nationalist parties had been suppressed and even banned from rallying? And this was not a coincidence. The military-mullah alliance is not a myth – it is a long-standing relationship that became particularly strengthened in the Afghan War (1978-1989) when the ISI, Saudi Arabia, and the U.S. government directly trained and equipped thousands of Pakistanis (not just Afghanis) to become militant jihadis. The Pajero-driven, gun toting mullah emerged during this period, and has continued to be patronized by agencies to fight our dirty wars in Afghanistan, Kashmir, as well as within Pakistan .

Since 2002, the formal establishment of a religious alliance in NWFP has paved the way for legitimizing a conservative and repressive Islam. NWFP may not have had a very liberal society, but the intimidation of barbers, tailors, X-ray assistants, CD sellers, female health workers, NGO activists, and administrators of girls’ schools is a recent phenomenon that is directly linked to the support of religious elements by our militaryintelligence establishment. JUI was never even on the political map till it got political legitimacy by the army. And it is the ISI’s support of the Taliban and religious parties that has emboldened the likes of Sufi Muhammad and Fazlullah. We must ask: why is it that reporters associated with KTN, Sindh TV, and Intikhab have been abducted and tortured, while Fazlullah’s FM radio was allowed to operate freely?

The biggest travesty is that Musharraf is using the self-perpetuated threat of religious militancy to justify his rule, claiming that he will be the force of stability. This is simply a contradiction in terms. Musharraf’s rule has made us second only to Iraq in terms of bombing operations and suicide attacks; hence, he is not even able to hold his ground in his own terrain which is national security and defence. What more has to happen for us to recognize that Pakistan has been destabilized for a long time now, and that the unquestioned and unaccounted practices of the military and intelligence are hugely responsible? Some people say: ok, so the army and agencies created the Pakistani Taliban, and now that the fundamentalists are on the offensive, only the army can reign them in. Such an approach is even more misguided, as it will only worsen the oppressions of military rule. Further, years and years of breeding religious militancy and encouraging Islamist politics will not go away with bombing Waziristan and Swat. We need a long term strategy involving rehabilitation, economic incentives, and political negotiation. Just like we are still struggling with Zia’s Islamization, we will be fighting Musharraf’s Islamization for a long time to come.

The Meaning of Democracy:  Because of the repressive tactics that the army routinely employs, military extremism and absolutism has remained publicly invisible to a large extent. Does this mean we ignore it? Supporters of Musharraf’s regime argue that he gave us economic growth. Does this justify the militarization of state, economy, and society? Does this validate systematic oppression and violence? I couldn’t bear the television coverage of the Lal Masjid episode, does this make the silencing of critique under PEMRA acceptable? I have personally experienced the gender biases and callousness of our courts, does this mean that the entire Supreme Court should be disposed off?

This is the time to make distinctions. We need to recognize that the current struggle is about protecting the Constitution, and about resisting the wholesale annihilation of the rule of law. It is not a personality contest between Musharraf, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. Protestors are not impulsive fools who love Benazir or Nawaz Sharif – they are as disillusioned with “democratic” regimes as anyone else. Does this mean that we should now give up all hope and respect for political process? Do we simply accept the kingdom of a military dictator? We want a ready-made, perfect leader to lead us, but are unwilling to allow her or him to emerge because we keep accepting rampant abuses of the political process. The lesser-of-the-two evils argument just does not work: a military dictator is not accountable to anyone, will entrench the interests of the army, and will eventually show his true colors. And political history around the world has shown that a military dictator claiming to bring in “democracy” is a contradiction in terms. A political party still needs to get re-elected, and a rule that says no leader can be Prime Minister twice will ensure that new leaders will come up. The political spectrum is not even as limited as we think it is. There are several regional parties, the Labor Party, and the Tehrik-e-Insaaf which can promise to play a strong role in the future. But parties like the JUI and PML (Q) will only strengthen the forces of religious and military extremism.

Let’s assume that all parties are corrupt. Let’s think about how India had an emergency under Congress in the 70s, and a systematic genocide of Muslims under BJP. Let’s remember how the U.S. under Bush is continuing to devastate Afghanistan and Iraq . Does this mean that the militaries in the two countries should take over for the sake of “stability?” Democracies do not work perfectly anywhere, yet they are the most common form of governance because they come the closest to ensuring both accountability and stability.

Ultimately, democracy is not about procedural elections, but about the substantive principles of liberation, egalitarianism, and justice. The democracies of the world have gotten to where they are because of citizens’ engagement. Self-determination and democracy was not given on a platter by monarchs and colonizers – every victory was a result of protests, struggles, and social movements. Let’s not simplistically equate any political party’s reinstatement with a “transition to democracy.” In our country, the transition was already happening thanks to the renewed strength of our Supreme Court. It is the continuing struggle to resist the emergency, restore the Constitution, and reinstate the Supreme Court that is the actual stuff of democracy – it’s democracy in the making – and we need to support it in every way that we can. And if and when we succeed, the struggle by no means is over. Military dominance, political corruption, religious extremism, media sensationalism, and judicial negligence will not magically disappear. Instead of dwelling in self-serving apathy and cynicism, we, as citizens, need to constantly play our part in reforming the status quo and striving towards a better future for our country. That is everyone’s responsibility, not just of judges, military officials and politicians.

Cynicism is the Opium of the Elite:  As elites, consumed by our work and social lives, we have been too depoliticized and disconnected to care. We don’t even follow the news regularly, and may not know how the judiciary was upholding several causes of social and economic justice. There have been hundreds of petitions of aggrieved citizens who requested the Supreme Court to hear their voices, or take suo moto action, because they had no other recourse. And the judiciary was listening. It might have been corrupt, brash and naïve, but it showed concern. And unlike the shameless legislature, executive, and most of the citizenry, the lawyers and judges who have been hounded for months are still bravely refusing to accept an elitist and military-dominated status quo. What power are they getting by risking their lives and the security of their families? Why, for once, can we not think about their struggle with the seriousness that it demands?

It’s all too easy to disparage protesting students as well by saying that they are immature, trying to act cool and pseudo-revolutionary, or just joining the bandwagon. Why are we so bent on dismissing them instead of giving them credit? If students are protesting at an unprecedented scale, surely there must be something about the situation that is sparking this agitation? They are not protesting for party politics, nor simply because their own professors have been arrested. They are genuinely frustrated, and refuse to watch tyranny take root. Life and politics is messy and confusing, so they obviously do not have all the answers and are also uncertain about what the future will bring. Yet, despite tremendous fears in these times of repression, they have the integrity and courage to take a stance.

And like them, we all must take a stance. This is not the time to dilly-dally and say: “I don’t support the emergency but the protests are not worthy enough a cause” and “I think the repression is inhuman but we have to see what choices we have as a nation.” As Howard Zinn said in the People’s History of the United States, it’s where you put the “but” that makes unjust use of power and violence possible. One can instead say, “Musharraf did many good things for the country but a violently enforced military mullah- intelligence alliance with no respect for rule of law and civil liberties is simply unacceptable.”

One can criticize any stance – which is only a way to not take any stance at all. It is always convenient to sit back, observe, and be critical and cynical as if that makes us all intellectual. This is the surest way to escape ever standing up for anything, and masking one’s own ignorance, and unwillingness to engage. But silence is a form of political action, and it has strong consequences especially in these severe times. By not standing up and vocalizing our discontent with this kind of draconian action, we are implicitly telling the regime (and all subsequent regimes) that it is ok for them to do whatever they please, and we will sit idle like innocent bystanders. Our fatalistic (“whatever will be will be”), over-critical (“I don’t agree with anything”), and cynical (“this is such a crazy farce”) postures are not only unfair to those who are willing to struggle and sacrifice, but they in effect help to sustain the status quo.

If we are scared of instability due to protests, and Musharraf’s departure, we must ask ourselves: what is our definition of stability? Is rising military and religious extremism not enough? Is the decimation of the highest judicial institution not enough? Are over 5,000 indiscriminate and unlawful arrests not enough? What about the anti-terrorism and sedition cases against innocent people? Are the laws for court-marshalling citizens also acceptable, so the army-intelligence regime can simply press “delete” on citizens like it did on the Supreme Court? Is the “Musharraf is necessary” theory so unfalsifiable that no amount of violence and human rights abuse will move us into action? Do we believe in any values, and have we ever stood up for anything? Does it really have to be the intimidation or arrest of a loved one that shakes us out of our apathy?

If we don’t have the courage to protest ourselves, we should at least not trivialize and ridicule the efforts of those who do. Better still, we should express our solidarity, lend support, and actively shape this defining historic moment. We always have a choice.

Following paper is a preamble to recommendations by DR BHASHAYAM KASTURI and PANKAJ MEHRA for Indian covert action against Pakistan, already published by PAKISTAN Special this month.

Readers can go through and link both articles in the light of present turmoil in Pakistan and draw their own conclusions. Your views and comments are welcomed.

India, in the late 50s and 60s with the help of the CIA aided the Tibetan rebellion, providing training facilities in India . The 1962 border war with China led to the establishment of several organisations that are today under the Cabinet Secretariat, the Special Frontier Force (Establishment 22 at Chakrata) and Special Services Bureau. Additionally, a group was raised with the objective of carrying out aerial reconnaissance of China and Tibet , the Aviation Research Centre (ARC). One source suggests that at Charbatia in December 1964 a U-2 aircraft was deployed for operations over Tibet . The Tibet operation continued till the early 60s when the CIA, withdrew its operations on Indian soil and moved to Nepal .

Then in the late sixties, the need for an organisation tasked with gathering external intelligence led to the formation of RAW, and the Directorate General of Security was transferred from IB to RAW. As the Bangladesh crisis arose, RAW was given the task of gathering intelligence and undertaking covert missions, including pro-insurgency. This is the most successful operation till date, publicly written about, carried out, involving the training of the Mukti Bahini of East Pakistan and their role in helping the Indian military intervention.

The operation involved getting the freedom fighters in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh ) together and training and arming them. This was essentially a Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW) operation, with the Indian army providing the training infrastructure. The Mukti Bahini was formed in January 1971 and for the next ten months people who came across the border were selected for training. By September-November 1971, these forces were infiltrated into East Pakistan for covert missions, including sabotage of lines of communication and command and control centres.

When war did officially break out on 3 December, the Mukti Bahini was ready, (just like the French resistance in 1944, when Operation Overlord the invasion at Normandy began). The Mukti Bahini helped Indian troops find their way, harassed Pak troops and generally made itself a nuisance. Naval Mukti Bahini divers planted mines in the harbours around Bangladesh and sunk many merchant and warships, playing a crucial role in blockading the ports. Another facet of covert action was witnessed in the trans-border attacks carried out by the Special Frontier Force (SFF) in the Chittagong Hill Tracts. Thus a combination of para-military action in the form of the Mukti Bahini and direct covert action using special forces, complimented the main military action in the 1971 Bangladesh war. The benefits accruing from coordinated covert action allowed implementation of foreign policy to secure national interests namely liberation of East Pakistan and creation of Bangladesh .

Subsequently measures taken to integrate Sikkim into the Indian Union by the RAW proved crucial. One authority states that RAW performed the task of counter-intelligence in Sikkim preventing foreign agencies from getting a foothold in the sensitive Himalayan kingdom and allowing it to accede to India . But soon after the successful mounting of Bangladesh and Sikkim operation, leading to the latter’s integration as a state in the Indian union, came the Sri Lanka operation. This pro-insurgency operation launched by Mrs Gandhi during her second term in office, meant to train Tamil separatists followed the same lines of the 1971 case. Equipping and training of insurgents from across the Palk Straits took place on Indian soil, in the state of Tamil Nadu and in places as far as, Chakrata and Dehradun. With the active support of the state and central government, Indian intelligence agencies took up the task with gusto. But what was missing was the broad institutional oversight so essential for tying up the loose ends. Foreign policy makers and defence planners were scarcely aware of what was happening as political masters changed and priorities shifted.

Secrecy is undoubtedly called for in operations of this sort. But as the Iran-Contra affair in America showed, in the Sri Lanka operations also one part of the government did not know what the other was doing. In the Indian case, while RAW knew what it was doing politically, neither it nor the government was unable to fathom the potential for trouble that was generated by this operation. This was because the mission sought to achieve too much at one time. The number of groups being trained were one too many and difficult to control. No accountability existed and eventually not enough attention was paid to the risks of losing control over the insurgents. Thus by the time Mrs Indira Gandhi was killed in 1984, and Rajiv became prime minister the priorities changed and so did policy towards Sri Lanka .

In politico-military terms, covert action eventually proved to be of little use when the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) went into Sri Lanka in 1987. For the simple reason that intelligence on the insurgents trained by India was not forthcoming. Additionally, the intelligence agencies continued to covertly continue political dealings with the insurgents to suit their ends, even during the IPKF’s stay in Sri Lanka . This undermined the foreign policy goal of sending a peacekeeping force to restore peace in Sri Lanka . The problem was that too many prime ministers were involved in the Sri Lanka episode, resulting in several conflicting decisions. Also involvement of state leaders like MG Ramachandran created more complications for command and control.

Intelligence agencies have been involved in various covert acts, both within India and in the surrounding region. Intelligence agencies often make alliances and then forget to inform their cousins resulting in confusion. In February 1998, the Armed Forces intercepted ships at sea off the Andamans killing six people and arresting 73 others. This was essentially a "sting" operation carried out by MI in collaboration with their Burmese counterparts. But the result was a big hue and cry.

In April, the leader of the National Unity Party of Arakans (NUPA) wrote to the Defence Minister that the men abroad the ship were in fact Arakanese revolutionaries who were cooperating with the Indians. He wrote, "The Indian military intelligence had okayed our voyage and that is why we entered Indian territorial waters to avoid the Burmese Navy." The issue is whether it was a case of military intelligence not giving the information to its forces in the field in time or it was a case of giving up its people. Maung wrote, "We were cooperating with each other. The Indians asked us for help to track down gunrunners carrying weapons to Northeast India and we helped them. So it came as a shock to us that our ship, about which the Indians were given full information, should be attacked." The point here is that at one level India is willing to help the pro-democracy movement in Burma, but due to the insurgents buying arms from South-East Asia and this having a direct influence on the insurgent movement in India’s north-east it becomes necessary for the army to curb such activity. The dichotomy in policy towards the region is a reflection of the lack of understanding how to secure vital interests in the north-east.

It needs recalling that in the 80s, RAW supported tribal and ethnic factions fighting the SLORC in Myanmar . One of the factions supported by India was the Kachin Independence Army. The Kachins, known more accurately as Jingphaws or Marus, account for some 3 per cent of Myanmar ’s ethnic population. They inhabit the north-east of the country and have the reputation for resorting to arms to assert what they believe are their rights.

A senior officer in RAW deputed to Bangkok in the 80s, made contact with Burmese underground leaders in the hope of gaining some information. Then this officer decided that the KIA could be beneficially used to channelise information. And RAW could aid them with money and arms. Having made contact, the idea was to get members of KIA into India for training and contact creation. After the controlling officer returned from Bangkok , infiltration of KIA cadres was started. They came as students, youths touring India and helpers, sent for training to Chakrata and other locations in north and north-east. Arms and other material began to filter through to camps in North Myanmar and this reached its peak in 1991-92. Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram provided exfiltration sites, while some material went via Bangkok . This was the post election period when Aung Sang Suu Kyi had won but was not allowed to take power by SLORC. All this was stopped by Prime Minister Narasimha Rao, as part of his "Look East" policy.

Looking back, one may well ask what purpose did this operation serve? What national interests or foreign policy goals did it serve? Keeping in mind the dimension of policy in the 80s, that of coercive diplomacy there is little doubt that the Government thought it fit to aid all rebels across the borders, wherever it suited us. But on many an occasion it backfired, as it did in Sri Lanka .

There is one other aspect of covert action that requires highlighting in the present study. Nation-states also engage in action within the territorial confines of the country for politico-military aims, such as pro-insurgency or counter-insurgency or counter-terrorism. Since the institutional framework for covert action exists in most countries in the South Asian region, indulging in domestic covert action is a continuing tool for governments. In India for instance, it was suggested that SSB was used to raise and train the Bodos in the late 80s in an effort to counter other groups in the region. Their employment to fulfil political goals has affected their organisation and performance and impinges on their role, which is really to engage in "stay-behind" operations.

The ISI has been involved in covert action in various parts of India since the 80s. The main focus has been on Punjab and Jammu & Kashmir. Infiltration of arms and drugs into India , along with men to stoke insurgencies has been common. For Jammu & Kashmir, the ISI has a special cell to fuel the insurgency. It has been responsible for the setting up and maintenance of training camps in POK and Pakistan , the provision of arms and equipment, infiltration and exfiltration of both recruits and trained militants into the Valley. The entire plan to infiltrate Kashmir and launch a covert low-intensity war there has been described in the part fact, part fictionalised Operation Topac in 1989. The Pak strategy has followed the lines suggested in this analysis.

The Kashmir operation was an offshoot of the US-Pakistan fight against Soviet Union . The CIA backed the Mujahadeen, via the ISI. The latter siphoned off money and weapons meant for Afghanistan to stoke the insurgency in Kashmir . But infiltration into the Valley has been taking place on a low key since the early eighties, first of Kashmiris who were alienated from India and currently of Pak mercenaries, including criminals and foreign soldiers of fortune from Afghanistan and further afield. This occurred through training camps in POK and Pakistan proper.

The enormous powers enjoyed by ISI were brought to the notice of Robert Gates in May 1990 on a visit to India and Pakistan . Benazir Bhutto apparently expressed her helplessness to Gates, in controlling the training camps run by ISI in POK and Afghanistan used for anti-India operations. Even accounting for an element of exaggeration, the illustration speaks much for the ISI’s independence. Being a military controlled organisation, covert operations are tightly controlled. A more recent statement by Benazir Bhutto portrays an intelligence operation that has run amok and that one wields enormous power within Pakistan .

Most intelligence organisations the world over have a department or section for active measures. Recruitment and training is often based on special operations lines involving, parachuting, electronics, weapons and languages. Area orientation and mobility along with, light but powerful weaponry for fire fighting is essential for covert operations teams. The use of covert action to support national foreign and security policy has been commonplace amongst intelligence agencies round the world. Their success or failure has often depended on the command and control, and the level of involvement of political controllers. India ’s experience shows that results have often been positive when proper attention was paid to proper control and coordination. When this has not been possible misuse of covert assets has taken place. This combined with the duplication of covert efforts has reduced the impact of such action on national security.