Tajuddin warned Mujib not to impose the one party system to have more power when he is already the most powerful person in the government. M. A. S. Molla records the Mujib-Tajuddin encounter from Abu Said Chowdhury records. Molla says keeping Mr Syed by his side Tajuddin told Mujib: "I think I must talk to you on some important matters. Some people encircle you in your office in a way that I would not have opportunity to talk to you there, and the environment there is also not congenial. That is why I am using this red telephone for the purpose. You are going to establish a one-party rule, but I told you many times about my reservation. Today I am registering my conclusive opinion. I do not agree to your one-party system. Please tell me why you should go this way."(1)

After failing to take over Bangladesh on Dec 16th 1971, India unleashed the Rakhi Bahni on the Bangladeshis. It then tried to impose a Treaty of Friendship which would have converted into an Indian province. Abu Said Chowdhury records. Molla says keeping Mr Syed by his side Tajuddin told Mujib: "I think I must talk to you on some important matters. Some people encircle you in your office in a way that I would not have opportunity to talk to you there, and the environment there is also not congenial. That is why I am using this red telephone for the purpose. You are going to establish a one-party rule, but I told you many times about my reservation. Today I am registering my conclusive opinion. I do not agree to your one-party system. Please tell me why you should go this way."(1) . On August 14th 1975 Bangladeshi patriots killed the Indian agent Shaikh Mujib and liberated Bangladesh from the Indian grip. Today India is forcing a transit policy on defenseless Bangladesh that is fighting for her existence. The Transit facilites that Bharat is asking would clog existing Balgladeshi roads and pose a security threat to Bangladesh. It would also exacerbate the situation in Northeast "India" where the sevean Assamese states want freedom from Delhi. The Transit agreement poses a mortal threat to Bangladesh

“Tajuddin listened for some time to what Mujib was saying. Then again he was speaking: "First, I am not convinced by your logic. Secondly, this is not my question. This is my statement. As the prime minister, you have enough power in your hands, and I think that you don't need to have a one-party system, or any other change like that. Thirdly, you and I together traversed the country for long 25-30 years, and there is no field or place where we did not go. There we delivered speeches hoping for a happy and prosperous country based on democracy. The democracy for which we talked so much will end through a single stroke of your pen, establishing a one-party system. I am very strongly disagreeing to your decision."(2)

This time Mujib got angry. Mr Syed wrote that Mujib's fury was heard even outside the telephone receiver. But Tajuddin calmly uttered: "By taking this step you are closing all the doors to remove you peacefully from your position. Mujib Bhai, the most unfortunate event will be that the bullet will not hit you alone. We shall also be killed and the nation will plunge into danger."(3)

It is now clear especially from Tajuddin and others prediction that behind the coup leaders was the shadow of a lingering fascism that certainly killed Mujib. The Shadow was Mujib himself. He was a power hungry man who inspired by the Indra Congress syndicate wanted everything for him even when he didn’t deserve many of them. We know that intellectually he was not so bright. As simple as his hand-written Bengali correspondences in the archives were found to be full of syntax problems. He died 30 long years ago but during AL rule he is reincarnated over and again as the “Father of the nation.” What is needed is to discount the shadow (fascism) the major killer in Bangladesh politics. The shadow is Mujib himself (the political actor and an abusive political father) the AL leadership continues to worship as the “Father of the Nation,” a model of hero-worship used perhaps for the AL’s symbolic ownership of the nation is a worrisome thing for a
future democratic Bangladesh. As like most fascist regimes, the AL leadership doesn’t allow the investigation of its own misdeeds and doesn’t tolerate opposition or even intellectual debates. New Age staff correspondent FM Masum was lately picked and beaten up by the Rapid Action Battalion in detention for more than 10 hours and a half.(5) “Even the military regime did not harass us as much.” President Sheikh Mujib’s Death:Tajuddin’s Prophecy Abid Bahar, Canada

References:
(1)M A S Molla,Tajuddin's prophecy, Daily Star, November 03, 2006 http://www.thedailystar.net/2006/11/03/d611031503110.htm; Abu Syed Choudhury, Tajuddin in Prothom Alo Eid issue of 2005
(2)Ibid
(3) Ibid
(4) N.M. Harun, The country is in a somber mood, Financial Express, http://www.thefinancialexpress-bd.com/more.php?news_id=84535
(5) http://www.newagebd.com/2009/nov/06/nov06/xtra_inner5.html
Abid Bahar, Canada, E mail :abidbahar@yahoo.com. http://newsfrombangladesh.net/view.php?hidRecord=294334

ISLAMABAD – Serious differences are understood to have cropped up between Pakistan’s premier intelligence agency ISI and US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) over the latter’s dismal role in countering terrorism in Pakistan, TheNation reliably learnt on Friday.
According to well-placed sources, the differences between the two strategic partners in war against terror cropped up when ISI Chief Lt. General Ahmed Shujja Pasha in a meeting expressed his disappointment to his US counterpart, the CIA chief spymaster Leon Panetta, over the US failure to help Pakistan in counter-terrorism efforts.

Although there was no official confirmation either from the US Embassy or ISPR about the meeting, it was learnt that both of them had thought provoking talks here in which General Pasha had presented to the CIA official a shocking evidence about Indian interference into Pakistan by using Afghanistan soil. General Pasha, the informed sources said, had presented the evidence about Indian efforts aiding terrorism in Balochistan and Waziristan.

The sources said that General Pasha was critical to the CIA’s counter-terrorism strategy in Afghanistan and CIA’s failure to provide concrete actionable information to Pakistan in containing flow of aid to terror networks operating from Afghanistan to destabilize Pakistan.

The sources said that the CIA chief is currently visiting Pakistan as a follow-up to the visit of US of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to address complains of Pakistan’s military establishment.

The CIA chief is to meet Army Chief General Ashfaq Pavez Kayani today and is likely to get the similar input from him, the sources said. He is also expected to visit Saudi Arabia before his return to USA. ISI Chief confronts CIA counterpart with evidence, By: Maqbool Malik | Published: November 21, 2009

What kind of Mad Max world is it where the Secretary of State of the United States of America gives a nuanced answer—to a simple question, would the US support warlords in the new Kabul government. Of course Mrs. Clinton should have said no—but she couldn’t say no, because in 2001 the US approached the warlords to switch sides and paid them cash Dollars. This was before Mr. Karzai was on the scene. According to Bob Woodward they brought in millions of Dollars in cash and gave them to the Northern Alliance so that it could buy friends and influence in the country.

When Mr. Karzai took over the government, the warlords had switched sides and were supporting the man in Kabul. Now Mrs. Clinton is criticizing the Karzai government for being incompetent and corrupt.

In the same breath she said that Mr. Karai should have tecnhocrats in the cabinet, and that “there are warlords and there are warlords”, signaling approval of some warlords in the government.

WASHINGTON — US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton proposed Thursday to Afghan President Hamid Karzai to bring technocrats rather than warlords into his new government.

The chief US diplomat disclosed what she said during an interview with Afghanistan's Azadi radio while on a visit to Kabul for Karzai's inauguration following fraud-tainted presidential elections in August.

"I have made it clear, as have others, that we would far prefer that the president have people in the cabinet with professional skills, with experience and expertise who can actually do the work that is required," Clinton said.

"And I think he understands that and he is certainly giving me the strong impression that that?s what he intends to do," Clinton said, according to a transcript released by the State Department.

Karzai was sworn in for a second presidential term Thursday, winning Western praise with a promise to combat corruption and to put Afghan troops in charge of security within five years.

When asked if the United States would support a Karzai administration with "warlords," Clinton gave a nuanced answer.

"Well, there are warlords and there are warlords," she said.

"There are people who are called back who fought on behalf of the people of Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, who fought against al-Qaeda and the Taliban and their allies," Clinton said.

"And there are people who had very serious breaches of human rights and mistreatment of people during war, which is always difficult to look back on and figure out how to judge," she added.

The secretary of state said it was up to the people of Afghanistan to decide whether to seek any political resolution with the Taliban, to whom Karzai has extended a hand.

"But I think it is important to make sure that anyone who would be invited back into society gives up violence," she said.

"There should be the end of any kind of armed capacity outside the military and the police, which is why we are committed to helping build a professional, disciplined army and police force for your country," Clinton said. Clinton asks Karzai to bring technocrats into government (AFP) –

• “…there seems to be a parting of the ways at the strategic level." Stephen Cohen commenting on India-US relations
• One Indian daily has opined that America is crtically dependent on China's goodwill and that America is a huge debtor nation of China.
• Meanwhile, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Robert Blake also recognized China’s role in forging security and stability in South Asia, both in Pakistan-India and Pakistan-Afghanistan perspectives.
• “China has a very important role to play ---- like many other countries we are consulting them - it is important to get views of China on this very very important question. We value their advice.

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Robert Blake is trying to smooth India, Chinese and Pakistani feathers. India is concerned about US-China and US-Pakistani relations, China about US-Indian relations and Pakistan about US-Indian relations.

U.S tried its level best to appease the new dispensation of Tokyo by reengaging Japan in different perspectives and dimensions, so that differences of the past remain the matter of past. U.S desires to be the most important ally in the region. At the same time, the President Barack Obama faces challenges because there is a new government in Japan, which stood for a lot of things in opposition of the government in the proceeding 50 plus years. And so the President has to walk a fine line between providing counseling, giving time to the Japanese side to work its way through differences , and at the same time lay down markers about things that are too important to be left to political expediency in our alliance. U.S will require resorting to all kinds of positive steps to set the house in order regarding the Japan’s affair. dayafterindia

BEIJING: A Foreign Ministry official said on Thursday China would only “support” relevant moves to improve peace and stability in South Asia, and indicated the country did not see seek to play a primary role in improving relations between India and Pakistan.

A joint statement issued by China and the United States on Tuesday surprised officials and strategic experts in New Delhi by including a brief reference to improving relations between India and Pakistan.

Some analysts read the reference as the U.S. encouraging a greater Chinese role in South Asia. The Ministry of External Affairs in New Delhi said in a statement on Wednesday that a “third country role cannot be envisaged” and was not necessary. The Hindu

The declarations from Beijing caused severe consternation in Delhi.

When US President Barack Obama beamed in Beijing, the Chinese managed tight-lipped smiles. When he spoke haltingly with none of his usual confidence, about Tibet, Iran or the Chinese currency, they ignored him, served chicken soup with bean curd and sent him to climb the Great Wall.

Even before Obama made his first and conciliatory China visit urging the ‘strong and prosperous’ communist nation (and the US’ biggest creditor) to execute its ‘responsibility’ of a global role, the definition of that role was being debated in Beijing.

“Not all of America’s problems are automatically China’s problems,’’ Shen Dingli, executive dean of the Institute of International Relations of the elite Fudan University in Shanghai, told HT this week.

“We follow when the US is right and we refuse to follow when the US is wrong. We will expand our global role but not because the US wants us to expand but because we need to do it anyway.’’

In the rare US-China joint statement released after Obama’s summit with his counterpart Hu Jintao, Beijing made it clear that India-Pakistan bilateral relations are now officially its problem. Hindustan Times

(November 19, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) The failure of President Barack Obama to understand the distrust of China in large sections of the Indian civil society has landed the US in a situation in which the considerable goodwill between India and the US created during the administration of his predecessor George Bush stands in danger of being diluted by his unthinking words and actions.

The distrust of China in the Indian civil society is much deeper than even the distrust of Pakistan. Even today, despite Pakistan's continued use of terrorism against India, there is some goodwill for the people of Pakistan in many sections of the Indian civil society. As against this, outside the traditional communist and other leftist circles, one would hardly find any section which trusts China ---its Government as well as its people.

The Indian distrust of China arises mainly from three factors. First, the Sino-Indian war of 1962. Second, China's role in giving Pakistan a military nuclear and missile capability for use against India. Third, the Chinese blockage of the pre 26/11 efforts in the sanctions committee of the UN Security Council to declare the Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JUD), the parent organisation of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET), as a terrorist organisation and its subsequent opposition for a similar declaration against the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JED).

The dubious Chinese stand on the issue of Pakistani use of terrorism against India is viewed by many in India as amounting to collusion.Sri Lanka Guardian

Mr. Blake tried to clam down tempers in Delhi.

(RTTNews) - Robert Blake, Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia, has said that there is no need for India to be concerned over the reference to the Indo-Pak ties in a U.S.-China joint statement, asserting that U.S. has an equally important relationship with New Delhi as that with Beijing.

"I don't think there needs to be any concern in India about what the president said in China. We have very important relations with China. But we have equally important relations with India," Blake, told reporters at a news briefing in Washington.

He said that this will come out very clearly during the course of the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit beginning Monday.
Blake's remarks came a day after New Delhi slammed the reference to India and Pakistan in the joint U.S.-China statement saying it did not envisage a role by a third party in what was essentially a bilateral dispute.

Welcoming China's interest in helping to stabilize the Af-Pak region, Blake further said the Obama Administration believes that Beijing has high stakes, particularly in Afghanistan, where they have very significant investments.

"As with most of the other countries in the world, we welcome China's participation in helping to stabilize that very important part of the region," he said.

Bharat is worried about US relations with China and Pakistan. Delhi was very perturbed by the joint US-Chinese statement which apparently encouraged China to play mediation between Islamabad and Delhi.

New Delhi has not been that happy over the reference of Indian-Pak Dialogues and Tibet. “Barack Hussain Obama’s reference of Tibet and ‘One-China policy’ was in a usual fashion of the policy matter in the region. It can not be seen as a great diplomatic matter. So, it’s a part of the general statement,” said Alkacaharya expert of Chinese affairs. dayafterindia

Now, the reality of an activist US role in Afghanistan and Pakistan leaves little room for any pious sentiment that South Asian

peace should be left to South Asians. However, does the US need to make China also a partner to promote peace in the region and support “the improvement and growth of relations between India and Pakistan”? Times of India

South block officials say India-US ties have come of age and will not go back to the days when Bill Clinton came to India in March 2000;dna India

Delhi has its worries about Washington. It was furious at allowing Beijing a role in Indian-Pakistani relations, something which China sees as its problem.

New Delhi: After the sharp and strict reaction of New Delhi over Obama’s endorsement of a Chinese role in South Asia, Washington is now trying to pacify new Delhi. Latest news Online

China has a role in South Asia. Obama’s  acknowledgement of that role is acceptance of a fact. The Chinese view the Delhi “anger” with amusement.

According to them, President Obama will have to satisfy Dr. Singh during a private briefing on his China visit that his public posturing viz-a-viz China's perceived role in South Asia should not be taken as interference in India or Pakistan's internal affairs.

 
On his part, Dr. Singh will have to assess the direction of President Obama's roadmap for South Asia. He will have to determine whether Obama intends to approve and support China's role in the region through proxy.

One Indian daily has opined that America is crtically dependent on China's goodwill and that America is a huge debtor nation of China. It further suggests that most US presidents in the latter half of the 20th century and at the start of the 21st century have been hobbled by China during their first terms, and compromised through scandal in their second terms. Beijing News

Anwar Iqbal’s incompetent reporting on Mr. Blake’s statement was ridiculous and did not paint the entire picture correctly. There is more consternation in Delhi about America’s close relationship with Beijing and Islamabad The Dawn story by Anwar Iqbal paints a bad picture for US-Pakistani relations. the APP report is a bit more balanced

Meanwhile, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Robert Blake also recognized China’s role in forging security and stability in South Asia, both in Pakistan-India and Pakistan-Afghanistan perspectives.

“China has a very important role to play ---- like many other countries we are consulting them - it is important to get views of China on this very very important question. We value their advice.  China have also important stakes in stability of Afghanistan. So it is only natural we will consult them,” he said.

He spoke a day after after U.S. and China recognized in a joint statmenet - during President Barack Obama’s visit to Beijing - that China had an important role in helping imrprove relations between Pakistan and India.

“Both. We want to get their (Chinese) views on both of them,” Blake replied, when asked to clarify if the U.S. wanted to have Chinese role in promoting peace and stability in Pakistan-Afghanistan region or on Pakistan-India front or both.

New Delhi has bristled at suggestions that Beijing should play an important role toward promotion of peace and stability between Pakistan and India. APP

The US is walking a tight rope in Asia.

WASHINGTON, Nov 19 (APP): Asserting U.S. interest in peace and stability in South Asia, a senior American diplomat has said Washington is supportive of resolution of disputes between India and Pakistan through dialogue.Separately, a senior U.S. diplomat also renewed Washington’s belief that it would listen to China’s views on promoting peace between Pakistan and India.“Of course, we all share an interest in stability and peace between India and Pakistan. We all know the stakes,” Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns said, speaking at a think-tank, days ahead of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Washington from November 22 to 26.

“America has always supported the two countries’ peace process and the resolution of outstanding disputes through dialogue,” he stated, reaffirming the U.S. policy to back negotiated settlement of issues between the two nations.

However, Burns said, “the pace, scope, and content of the peace process is for Indian and Pakistani leaders to decide.”

“But we have welcomed renewed engagement, including this past summer between Prime Ministers Singh and (Yousaf Raza) Gilani, and between Prime Minister Singh and President (Asif Ali) Zardari.” APP

I don't think Islamabad should feel threatened by the steps we are taking to improve our relations with India: Robert Blake. — Photo by AP

WASHINGTON: The United States assured Pakistan on Wednesday that it had nothing to fear from growing US-India relations because Washington also valued its ties with Islamabad.

At a briefing in Washington, Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs Robert Blake also addressed India’s concern over a joint US-China statement issued in Beijing on Tuesday which recognised China’s role in improving India-Pakistan relations. The statement also urged China to help prevent Pakistan or Afghanistan from becoming a base for terrorism.

While insisting that the United States wanted India and Pakistan to resolve their differences bilaterally, the US official acknowledged that Washington would like to get China’s views on both ‘Indo-Pak relations and on Afghanistan and solicit their advice on both as we do of India’s’.

Mr Blake noted that China had considerable ‘equities’ in Afghanistan and could play an important role in stabilising that country as well. The Dawn

Beijing, Tehran, Caracus, Islamabad, Colombo, Dhaka, and Khatmandu will surely be looking at the US antics on how Bharat is being built up as a counter weight to China—none fear the US-Indian tango, but all detest, abhor and dislike the manner in which this is being conducted

Asked how should Islamabad view Mr Singh’s forthcoming visit to the US during which the two countries are expected to announce initiatives aimed at recognising India as an emerging world power, the US official said: ‘I don’t think Islamabad should in any way feel threatened by the steps we are taking to improve our relations with India. We value our relationships with both India and Pakistan.’

At a specially arranged briefing for South Asian journalists at Washington’s Foreign Press Centre on Mr Singh’s visit, Mr Blake noted that Pakistan had moved away some troops from the Indian border to combat militants on the western border but said there was ‘room for more’.

Although Mr Blake praised Pakistan’s efforts to combat the extremists, particularly in Swat and South Waziristan, he urged Pakistani authorities to complete their investigations against the suspects of the Mumbai terror attacks and punish those responsible.

All Pakistanis wonder why Mr. Blake forgot to mention the incidents of Bharati inspired terror against Pakistan. Lots of voices for Mumbai, none for the Kashmiris, Palestinians, and the displaced Iraqis.

Mr Blake noted that Lashkar-e-Taiba chief Hafiz Saeed was already sanctioned by both India and Pakistan and urged Islamabad to take action against him.

He said that Pakistan clearly intended to tackle these violent terrorists and had already made ‘a lot of progress’ but urged Pakistan to ensure that its territory was not used for cross-border attacks against India or others.

Mr Blake said that while the United States appreciated Pakistan’s efforts to fight extremists, it hoped that Islamabad would also take action against those who were considered a threat to India and the US.

Pakistan, he said, should also expand its operations beyond Swat and South Waziristan and go to other areas as well.

Mr Singh arrives in Washington on Nov 22 on a two-day state visit although he will spend five days in the US capital. Pakistan urged not to fear Indo-US ties By Anwar Iqbal Thursday, 19 Nov, 2009

Stephen Cohen describes a parting of US-Indian relations at the strategic level

Bush elevated relations with a 2008 civilian nuclear deal that ended an embargo imposed in 1974 after New Delhi tested a nuclear bomb. Bilateral trade went from $5.6 billion in 1990 to about 43 billion in 2008, a 675 percent rise.
But Obama's early focus on Pakistan to fight the Taliban and emphasis on relations with China irked some in India, which had hoped to build on Bush's legacy. "In terms of important but second-tier issues -- trade, climate change, even defence sales and counter-terrorism -- relations are good, and may get better," said Stephen Cohen, a South Asia specialist at the Brookings Institution think tank.

"However, there seems to be a parting of the ways at the strategic level."

U.S. strategy for Afghanistan, focused partly on Pakistan which Washington sees as a necessary ally, has been criticised as ignoring the concerns of regional countries such as India, which competes with Islamabad for influence in Kabul. Reuters

Stephen Cohen is a very pro-Indian analysts. For him to make this big statement is a very

poignant.

GANDHINAGAR: Air Chief Marshal P V Naik said on Wednesday that India's "aircraft strength is inadequate and is just one third of China's air force.'' He said it would take at least three years for the situation to change as the IAF was in the process to augment its inventory.

Talking to the media at the South Western Air Command during his two-day visit to Gujarat, the IAF chief said: "IAF is known worldwide as a professional organisation for its capabilities. But India's aircraft strength is just one third of China's. Our present aircraft strength is inadequate -- it is not enough.''

"China is one of the many challenges, including terrorism, a low spectrum conflict that India is facing in the current geo-political situation. The country was seized of the problems and taking multi-pronged measures ranging from diplomatic to economic to face the challenges besides developing capabilities. We are playing it cool. This is also a part of the strategy,'' he said.

On reports of incursions by Chinese troops, he said as far as IAF was concerned, there were no incursions anywhere. He also sought to allay fears by saying that adequate deployment has been made on the border. "The coordination between Indian armed forces and intelligence agencies is much better now than what it was a year ago,'' Naik said.

The IAF chief said contracts have been signed between Russia and India for a fifth generation fighter and transport aircraft. "India proposes to buy at least 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMCA) like F-18, F-16, Raphael and C-150 Hercules. One Airborne Warning & Control System (AWACS) has already arrived while two are expected by next year. Besides, we intend to buy heavy transport aircraft (global inquiry floated) and medium lift helicopters,'' said Naik. Times of India. IAF strength just one-third of China's: IAF chief. TNN 24 September 2009, 12:15am IST

ISLAMABAD: The education rate and literacy indicators in Pakistan are better than those in India, a United Nations Fund for Population (UNFPA) report said on Wednesday.

The report claimed Pakistan’s infant mortality ratio per 1,000 live births was 62, compared to India’s 53 per 1,000 live births.

Meanwhile, the maternal mortality ratio in the country was 320 per 100,000 live births, compared to 450 in India.

As per details regarding education, the report said that in Pakistan, 32.3 percent male and 60.4 percent female above 15 years of age were literate. 23.1 percent male and 45.5 percent female above the same age were literate in India.

Gross primary enrolment ratio was 101 male and 83 girls in Pakistan, while it was 114 males and 109 females in India.

The report said that out of the above-mentioned figures, 68 male and 72 female managed to reach grade five in Pakistan, while in India the number was 59 male and 49 females. app

911: World Trade Centers attacked: Amidst the 1600 degree Fahrenheit flames of plane crash, the death of more than 3000 Americans (including 300 Muslims), and total destruction of several blocks of the Financial district of New York, the US authorities were able to retrieve the only surviving artifact out of the debris—the passport of one of the culprits. This document was retrieved within minutes of the crash and set the stage.

2001: OBL denies any responsibility of the attack. Several tapes later appear that show OBL acknowledging the attacks. Michael Sheuer of the CIA OBL Analysis cell in Afghanistan discusses these at length. Pictures of OBL widely differ in the tapes leading to conspiracy theories and suspicions that some of the tapes might have been engineered by agencies.

2002: Various players of the Bush Administration including Richard Armitage threaten Pakistan “of being bombed into the stone age”. When reminded of the long history of US-Pakistani relations since the 50s, Armitage responds “History begins today”.  

US invades Afghanistan to avenge the attack, and eliminate all enemies: Pakistan advised the US, not to attack the country, and had offered 5000 marines to nab the evil guys. Pakistan also advised the US to negotiate with the moderate elements of the “T” and bring about a regime change. The Bush Administration ignores sanity and uses 20,000 pounder Daisy Cutters (one step below a nuclear bomb).

2002: As a result of carpet bombing the entire country a stream of refugees head to Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Pakistan. The very same thin g happened during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Instead of understanding the consequences of terrorizing the Afghan population with bombs, the US accuses Pakistan of “harboring” terrorists.

2002: The US attacks Iraq allegedly to find WMDs. None are found but 1 million Iraqis die and 20 million are rendered homeless.

2003: Ralph Peter’s egregious map truncating Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran to create new smaller states is published by a defense department journal give rise to conspiracy theories about US intentions about West Asia in general and Pakistan in particular.

2003: A drumbeat of Indian propaganda against Pakistan accuses it of interference. The US is fed the WMD type of information from three main spy agnecies, RAW and Mossad and Afghan KHAD.

In 2004, the US begins bombing Pakistani territory-either with the connivance or the knowledge of the compliant Pakistani president. The bombings create a

2005: There is a litany of US demands “to do more”. In response to these incessant demands, the Pakistani military launches several attacks into FATA.

2006: President Hamid Karzai directly threatens Pakistan. More than a dozen “Indian Consulates” are allowed on Afghan soil. The Afghan intelligence agency is patterned on RAW and ominously renamed RAMA.

2007: Reports emerge of massive Indian infiltration into the ranks of the insurgents.

In 2008 a spate of foreign sponsored “reprisal attacks” from foreign armed, foreign trained mercenaries begin in Pakistan.

2008: Benazir Bhutto is assassinated in Liaqat bagh—the 2nd Pakistani leader to be murdered on the same spot. The world suspects Mr. Zardari who in turn blames the TTP for the murder of the politician.

2008: President Musharraf is accused of duplicity by the Americans. US seeks more compliant leadership in Pakistan. Missteps by President Musharraf lead to his resignation and eventual self-exile in London.

2009: Pakistan attacks and successfully retakes Swat which had become a hotbed of Indian sponsored militants. Pictures of uncircumcised men with long beard raise speculation of Indian agents working as mercenaries to destabilize Pakistan.

2009: Pakistan eliminates vestiges of the so called TTP in South Waziristan. The TTP funded and armed from Afghanistan increase their waves of attacks on innocent Pakistani civilians in all areas of Pakistani territory.

November 2009: The language used, restrictions imposed, the tiny amount of “aid” ($6.5 Billion for Pakistan vs. $143 Billion for Afghanistan vs $605 Billion for Iraq) and the accusation listed in the Kerry Lugar Bill “Aid to Pakistan” are severely criticized in Pakistan.

November 2009: Hillary Clinton faces a barrage of belligerent accusations in Pakistan and a lukewarm welcome.

November 2009: The corruption charges against President Asif Zardari stand resurrected as the National Assembly fails to pass the NRO (amnesty for the misdeeds of politicians)

November 2009: US National Security Advisor James Jones tries to smooth over ruffled feathers of Pakistani civilian and military government. He delivers a personal message to President Zardari asking him to continue his offensive against the “Taliban”. Pakistanis suspect, it is part of a US Exit strategy.

November 2009: According to the New York Times “the latest internal government estimates place the cost of adding 40,000 American troops and sharply expanding the Afghan security forces, as favored by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top American and allied commander in Afghanistan, at $40 billion to $54 billion a year, the officials said”. In a front page story, the paper essentially says that the US can no longer afford the war in Afghanistan

Even if fewer troops are sent, or their mission is modified, the rough formula used by the White House, of about $1 million per soldier a year, appears almost constant.

November 2009: Media reports emerge about how the US can no longer afford the 40,000 additional troops request by General McChrystal.

November 2009: A new drumbeat of media and US administration pressure wants Pakistan to invade North Waziristan, which the US claims in the home of the Haqqani Network—much hated by US generals. Will the Pakistani army once again buckle to American pressure, attack North Waziristan and then face more domestic attacks. Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi says his country will decide on its own, according to its priorities and resources, on how to fight militants. He says the international community recognizes Pakistan's sacrifices and unity in the face of Islamist extremists. He says his country does not need to do more or less because someone is saying so.

November 2009: The TTP denies role in many of the bombings in Pakistan. Indian arms are discovered in Waziristan. The presence of Blackwater/Xe and Dynacorp, the uniquely unprecedented expansion of the  US Embassy, the maniacal statements of Admiral Mullen about “existential threats to Pakistan”, and Hillary Clinton’s strange rhetoric about Pakistan’s real enemies (India is not an enemy) fuel conspiracy theories about US intentions in Pakistan—and increase Anti-Americanism.

November 2009: Obama Administration announced another new Afghan policy (part of about a dozen re-assessments). A slight troop surge and plans to evacuate most of the country to garrisons seems to be the plan. This is exactly what happened to the British when they were thrown out of Afghanistan and the Russians. The sitting targets will be relentlessly attacked by the insurgents ‘till they eventually evacuate back to the States.

Rupee News has been predicting for about two years that inevitability of a US withdrawal and an end to the Afghan war in 2011, when some of the coalition partners will leave Kabul. More than 70% of the US public now opposes continued occupation of Afghanistan, and this number will grow when the Republicans begin hammering the Dems before the 2012 elections.

911: World Trade Centers attacked: Amidst the 1600 degree Fahrenheit flames of plane crash, the death of more than 3000 Americans (including 300 Muslims), and total destruction of several blocks of the Financial district of New York, the US authorities were able to retrieve the only surviving artifact out of the debris—the passport of one of the culprits. This document was retrieved within minutes of the crash and set the stage.

2001: OBL denies any responsibility of the attack. Several tapes later appear that show OBL acknowledging the attacks. Michael Sheuer of the CIA OBL Analysis cell in Afghanistan discusses these at length. Pictures of OBL widely differ in the tapes leading to conspiracy theories and suspicions that some of the tapes might have been engineered by agencies.

2002: Various players of the Bush Administration including Richard Armitage threaten Pakistan “of being bombed into the stone age”. When reminded of the long history of US-Pakistani relations since the 50s, Armitage responds “History begins today”.  

US invades Afghanistan to avenge the attack, and eliminate all enemies: Pakistan advised the US, not to attack the country, and had offered 5000 marines to nab the evil guys. Pakistan also advised the US to negotiate with the moderate elements of the “T” and bring about a regime change. The Bush Administration ignores sanity and uses 20,000 pounder Daisy Cutters (one step below a nuclear bomb).

2002: As a result of carpet bombing the entire country a stream of refugees head to Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Pakistan. The very same thin g happened during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Instead of understanding the consequences of terrorizing the Afghan population with bombs, the US accuses Pakistan of “harboring” terrorists.

2002: The US attacks Iraq allegedly to find WMDs. None are found but 1 million Iraqis die and 20 million are rendered homeless.

2003: Ralph Peter’s egregious map truncating Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran to create new smaller states is published by a defense department journal give rise to conspiracy theories about US intentions about West Asia in general and Pakistan in particular.

2003: A drumbeat of Indian propaganda against Pakistan accuses it of interference. The US is fed the WMD type of information from three main spy agnecies, RAW and Mossad and Afghan KHAD.

In 2004, the US begins bombing Pakistani territory-either with the connivance or the knowledge of the compliant Pakistani president. The bombings create a

2005: There is a litany of US demands “to do more”. In response to these incessant demands, the Pakistani military launches several attacks into FATA.

2006: President Hamid Karzai directly threatens Pakistan. More than a dozen “Indian Consulates” are allowed on Afghan soil. The Afghan intelligence agency is patterned on RAW and ominously renamed RAMA.

2007: Reports emerge of massive Indian infiltration into the ranks of the insurgents.

In 2008 a spate of foreign sponsored “reprisal attacks” from foreign armed, foreign trained mercenaries begin in Pakistan.

2008: Benazir Bhutto is assassinated in Liaqat bagh—the 2nd Pakistani leader to be murdered on the same spot. The world suspects Mr. Zardari who in turn blames the TTP for the murder of the politician.

2008: President Musharraf is accused of duplicity by the Americans. US seeks more compliant leadership in Pakistan. Missteps by President Musharraf lead to his resignation and eventual self-exile in London.

2009: Pakistan attacks and successfully retakes Swat which had become a hotbed of Indian sponsored militants. Pictures of uncircumcised men with long beard raise speculation of Indian agents working as mercenaries to destabilize Pakistan.

2009: Pakistan eliminates vestiges of the so called TTP in South Waziristan. The TTP funded and armed from Afghanistan increase their waves of attacks on innocent Pakistani civilians in all areas of Pakistani territory.

November 2009: The language used, restrictions imposed, the tiny amount of “aid” ($6.5 Billion for Pakistan vs. $143 Billion for Afghanistan vs $605 Billion for Iraq) and the accusation listed in the Kerry Lugar Bill “Aid to Pakistan” are severely criticized in Pakistan.

November 2009: Hillary Clinton faces a barrage of belligerent accusations in Pakistan and a lukewarm welcome.

November 2009: The corruption charges against President Asif Zardari stand resurrected as the National Assembly fails to pass the NRO (amnesty for the misdeeds of politicians)

November 2009: US National Security Advisor James Jones tries to smooth over ruffled feathers of Pakistani civilian and military government. He delivers a personal message to President Zardari asking him to continue his offensive against the “Taliban”. Pakistanis suspect, it is part of a US Exit strategy.

November 2009: According to the New York Times “the latest internal government estimates place the cost of adding 40,000 American troops and sharply expanding the Afghan security forces, as favored by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top American and allied commander in Afghanistan, at $40 billion to $54 billion a year, the officials said”. In a front page story, the paper essentially says that the US can no longer afford the war in Afghanistan

Even if fewer troops are sent, or their mission is modified, the rough formula used by the White House, of about $1 million per soldier a year, appears almost constant.

November 2009: Media reports emerge about how the US can no longer afford the 40,000 additional troops request by General McChrystal.

November 2009: A new drumbeat of media and US administration pressure wants Pakistan to invade North Waziristan, which the US claims in the home of the Haqqani Network—much hated by US generals. Will the Pakistani army once again buckle to American pressure, attack North Waziristan and then face more domestic attacks. Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi says his country will decide on its own, according to its priorities and resources, on how to fight militants. He says the international community recognizes Pakistan's sacrifices and unity in the face of Islamist extremists. He says his country does not need to do more or less because someone is saying so.

November 2009: The TTP denies role in many of the bombings in Pakistan. Indian arms are discovered in Waziristan. The presence of Blackwater/Xe and Dynacorp, the uniquely unprecedented expansion of the  US Embassy, the maniacal statements of Admiral Mullen about “existential threats to Pakistan”, and Hillary Clinton’s strange rhetoric about Pakistan’s real enemies (India is not an enemy) fuel conspiracy theories about US intentions in Pakistan—and increase Anti-Americanism.

November 2009: Obama Administration announced another new Afghan policy (part of about a dozen re-assessments). A slight troop surge and plans to evacuate most of the country to garrisons seems to be the plan. This is exactly what happened to the British when they were thrown out of Afghanistan and the Russians. The sitting targets will be relentlessly attacked by the insurgents ‘till they eventually evacuate back to the States.

Rupee News has been predicting for about two years that inevitability of a US withdrawal and an end to the Afghan war in 2011, when some of the coalition partners will leave Kabul. More than 70% of the US public now opposes continued occupation of Afghanistan, and this number will grow when the Republicans begin hammering the Dems before the 2012 elections.

The US Congressmen assured PM Gilani that the FTA will be more effective as compared to Reconstruction Opportunities Zones (ROZs) due to many security related and infrastructure issues. - APP photo

World

US, Japan vow to revitalise strained ties

ISLAMABAD: US Congressmen presently visiting Pakistan assured that they will make sincere efforts to expedite the process for the legislation for a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between the two countries.

Talking to a group of journalists, the congressmen said they have told Pakistani parliamentarians that FTA will further promote trade and bilateral relations and help Pakistan in resolving its economic crisis.

They said the US wants to build a long-term partnership of trust with Pakistan and would extend full cooperation in strengthening the democratic institutions here.

The US Congressional delegation headed by David Price, Chairman of the House Democracy Partnership Commission included Congressman David Dreier, Congressman Keith Ellson, Congressman Charles W Boustany, Congressman Mazie K. Hirono and Congressman Lois Capps.

During their visit to Pakistan they met with Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani, Senate Chairman Farooq H Naik, Speaker National Assembly Dr Fehmida Mirza, Leader of Opposition in National Assembly Chaudhry Nisar Ahmed and other parliamentarians and discussed matters of mutual interest.

Giving details of their interaction with the parliamentarians, the US Congressmen appreciated the working of the democratic system in Pakistan.

Leader of the delegation Congressman David Price said Pakistan has a responsible and legitimate government and both the countries are working at various levels to have strong and long term relationship beyond narrow concerns of security.

He commended Pakistan’s pivotal role in the global war on terror and lauded the sacrifices made by the country.

He said that US desired economic, social and educational development in Pakistan to overcome the legacy of militancy and terrorism.

David said the US Government and the people understand Pakistan’s sensitivities and have no intention to micro manage things in the country.

Replying to a question he said, a number of concrete proposals including exchange of parliamentary delegations, training Pakistani officials to improve performance of standing committees of parliament through exchange of staff and conducting training workshops are in the works.

Replying to a question, they said the issue of Afghanistan and security related problems of Pakistan were also discussed during these meetings.

They especially appreciated the idea of ‘Pakistan wants trade not aid’ highlighted by Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani during his meeting with the members of the delegation.

They assured the Prime Minister that more concentration would be given to finalise FTA between the two countries as it will be more effective as compared to Reconstruction Opportunities Zones (ROZs) due to many security related and lack of infrastructure issues.

Replying to a question, Congressman David Price said the security issue was not the major topic discussed with the Pakistani parliamentarians while bilateral interaction in political, education, health and other fields were given more focus.

Answering a question about threats to the democratic system in Pakistan, David Price said, ‘strong and functional parliament’ was the solution to any external threats to the democratic process.

‘We want that a popular government should stay in power in Pakistan,’ said Price.

Answering a question, he said, the parliamentarians also conveyed their feelings on Kerry Lugar Bill.

He said the KLB is to improve relations with the civilian government and it does not contain conditions rather it has only expectations and concerns to ensure that the assistance could be spent for which it was given.

The congressmen said there should be no misunderstanding regarding KLB. The issue of drone attacks was also discussed to some extent, he added but he refused to explain the discussion on it saying it was a very complicated issue.—APP. US officials assure Pakistan to expedite FTA Friday, 13 Nov, 2009 

Bypassing the aid trap in Pakistan

Similar stories:

•

China to map out Africa strategy at forum in Egypt

China to map out Africa strategy at forum in Egypt

China will set the future direction of its burgeoning ties with Africa at a multinational forum in Egypt this month, Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi was quoted as saying on Sunday.

Premier Wen Jiabao plans to attend the Nov. 8-9 Forum on China-Africa Cooperation in the resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, Yang said in an interview with the official Xinhua News Agency.

No details were given, but at the last forum in 2006, China pledged to double assistance to Africa by 2009, provide $5 billion in preferential loans and credits, cancel debts and establish a $5 billion fund to encourage Chinese investment.

•

Chinese premier pledges funds, aid to Africa

Chinese premier pledges funds, aid to Africa

China's premier on Sunday pledged $10 billion in new low interest loans to African nations over three years, offering the beleaguered continent sorely needed cash while dismissing criticism that Beijing's motives in Africa are far from altruistic.

Wen Jiabao's promise at the start of a two-day China-Africa summit was warmly received by African leaders and officials, most of whose nations confront a miasma of despair further accentuated by a global financial crisis that is only now showing signs of abating.

"The Chinese people cherish sincere friendship toward the African people, and China's support to Africa's development is concrete and real," Wen said at a forum that attracted leaders such as Sudan's Omar al-Bashir - who faces an international arrest warrant - and Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe. Both are heads of state out-of-favor with the West.

•

Make the investment

Make the investment

GEORGE SOROS

www.soros.org

•

Business groups seek job creation

Business groups seek job creation

The Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce has a simple idea for how the Florida Legislature could bring more jobs to the state: Stop cutting funding for schools.

''What we're saying is no further cuts,'' said Michael Burnstine, chairman of the chamber's state advocacy committee. ``If you don't have educated people, you're not going to be competitive in the world.''

The chamber's top pr

Bypassing the aid trap in Pakistan

Similar stories:

•

China to map out Africa strategy at forum in Egypt

China to map out Africa strategy at forum in Egypt

China will set the future direction of its burgeoning ties with Africa at a multinational forum in Egypt this month, Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi was quoted as saying on Sunday.

Premier Wen Jiabao plans to attend the Nov. 8-9 Forum on China-Africa Cooperation in the resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, Yang said in an interview with the official Xinhua News Agency.

No details were given, but at the last forum in 2006, China pledged to double assistance to Africa by 2009, provide $5 billion in preferential loans and credits, cancel debts and establish a $5 billion fund to encourage Chinese investment.

•

Chinese premier pledges funds, aid to Africa

Chinese premier pledges funds, aid to Africa

China's premier on Sunday pledged $10 billion in new low interest loans to African nations over three years, offering the beleaguered continent sorely needed cash while dismissing criticism that Beijing's motives in Africa are far from altruistic.

Wen Jiabao's promise at the start of a two-day China-Africa summit was warmly received by African leaders and officials, most of whose nations confront a miasma of despair further accentuated by a global financial crisis that is only now showing signs of abating.

"The Chinese people cherish sincere friendship toward the African people, and China's support to Africa's development is concrete and real," Wen said at a forum that attracted leaders such as Sudan's Omar al-Bashir - who faces an international arrest warrant - and Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe. Both are heads of state out-of-favor with the West.

•

Make the investment

Make the investment

GEORGE SOROS

www.soros.org

•

Business groups seek job creation

Business groups seek job creation

The Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce has a simple idea for how the Florida Legislature could bring more jobs to the state: Stop cutting funding for schools.

''What we're saying is no further cuts,'' said Michael Burnstine, chairman of the chamber's state advocacy committee. ``If you don't have educated people, you're not going to be competitive in the world.''

The chamber's top priorities for this year's legislative session also include a request that the state restore funding for a proposed tunnel to provide easier access to the Port of Miami. The port is widely regarded as a key engine for the local economy.

•

World Trade Center Miami helps drive business to South Florida

World Trade Center Miami helps drive business to South Florida

When Charlotte Gallogly was growing up, she often spent Saturdays at the library reading about, in her words, ``far away places with strange-sounding names.''

Today, as president of the World Trade Center Miami, she helps bring thousands of people from far away places to trade shows and conferences in Miami. The center, established in 1985, organizes some of the largest trade shows in the hemisphere, including Air Cargo Americas, SeaCargo Americas and the Americas Food & Beverage Show. It also puts together events such as the State of the Ports, World Trade Week and International Women's Day.

The two cargo events held in Miami last week and the food and beverage show, which closed on Tuesday, attracted thousands of visitors from scores of countries, as well as businessmen and government representatives from South Florida, said Gallogly, who took over as president of the WTC Miami in 1987 when the organization became operational.

BY GLENN HUBBARD

www.washpost.com

Congress recently approved $7.5 billion in aid to Pakistan for social and economic development. The bill incited controversy by requiring that the U.S. secretary of state report to lawmakers on whether Pakistan's civilian government keeps effective control over its military, because many observers accuse some in the Pakistani military of having tolerated or even aided Islamic extremists since the 1980s.

But the bill itself should raise questions. After all, does Pakistan, or the U.S. Agency for International Development, or any other agency that will implement the aid actually know how to successfully spend these funds? In other parts of the world, especially Africa, foreign aid has been a spectacular failure in promoting social and economic development. This bill promises more of the same.

The United States has given Pakistan more than $10 billion in development aid since 1954. What has become of those funds? It certainly has not helped produce the kind of stability and prosperity that would help Pakistan offer its people an alternative to extremism. Nor has aid worked in Africa. Nothing indicates that an additional $7.5 billion will yield better results.

All, however, is not yet lost. It will take time to disburse and spend the funds, and there could be a chance to recast the support in a more promising way. There is even an example of effective large-scale aid on which to draw: the Marshall Plan of postwar Europe, which is still recognized as the most successful aid program in history.

The essence of the Marshall Plan was loans to local businesses, which paid them back to their local governments, which used the money for commercial infrastructure to help those same businesses. The result was economic growth, employment and a stable middle class that opposed the popular communist parties across Europe. With creative adaptation, the same basic model can work in Pakistan.

Economic aid to Africa and Pakistan has tended to be allocated to government-directed development projects. More recently, such aid has funded projects by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), too. But all of the world's prosperous countries became rich through the growth of a domestic business sector. India and China are the most recent examples of this. A thriving local business sector is the only known path to prosperity and stability.

Some might argue that Pakistan is too different from postwar Europe for a Marshall Plan to work. But consider Greece, a poor and war-torn nation when the Marshall Plan was implemented. By the time the plan was ended, Greece was well on its way to prosperity. This model can be reinterpreted to best suit the Pakistan situation: The kinds of loans can vary widely, and the commercial infrastructure can range from training for accountants to the more traditional ports and roads.

The World Bank's Doing Business index ranks countries by how easy it is for citizens to start and run businesses. Among the 183 nations ranked, most of sub-Saharan Africa falls in the bottom half. Pakistan, at No. 85, is less anti-business than most poor countries, so a Marshall Plan there has a reasonable chance of success.

Right now, nothing in the package suggests that this $7.5 billion will do any better than previous development aid, largely because government and NGO aid projects make it harder for prosperity to take root. Aid projects hire qualified staff away from local businesses. For example, they deliver fertilizer to farmers instead of a local business doing it. And they remove incentive for Pakistan to make reforms that foster business development. After all, why make it easier for business when government and NGO projects give out so much money?

But a Marshall Plan would help Pakistan's efforts to encourage its local business sector. The efforts are there: In August, Prime Minister Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani established the first Business Persons Council; it has 53 members from the local business community and is headed by the minister of finance. The council is to meet monthly ``to recommend measures for improvement in business climate in Pakistan and develop a business and trade sector strategy for the country.'' This is a major shift from tradition, in which the government Planning Commission was solely in charge of economic policy. Foreign aid should work with this new effort rather than at cross-purposes with it.

Former secretary of state George Marshall famously suggested fighting the spread of communism in Europe through local business. That strategy could contribute to the battle against Islamic extremism. The current aid package should become a Pakistan Marshall Plan -- before it's too late.

Glenn Hubbard, dean of Columbia Business School and a former chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, is the author of Aid Trap: Hard Truths About Ending Poverty.

Priorities for this year's legislative session also include a request that the state restore funding for a proposed tunnel to provide easier access to the Port of Miami. The port is widely regarded as a key engine for the local economy.

World Trade Center Miami helps drive business to South Florida

World Trade Center Miami helps drive business to South Florida

When Charlotte Gallogly was growing up, she often spent Saturdays at the library reading about, in her words, ``far away places with strange-sounding names.''

Today, as president of the World Trade Center Miami, she helps bring thousands of people from far away places to trade shows and conferences in Miami. The center, established in 1985, organizes some of the largest trade shows in the hemisphere, including Air Cargo Americas, SeaCargo Americas and the Americas Food & Beverage Show. It also puts together events such as the State of the Ports, World Trade Week and International Women's Day.

The two cargo events held in Miami last week and the food and beverage show, which closed on Tuesday, attracted thousands of visitors from scores of countries, as well as businessmen and government representatives from South Florida, said Gallogly, who took over as president of the WTC Miami in 1987 when the organization became operational.

BY GLENN HUBBARD www.washpost.com

Congress recently approved $7.5 billion in aid to Pakistan for social and economic development. The bill incited controversy by requiring that the U.S. secretary of state report to lawmakers on whether Pakistan's civilian government keeps effective control over its military, because many observers accuse some in the Pakistani military of having tolerated or even aided Islamic extremists since the 1980s.

But the bill itself should raise questions. After all, does Pakistan, or the U.S. Agency for International Development, or any other agency that will implement the aid actually know how to successfully spend these funds? In other parts of the world, especially Africa, foreign aid has been a spectacular failure in promoting social and economic development. This bill promises more of the same.

The United States has given Pakistan more than $10 billion in development aid since 1954. What has become of those funds? It certainly has not helped produce the kind of stability and prosperity that would help Pakistan offer its people an alternative to extremism. Nor has aid worked in Africa. Nothing indicates that an additional $7.5 billion will yield better results.

All, however, is not yet lost. It will take time to disburse and spend the funds, and there could be a chance to recast the support in a more promising way. There is even an example of effective large-scale aid on which to draw: the Marshall Plan of postwar Europe, which is still recognized as the most successful aid program in history.

The essence of the Marshall Plan was loans to local businesses, which paid them back to their local governments, which used the money for commercial infrastructure to help those same businesses. The result was economic growth, employment and a stable middle class that opposed the popular communist parties across Europe. With creative adaptation, the same basic model can work in Pakistan.

Economic aid to Africa and Pakistan has tended to be allocated to government-directed development projects. More recently, such aid has funded projects by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), too. But all of the world's prosperous countries became rich through the growth of a domestic business sector. India and China are the most recent examples of this. A thriving local business sector is the only known path to prosperity and stability.

Some might argue that Pakistan is too different from postwar Europe for a Marshall Plan to work. But consider Greece, a poor and war-torn nation when the Marshall Plan was implemented. By the time the plan was ended, Greece was well on its way to prosperity. This model can be reinterpreted to best suit the Pakistan situation: The kinds of loans can vary widely, and the commercial infrastructure can range from training for accountants to the more traditional ports and roads.

The World Bank's Doing Business index ranks countries by how easy it is for citizens to start and run businesses. Among the 183 nations ranked, most of sub-Saharan Africa falls in the bottom half. Pakistan, at No. 85, is less anti-business than most poor countries, so a Marshall Plan there has a reasonable chance of success.

Right now, nothing in the package suggests that this $7.5 billion will do any better than previous development aid, largely because government and NGO aid projects make it harder for prosperity to take root. Aid projects hire qualified staff away from local businesses. For example, they deliver fertilizer to farmers instead of a local business doing it. And they remove incentive for Pakistan to make reforms that foster business development. After all, why make it easier for business when government and NGO projects give out so much money?

But a Marshall Plan would help Pakistan's efforts to encourage its local business sector. The efforts are there: In August, Prime Minister Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani established the first Business Persons Council; it has 53 members from the local business community and is headed by the minister of finance. The council is to meet monthly ``to recommend measures for improvement in business climate in Pakistan and develop a business and trade sector strategy for the country.'' This is a major shift from tradition, in which the government Planning Commission was solely in charge of economic policy. Foreign aid should work with this new effort rather than at cross-purposes with it.

Former secretary of state George Marshall famously suggested fighting the spread of communism in Europe through local business. That strategy could contribute to the battle against Islamic extremism. The current aid package should become a Pakistan Marshall Plan -- before it's too late.

Glenn Hubbard, dean of Columbia Business School and a former chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, is the author of Aid Trap: Hard Truths About Ending Poverty.

Pakistan has strongly reacted to a reported letter from the U.S. president to his Pakistani counterpart that is said to urge Pakistan to do more in the fight against extremists. The response was made as four people were killed and 25 injured by a bomb in northwestern Pakistan, the seventh such attack in as many days.

Pakistan's FM Shah Mehmood Qureshi during Council of Ministers Meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 02 Nov 2009

Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi says his country will decide on its own, according to its priorities and resources, on how to fight militants.
He says the international community recognizes Pakistan's sacrifices and unity in the face of Islamist extremists. He says his country does not need to do more or less because someone is saying so.

Qureshi was responding to a U.S. media report that quoted unnamed American officials as saying U.S. National Security Advisor Jim Jones delivered a letter from U.S. President Barack Obama to Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari.

Jones arrived Friday in Pakistan, the same day two suicide bombers struck in and around Peshawar. One blast targeted the regional office of Pakistan's spy agency, destroying much of the building.

According to a New York Times article, Mr. Obama encouraged his Pakistani counterpart to rally the nation's political and national security institutions in the fight against extremists.

Qureshi says Pakistan is in close consultations with senior U.S. officials on Afghan policy. President Obama is considering whether to send more troops to the country, and Qureshi says he hopes any troop increase would not lead to instability in Pakistan.

Meanwhile, a suicide bombing in the town of Badh Ber outside Peshawar severely damaged several buildings, including the police station and a nearby mosque.
This area of northwestern Pakistan has suffered a large number of suspected militant attacks, killing hundreds of people since the army launched its offensive in mid-October against the Pakistani Taliban in South Waziristan.

Authorities say the militants are retaliating for the military offensive in Pakistan's tribal regions bordering Afghanistan.
On Sunday, militants attacked the homes of two pro-government elders near Peshawar, killing one of them. Separately in the Bajaur tribal region, local police say gunmen shot dead an anti-Taliban tribal elder at his home.

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is increasing pressure on Pakistan to fight Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants as part of a revised US strategy for the Afghanistan war, The New York Times reported Monday.

During a little-publicized visit to Pakistan last week, National Security Adviser James Jones met with Pakistan's civilian and military leaders, including army chief General Ashfaq Kayani.

He also delivered a letter from President Barack Obama to Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari urging him to get Pakistan's political and national security institutions engaged in a united campaign against militants threatening both their country and Afghanistan, according to the Times.

Obama presented a range of fresh incentives to Islamabad in his letter, including enhancing intelligence sharing and military cooperation, it added, citing an official brief on its contents.

The report comes as some Pakistani officials have expressed concern that any major US troop increase in Afghanistan -- as Obama is expected to announce shortly -- could push Taliban fighters into Pakistan.

Yet Islamabad has warned against any precipitous US troop drawdown, saying it could encourage Afghan fighters to pour across the border into South Waziristan, becoming Pakistan's problem.

The White House has said Obama is now factoring a US exit strategy as part of his Afghanistan war plans.

"Whatever we do -- put in more troops or put in fewer troops -- they'll freak out," a US intelligence officer told the Times.

But he also stressed that "we need to be much more convincing that we have a better game plan."

Although Jones had good words during his visit for Pakistan's operation against extremists in South Waziristan, he also urged officials to target militants who took refuge in North Waziristan, according to the newspaper.

He told Pakistani officials that the revamped US strategy Obama is expected to announce would only garner success if Pakistan expanded its fight to also target Al-Qaeda support networks and groups using Pakistani territory to plot and carry out attacks against US troops in Afghanistan, it added.

The United States has put Pakistan on the frontline of its war against Al-Qaeda and has been increasingly concerned by rising insecurity in a country where attacks and bombings have killed more than 2,500 people in 28 months. New US Afghan plan ups pressure on Pakistan: report (AFP) –Pakistan Strongly Reacts to Reported Obama Letter By Sean Maroney Islamabad 16 November 2009

Massive torchlight parades, clashes between the police and demonstrators, vows to bring the Nepalese government to its knees, a tottering United Nations peace process, and barely concealed great-power sparring between China and India. Clearly, Nepal is in crisis.

This week, a branch of Nepal's Maoists declared the autonomy of the Nepalese state of Kirat, a move that might lead to the total collapse of the Nepalese peace process and the return of the Maoists to insurgency against the central government:

The agitating Unified Maoists' Party has declared the Autonomous State of Monday, November 9, 2009. The Maoist Party politburo member and the coordinator of Kirat State Uprising Committee, Mr Gopal Kirati, amid the presence of hundreds of Maoist cadres, had made the declaration in Diktel of Khotang District. [1]

So far, Western media have reported remotely and somewhat uncomprehendingly on the massive demonstrations in Kathmandu led by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), with a marked lack of interest. This perhaps reflects the shared desire of the Indian, Chinese and Western governments not to inflame the situation with excessive attention and rhetoric. The CPN-M has vowed to bring 300,000 activists to the capital to shut down the government.
Inexorably and almost invisibly, Nepal has emerged as the focus of the competition between India and China to seize the strategic advantage along the Himalayas.

India moved first, helping to orchestrate the fall of the incompetent and stubbornly independent 240-year-old Nepalese monarchy in 2007. Nepal's King Gyanendra had conducted a bloody, ineffectual campaign against a Nepalese Maoist insurgency, incurring New Delhi's wrath in the process by turning to Beijing for arms.
India's foreign secretary at the time, Shyam Saran, arranged an unholy alliance of the Maoist insurgency and disaffected pro-Indian politicians in Kathmandu. This alliance toppled the monarchy and put a nascent parliamentary democracy in its place, in a scenario reminiscent of the cycle of Indian-inspired unrest that extinguished the monarchy and independence of the Kingdom of Sikkim in 1975.

It was assumed that the Maoists, author of a good number of bloody outrages during the insurgency, would emerge from Nepal's parliamentary elections as a relatively unpopular fringe party, leaving control of parliament to a melange of pro-Indian middle-of-the-road parties.
However, in a development that undoubtedly caused India a great deal of dismay and may have even disconcerted the Leninist stalwarts of the Nepalese Maoists, the 2008 elections gave the Maoists - organized as the CPN-M under their leader, Pushpa Kamal Dahal (aka Prachanda) a commanding plurality of 38%, twice as many votes as the nearest challenger.

Prachanda was sworn in as prime minister on August 15, 2008, after months of maneuvering and negotiations. Instead of paying his first official visit to New Delhi - as was the tradition of Nepalese prime ministers under the monarchy - Prachanda jetted to Beijing for the closing ceremonies of the Beijing Summer Olympic Games. He further endeared himself to China with a vigorous crackdown on anti-Chinese demonstrations by Tibetan emigres that had ignited after the unrest in Tibet and in the run-up to the Olympics.
The Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses, an Indian think-tank affiliated with the Defense Ministry, [2] described the accelerated bloom in Sino-Nepali relations under the Prachanda government:

In fact, 12 high-level Chinese delegations, including two military teams, visited Nepal in the course of 2008-2009. During these visits, China has repeatedly assured economic, technological and military aid to Nepal. The Maoist-led government was also asked to adopt a "One-China" policy, not to allow Nepalese land be used for anti-China activities, take strong action against Tibetan refugees and grant special facilities for Chinese investments in strategic sectors. Beijing has also initiated track-II diplomacy with Nepal and invited Nepalese scholars to undertake visits to Chinese think-tanks.

Some of the important visits from China to Nepal were:

February 25, 2009: Assistant Chinese Foreign Minister Hu Zhengyue led a 14-member delegation.

February 19, 2009: Liu Hongcai, vice minister of the International Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC), led a delegation to take part in the inaugural ceremony of the 8th convention of the Unified Marxist Leninist in Butwal.

February 10, 2009: A high-level Peoples' Liberation Army (PLA) delegation, one of the largest delegations in two months, arrived in Nepal.

December 6, 2008: Lieutenant General Ma Xiaotian, deputy chief of General Staff of the PLA headed a 10-member delegation. China agreed to provide US$2.61 million worth of security assistance to Nepal.

December 1, 2008: China's Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi visited Nepal.

July 24, 2008: Chinese Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs, Wu Dawei, visited Nepal. He pledged a grant assistance of 100 million yuan (US$15 million) as economic and technical cooperation.

March 4, 2008: Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs of China, He Yafei, undertook a three-day visit to Nepal.

Nepal's engagements with China have also increased manifold with the visit of delegations both at state and non-state levels. Apart from visits at the official levels, private visits by political leaders, journalists and academicians are also sponsored by China as part of public diplomacy. During these visits, Chinese authorities have reportedly assured all kinds of support to the Maoist government in its efforts aimed at laying the foundation for a "New Nepal".

For the Nepalese Maoists, growing Chinese engagement is a win-win situation in line with their "policy of equidistance", which has been deliberately adopted to counter-balance India's influence in Nepal.

The increasing level of bilateral engagement also indicates that China is wooing Nepal as a new strategic partner. This has been confirmed by the statements made by various Chinese officials. For example, on February 16, 2009, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi said in Beijing that China would prefer to work with Nepal on the basis of a strategic partnership.

In fact, Vice Minister of International Department of the Central Committee of Communist Party of China, Liu Hongcai, said in Kathmandu in February 2009 that "we oppose any move to interfere in the internal affairs of Nepal by any force". Similarly, on November 4, 2008, Liu Hong Chai, international bureau chief of the Communist Party of China, stated, "China will not tolerate any meddling from any other country in the internal affairs of Nepal - our traditional and ancient neighbor.

In passing, it should be noted that the Nepalese Maoists are not enamored of post-Mao Chinese communism, describing it as "revisionist". Their distaste for China's current leadership was reinforced by the fact that China sold arms to King Gyanendra to combat their insurgency.

The Nepalese Maoists, together with Peru's ferocious Shining Path insurgents, have affiliated themselves with the Revolutionary International Movement, organized by American Marxist Bob Avakian.

Avakian supported the notorious Gang of Four in China and left the United States for France to avoid criminal charges after an obstreperous demonstration in 1979 at the White House sought to disrupt paramount leader Deng Xiaoping's visit.

Prachanda considers his "Prachanda Path" as embodying the line of pure ideological succession from Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong, and the CPN-M's reachout to China was very much a matter of geopolitical necessary, not ideological affinity.

Prachanda had also stated his intention to renegotiate the friendship treaty between Nepal and India, characterizing it as "unequal".
In January 2009, he also raised India's ire in a row over the Pashupatinath temple in Kathmandu. [3] The Hindu temple of Lord Shiva is a UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization World Heritage site and also served as the seat of Nepal's national deity.

Traditionally, its priests have been Brahmins from south India, but the CPN-M government engineered their removal (with a helping hand in the form of a mob allegedly provided by the Maoists' militant Young Communist League) and replacement by Nepalese priests. Much unhappiness ensued, with the Indians joined in their outrage by ex-king Gyanendra. In the wake of an unfavorable Supreme Court ruling, the Indian priests were reinstated.

The CPN-M government finally came a cropper in May 2009 in a dispute over the resistance of the army chief, Rookmangood Katawal, following the prime minister's orders on the matter of bringing new recruits into the Nepalese army - a sensitive issue that affected the clout and integration status of the Maoists' forces under the peace agreement.

Prachanda removed Katawal, but President Ram Baran Yadav reinstated him the same day. Prachanda declared Yadav's move unconstitutional; the Maoists withdrew from the government and went into opposition. Madhav Kumar Nepal, former general secretary of the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) took over as prime minister.

Beyond the maneuverings and disagreements - exacerbated by the ambiguity of the peace agreement, the bad faith and suspicion by all parties and, one would speculate, India's desire to wedge the CPN-M's support and cobble together a pro-Indian majority in parliament - was the shadow of Sino-Indian competition.
The Nepalese army enjoys close relations with its Indian counterpart, and Katawal was seen as a pro-Indian force in Nepalese politics.
India assiduously tends to its relationships with pro-Indian politicians inside Nepal and the current government is identified as pro-Indian. Even the CPN-M is rumored to contain pro-Indian assets or even factions.

The current pro-Indian government has attempted, with little success, to soldier on without the CPN-M. Nepal has suffered through six months of political gridlock as a result.

The Maoists have insisted they will not return to parliament until the principle of "civilian control" - apparently the supremacy of parliament and the prime minister over the president - is acknowledged.

Prachanda visited China in October at the head of an eight-person CPN-M delegation. It held four rounds of talks with the CCP. In a rather remarkable display of consideration towards an opposition party leader, Chinese President Hu Jintao hosted Prachanda as guest of honor at China's 11th National Games in Shandong and met with him privately for 25 minutes.

It is unclear what explicit or implicit encouragement Prachanda received from China. Beijing is probably not interested in inflaming its tense relations with India by openly taking sides in the current crisis.

After Prachanda's visit, the Telegraph Nepal reported [4]:

[Prachanda] revealed that "China has the support to the agitation sponsored by his party". Prachanda also revealed that he has brought only positive thinking from his week-long trip to China.
"The outcome of my visit to China is that we need not focus ourselves on agitation and war rather focus on development and peace," Prachanda added. He ... maintained that the Maoists' party agitation enjoys the Chinese support. He however did not reveal what sort of support will the Chinese regime extend to the Maoists' party of Nepal in their so-called agitation.

What undoubtedly concerns the CPN-M's adversaries inside Nepal is the fact that Prachanda has the resources and ambition to drive events inside the country, even if he is bluffing about the extent of his Chinese support.

Telegraph Nepal's report that Nandkishor Pasan, the commander of the Maoist's military force, the People's Liberation Army, is now in China and that a key CPN-M military strategist also plans to go to China does nothing to dispel the impression that Prachanda enjoys China's support for his actions.
In any case, after his return to Nepal, Prachanda announced a program of mass action designed to bring the government to heel and facilitate the CPN-M's return to the government under favorable conditions. The CPN-M organized mass demonstrations around the country, cutting the highway links between Kathmandu and outlying districts, and leading confrontational marches to the government secretariat, the Singha Durbar.

The Maoists also received support from a surprising source, the United Nations. The UN, concerned that Nepal will be unable to generate a new constitution, that the peace process will collapse, and that the aggrieved Maoists will restart their insurgency, has urged the present administration to back down and form a government of national unity with the Maoists.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's remarks at the end of October in support of a national unity government , made in response to a request to extend the mandate of the UN Mission in Nepal, which is trying to supervise the integration of Maoist forces into the army under the peace agreement. were construed as interference in Nepalese affairs by the current government.

Ban's remarks no doubt irritated India and the United States; the US, while keeping clear of the Nepalese imbroglio and supporting the UN process, is undoubtedly not pleased at the prospect that the Nepalese Maoists - still on the State Department's terror list - will come out on top again.
Now, it is reported that Prachanda approved the declaration of autonomy in Kirat. By doing so, the CPN-M has inched up to, if not actually crossed, a red line that might trigger the collapse of the peace process and a return to the insurgency.

Notes
1. Autonomous Kirat State declared in Nepal Telegraph Nepal, November 9, 2009.
2. Nepal: New 'Strategic Partner' of China? Nihar Nayak, March 30, 2009.
3. Protesters attacked at Pashupatinath temple Headlines India, January 5, 2009. 4. Nepal Maoist's Agitation Enjoys China Support: Prachanda Claims Telegraph Nepal, October 21, 2009.  Peter Lee writes on East and South Asian affairs and their intersection with US foreign policy.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KK14Df01.html  Sino-Indian rivalry fuels Nepal's turmoil By Peter Lee

Here we go again—an old story rehashed by the paragon of news veracity—the same newspaper that ran the story about the Iraqi WMDs multiple times. It is now in the forefront of war hysteria against another Muslim country. It is again repeating the same old story that was repeated a decade ago. The timing of this story is significant—it is being published while President Barack Obama is on his tour of Beijing.

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan on Friday dismissed a media report about Beijing providing it with weapons-grade uranium and a blueprint for an atomic bomb and

described it as an effort to divert attention from support being extended by "some states" to India's nuclear programme.
Foreign office spokesman Abdul Basit described the allegations made in an article in the Washington Post newspaper as "baseless".
"Pakistan strongly rejects the assertions in the article that is evidently timed to malign Pakistan and China," he said.
"This is yet another attempt to divert attention from the overt and covert support being extended by some states to the Indian nuclear programme since its inception and intensified more recently in stark contradiction to their self-avowed commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty," he said.
Pakistan and China have "comprehensive and all-dimensional cooperation", which includes civilian nuclear cooperation for peaceful purposes, Basit said.
"This has always been above board. Pakistan and China have always respected their respective international obligations and non-proliferation norms," he said.
Citing an account provided by disgraced nuclear scientist A Q Khan, the Washington Post reported on Friday that China provided Pakistan enough weapons-grade uranium for two atomic bombs and the blueprint for a simple nuclear weapon in 1982.

The unsubstantiated Washington Post story is a rehash of old wine in new bottle type of reporting. It is this type of reporting about the Iraqi WMDs that led up to the frenzy of the war on Iraq.

In 1982, a Pakistani military C-130 left the western Chinese city of Urumqi with a highly unusual cargo: enough weapons-grade uranium for two atomic bombs, according to accounts written by the father of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, and provided to The Washington Post.

The uranium transfer in five stainless-steel boxes was part of a broad-ranging, secret nuclear deal approved years earlier by Mao Zedong and Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto that culminated in an exceptional, deliberate act of proliferation by a nuclear power, according to the accounts by Khan, who is under house arrest in Pakistan.

U.S. officials say they have known about the transfer for decades and once privately confronted the Chinese -- who denied it -- but have never raised the issue in public or sought to impose direct sanctions on China for it. President Obama, who said in April that "the world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons," plans to discuss nuclear proliferation issues while visiting Beijing on Tuesday.

According to Khan, the uranium cargo came with a blueprint for a simple weapon that China had already tested, supplying a virtual do-it-yourself kit that significantly speeded Pakistan's bomb effort. The transfer also started a chain of proliferation: U.S. officials worry that Khan later shared related Chinese design information with Iran; in 2003, Libya confirmed obtaining it from Khan's clandestine network.

China's refusal to acknowledge the transfer and the unwillingness of the United States to confront the Chinese publicly demonstrate how difficult it is to counter nuclear proliferation. Although U.S. officials say China is now much more attuned to proliferation dangers, it has demonstrated less enthusiasm than the United States for imposing sanctions on Iran over its nuclear efforts, a position Obama wants to discuss.

Although Chinese officials have for a quarter-century denied helping any nation attain a nuclear capability, current and former U.S. officials say Khan's accounts confirm the U.S. intelligence community's long-held conclusion that China provided such assistance.

"Upon my personal request, the Chinese Minister . . . had gifted us 50 kg [kilograms] of weapon-grade enriched uranium, enough for two weapons," Khan wrote in a previously undisclosed 11-page narrative of the Pakistani bomb program that he prepared after his January 2004 detention for unauthorized nuclear commerce.

"The Chinese gave us drawings of the nuclear weapon, gave us kg50 enriched uranium," he said in a separate account sent to his wife several months earlier.

China's Foreign Ministry last week declined to address Khan's specific assertions, but it said that as a member of the global Non-Proliferation Treaty since 1992, "China strictly adheres to the international duty of prevention of proliferation it shoulders and strongly opposes . . . proliferation of nuclear weapons in any forms."

Asked why the U.S. government has never publicly confronted China over the uranium transfer, State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley said, "The United States has worked diligently and made progress with China over the past 25 years. As to what was or wasn't done during the Reagan administration, I can't say."

Khan's exploits have been described in multiple books and public reports since British and U.S. intelligence services unmasked the deeds in 2003. But his own narratives -- not yet seen by U.S. officials -- provide fresh details about China's aid to Pakistan and its reciprocal export to China of sensitive uranium-enrichment technology.

A spokesman for the Pakistani Embassy in Washington declined to comment for this article. Pakistan has never allowed the U.S. government to question Khan or other top Pakistani officials directly, prompting Congress to demand in legislation approved in September that future aid be withheld until Obama certifies that Pakistan has provided "relevant information from or direct access to Pakistani nationals" involved in past nuclear commerce.

Insider vs. government

The Post obtained Khan's detailed accounts from Simon Henderson, a former journalist at the Financial Times who is now a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and who has maintained correspondence with Khan. In a first-person account about his contacts with Khan in the Sept. 20 edition of the London Sunday Times, Henderson disclosed several excerpts from one of the documents.

Henderson said he agreed to The Post's request for a copy of that letter and other documents and narratives written by Khan because he believes an accurate understanding of Pakistan's nuclear history is relevant for U.S. policymaking. The Post independently confirmed the authenticity of the material; it also corroborated much of the content through interviews in Pakistan and other countries.

Although Khan disputes various assertions by book authors, the narratives are particularly at odds with Pakistan's official statements that he exported nuclear secrets as a rogue agent and implicated only former government officials who are no longer living. Instead, he repeatedly states that top politicians and military officers were immersed in the country's foreign nuclear dealings.

Khan has complained to friends that his movements and contacts are being unjustly controlled by the government, whose bidding he did -- providing a potential motive for his disclosures.

Overall, the narratives portray his deeds as a form of sustained, high-tech international horse-trading, in which Khan and a series of top generals successfully leveraged his access to Europe's best centrifuge technology in the 1980s to obtain financial assistance or technical advice from foreign governments that wanted to advance their own efforts.

"The speed of our work and our achievements surprised our worst enemies and adversaries and the West stood helplessly by to see a Third World nation, unable even to produce bicycle chains or sewing needles, mastering the most advanced nuclear technology in the shortest possible span of time," Khan boasts in the 11-page narrative he wrote for Pakistani intelligence officials about his dealings with foreigners while head of a key nuclear research laboratory.

Exchanges with Beijing

According to one of the documents, a five-page summary by Khan of his government's dealmaking with China, the terms of the nuclear exchange were set in a mid-1976 conversation between Mao and Bhutto. Two years earlier, neighboring India had tested its first nuclear bomb, provoking Khan -- a metallurgist working at a Dutch centrifuge manufacturer -- to offer his services to Bhutto.

Khan said he and two other Pakistani officials -- including then-Foreign Secretary Agha Shahi, since deceased -- worked out the details when they traveled to Beijing later that year for Mao's funeral. Over several days, Khan said, he briefed three top Chinese nuclear weapons officials -- Liu Wei, Li Jue and Jiang Shengjie -- on how the European-designed centrifuges could swiftly aid China's lagging uranium-enrichment program. China's Foreign Ministry did not respond to questions about the officials' roles.

"Chinese experts started coming regularly to learn the whole technology" from Pakistan, Khan states, staying in a guesthouse built for them at his centrifuge research center. Pakistani experts were dispatched to Hanzhong in central China, where they helped "put up a centrifuge plant," Khan said in an account he gave to his wife after coming under government pressure. "We sent 135 C-130 plane loads of machines, inverters, valves, flow meters, pressure gauges," he wrote. "Our teams stayed there for weeks to help and their teams stayed here for weeks at a time."

In return, China sent Pakistan 15 tons of uranium hexafluoride (UF6), a feedstock for Pakistan's centrifuges that Khan's colleagues were having difficulty producing on their own. Khan said the gas enabled the laboratory to begin producing bomb-grade uranium in 1982. Chinese scientists helped the Pakistanis solve other nuclear weapons challenges, but as their competence rose, so did the fear of top Pakistani officials that Israel or India might preemptively strike key nuclear sites.

Mohammed Zia ul-Haq, the nation's military ruler, "was worried," Khan said, and so he and a Pakistani general who helped oversee the nation's nuclear laboratories were dispatched to Beijing with a request in mid-1982 to borrow enough bomb-grade uranium for a few weapons.

After winning Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping's approval, Khan, the general and two others flew aboard a Pakistani C-130 to Urumqi. Khan says they enjoyed barbecued lamb while waiting for the Chinese military to pack the small uranium bricks into lead-lined boxes, 10 single-kilogram ingots to a box, for the flight to Islamabad, Pakistan's capital.

According to Khan's account, however, Pakistan's nuclear scientists kept the Chinese material in storage until 1985, by which time the Pakistanis had made a few bombs with their own uranium. Khan said he got Zia's approval to ask the Chinese whether they wanted their high-enriched uranium back. After a few days, they responded "that the HEU loaned earlier was now to be considered as a gift . . . in gratitude" for Pakistani help, Khan said.

He said the laboratory promptly fabricated hemispheres for two weapons and added them to Pakistan's arsenal. Khan's view was that none of this violated the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty, because neither nation had signed it at the time and neither had sought to use its capability "against any country in particular." He also wrote that subsequent international protests reeked of hypocrisy because of foreign assistance to nuclear weapons programs in Britain, Israel and South Africa.

U.S. unaware of progress

The United States was suspicious of Pakistani-Chinese collaboration through this period. Officials knew that China treasured its relationship with Pakistan because both worried about India; they also knew that China viewed Western nuclear policies as discriminatory and that some Chinese politicians had favored the spread of nuclear arms as a path to stability.

But U.S. officials were ignorant about key elements of the cooperation as it unfolded, according to current and former officials and classified documents.

China is "not in favor of a Pakistani nuclear explosive program, and I don't think they are doing anything to help it," a top State Department official reported in a secret briefing in 1979, three years after the Bhutto-Mao deal was struck. A secret State Department report in 1983 said Washington was aware that Pakistan had requested China's help, but "we do not know what the present status of the cooperation is," according to a declassified copy.

Meanwhile, Chinese Premier Zhao Ziyang promised at a White House dinner in January 1984: "We do not engage in nuclear proliferation ourselves, nor do we help other countries develop nuclear weapons." A nearly identical statement was made by China in a major summary of its nonproliferation policies in 2003 and on many occasions in between.

Fred McGoldrick, a senior State Department nonproliferation official in the Reagan and Clinton administrations, recalls that the United States learned in the 1980s about the Chinese bomb-design and uranium transfers. "We did confront them, and they denied it," he said. Since then, the connection has been confirmed by particles on nuclear-related materials from Pakistan, many of which have characteristic Chinese bomb program "signatures," other officials say.

Hans M. Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, said that except for the instance described by Khan, "we are not aware of cases where a nuclear weapon state has transferred HEU to a non-nuclear country for military use." McGoldrick also said he is aware of "nothing like it" in the history of nuclear weapons proliferation. But he said nothing has ever been said publicly because "this is diplomacy; you don't do that sort of thing . . . if you want them to change their behavior."

A nuclear power's act of proliferation
Accounts by controversial scientist assert China gave Pakistan enough enriched uranium in '82 to make 2 bombs

By R. Jeffrey Smith and Joby Warrick Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, November 13, 2009

Warrick reported from Islamabad. Staff researcher Julie Tate in Washington and Beijing bureau assistant Wang Juan contributed to this report.

The Huffington Post is a left leaning blog. It was started by Ariana Huffington. It has a strong anti-establishment, pro-Democratic and anti-Republican bias. Actually it caters to the leftist core of the Liberals. So far so good. For reasons known only to Zeus and Apollo, “The Huff” is also very anti-Pakistani. Its always been that way. There are several reasons for it. Arian Huffington is of Greek origins, so she may hate all Muslims. There are many Jewish democrats who write for the Huff. Now these Pakistanphobes have found a little brown boy to do their bidding.

When Brown-trash begin to speak English they immediately dive into “gora worship”. These wannabe WOGs “Western Oriental Gentlemen” are so enamored by Washington and London that they sell their country and their souls for a hay-penny (half-penny). It is incredible that an army that has lost 5000 of its soldiers with ten of thousands injured would be called a “half hearted” participant in a war that kills Pakistani children everyday. It is all the more astonishing that a Pakistani sitting in Islamabad would publish weekly diatribes against the very people who are definding this guy. Only an ignoramus who has been totally brainwashed would say the things Mr. Saad Khan says—or someone who is doing it for profit.

Pakistan has lost 5000 sons and daughters in the line of duty. More than a thousand civilian lives have been wasted because of America’s war in Afghanistan. Thousands have been injured. See this report from Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSCOL515980). “Half hearted effort”—my ***. There was no terror in FATA, Swat and Pindi before 2004 when the drones began. Mr. Saad Khan needs to get a life.

“Ingrate Inc.” (a conglomerate of Neolibs, Neocons, Indophiles, Pakistanphobes and their 5th column acolytes) do not recognize the sacrifices of the Pakistan people. They will continue the “do more mantra”. Mr. Saad Khan simply parrots his masters voice in his columns in the Huffington Post. Anti-Pakistanism is profitable business. Being Islamphobic is even more profitable. He has found a small corner of fame and is milking it for all its worth.

Of course Mr. Khan would have his readers believe that those who walk the minefields of Swat and FATA and those who brave the rain of bullets in Tank and Waziristan are somehow making half hearted attempts.

There is a war raging in Peshawar, Islamabad, Quetta, Lahore and Karachi. The innocent civilians are dyeing. All Mr. Khan has to say is to delve in treacherous rhetoric against Pakistan.

Mr. Saad Khan’s “column” is a literal transcription of the daily talking points from the US State Department and 10 Downing Street. If one wants to read the talking points, read them from the original. The Neocon and Neolib copies are not as good as good and not as spicy.

If Mr. Saad Khan had any decency

The Pakistani military has launched a major offensive against the Taliban in the South Waziristan region. The area is home of the Pakistani Taliban; a terrorist outfit that conducts sabotage activities in Pakistan but remains aloof from the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan. North Waziristan, on the other hand, is the hub of the Afghan Taliban and they maintain cordial relations with Pakistani intelligence agencies and even get some tactile support. Although the Pakistani military is claiming victory and has faced minimal resistance but there are no independent resources to verify these reports. The area has been walled off for journalists and they have to rely on government handouts.

30,000 soldiers in the heart of the TTP territory is by itself a victory, but “skeptical Suzy” (actually skeptical Saad) of course would rather believe it, if it came from the lips of Mullen and McChrystal. After all the old colonial masters used to speak English—the gospel of truth (WMDs in Iraq notwithstanding)

Additionally, there is a major crisis of people that have been displaced from the war-torn region. Secretary Clinton announced aid for the internally-displaced persons (IDP) and the Pakistani government has also announced a meager aid to these people. American military is also secretly complimenting the offensive by providing modern weapons and gadgetry to the Pakistani army. This is in addition to $7.5 billions given under the Kerry-Lugar-Berman legislation.

Give a little and talk a lot about it. Expect the other to die for it. The meager “gadgetry” given to the Pakistan army is a joke. Pakistan needs 100 choppers, 100,000 machine guns, 100 drones, 150,000 bullet proof vests, 15,000 MARVs, 300,000 night vision glasses (for the Frontier Corp and the Frontier Constabulary)—all it got was a few USSR vintage obsolete choppers that do a half-assed job of surviving in the air. The so called “aid” (should be called stimulus package for US consultants under the nomenclature “aid to Pakistan”) is another joke. Half of it stays in the hands of US consultants, one fourth is spent on logistics—the $100 million or so that finally makes it to Islamabad is handed over to the Ambassador’s favorite NGO. While the US wasted $605 billion in Iraq, and $143 billion in Afghanistan, Pakistan the front line state gets $650,000 (actually only one fourth of that makes it to Pakistan)

Mr. Khan is simply quoting the US line—hook line and sinker. If Mr.Saad had been writing similar articles about the US army in Afghanistan, he would have already been sent on a grand vacation on the island paradise of Gitmo, and locked up in a monkey cage. Mr. Khan lives in Islamabad where the authorities may not have read his articles. Mr. Khan’s nonsense has to be challenged intellectually. What he says does not have merit.

What compels youth in Islamabad to succumb to pressure to write Pakistanphobic articles. Bad upbringing—poor academic performance, a few pegs of Red Label, a possible smile from a “goree”, magnetism of the almighty Dollar--and of course the lure of a possible Green Card. A few pennies can buy a dozen Saad Khans. the names of Mir Jaffer and Mir Sadiq will live in infamy. The name of Saad Khan will of course wither away in a few weeks. The harm he has caused will of course stay. All the Huff needs is a Muslim sounding name to write under—and Saad Kahn foots the bill. Patriotism is a rare quantity—and being Islamphobic is profitable. It was profitable for Hussain Haqqani, it was profitable for Pervez Hoodbhoy, and Ahmed Rashid--so it must be profitable for the young punks of Islamabad who hang out on Jinnah bucking for a drag on their favorite pot or a sip of their favorite whiskey (tharra—never Red label).

The bigoted readers need to confirm their Islamphobia—the ignorant ones don’t know any better—they all read the Huff—because it mostly reports on the Liberal left.

There are more than 80 TV channels in Pakistan. Most of them are news channels, the news channels outnumber the entertainment channels. Eight major outlets of the Pakistani media has self-imposed a code of conduct—without government interference. This deals with showing dead bodes and reducing the number of “breaking news stories”. Mr. Saad mischievously calls it censorship. Only imbedded reporters were allowed in Iraq and Afghanistan—there was no free press. Why is Pakistan criticized for conducting the war in a professional manner without the intrusion of the likes of Mr. Saad Khan.

Despite an all-out effort by the US government, the Pakistani military is still reluctant on taking the Taliban challenge head-on. There have been reports in independent media -- Pakistani media face a lot of restrictions to reveal secrets and have just self-imposed a tougher censorship policy -- that the Pakistani military tipped off the Taliban before the offensive. According to a report in BBC Urdu, Pakistani intelligence agencies might have struck a deal with the Taliban in this regard.

It appears that the Pakistani military entered a deal with the Taliban where they agreed to avoid any "lose-lose" position. Pakistani military recaptured the territories while the Taliban retained their cadre, ammunition and organizational structure.

If the Pakistan Army took steps to avoid bloodshed, isn’t that good? Why the Yanks are doing the same in Falujah and Helmand? Didn’t they go to Mazaar Sharif with millions of Dollars in suitcases to win over the Northern Alliance? What is wrong with Pakistan talking to its own citizens? If peace deals fail, one should try again—after using the minimum amount of force.

Mr. Saad, Pakistanis bleed the same red blood as the blondes do. Pakistani blood is not for sale. Pakistan will only do what is in its own interest (Zardari notwithstanding).

Are the jawans of the Pakistan Army indentured servants of other flags. Did the generals not swear allegiance tot he Pakistani flag and the Pakistani flag alone? If the US and Afghanistan government can hold talks with the Taliban, why is such a big deal that Pakistan makes deals with its own citizens? Why are Pakistani peace deals considered capitulation to terror and Afghan, British and US peace deals considered overtures to win the hearts and minds of the people. Can Mr. Saad Khan not see the double standards here? Is is deaf and blind to the interests of Pakistan? Has he been so brainwashed that he now thinks of other interests as supreme and Pakistani interests subservient to other flags.

Did the Pakistani jawans sell their bodies for a few Dollars. Should the orders emanate from Islamabad or other world capitals. Shouldn’t the army take note of its own interests and the interests of Pakistan. Are the goals of the US and the Pakistani goals congruent. Should they be? If so, then why did the US install an anti-Pakistan government in Kabul and why does India have free reign in Afghanistan to plot, train, sponsor and arm mercenaries who are then sent to Pakistan.

In any case, South Waziristan offensive was announced in May but it actually started after a delay of five months. It was enough time for the Taliban to finalize their combat strategies i.e. tacitcal retreat. The Pakistani military has benefited from this deal but not the common Pakistanis. Terrorist attacks have become a daily affair and hardly a day passes when dozens of people do not lose their lives.

The “American Charge of the Light Brigade” in Afghanistan had obvious results—total defeat and annihilation of ISAF forces—more than 80% of Afghanistan is in the hands of the Taliban. If Mr. Khan had any clue about military tactics, he would have known that armies do not move on a dime. The logistics had to be arranged, and the targets chosen very carefully. Its not a US drone that sees a man with a turban a beard and a stick and begins dropping bombs. The Pakistan Army actually does ground work, and monitors the area planting spies, scouting the terrain, working with the locals—it then goes in.

Mr. Khan’s weekly diatribe against Pakistan is pretty disgusting. The stale putrid smell of treacherous treason stinks up the entire space—as bad as a skunk who spoils the ride of thousands of drivers. Raising the  Haqqanis bogey and trying to malign the Pakistanis about the TTP is a favorite technique of those who have lost the war in Afghanistan. Now they need patsys—someone to blame the defeat on. They seek the ephemeral “Ho Chi Minh” trail in Pakistan and try to discover “hideouts”—when 80% of Afghanistan is controlled by the Taliban. They talk about safe havens in FATA when Mr. Karzai cannot even control his section of Kabul. Mr. Khan has neither logic nor common sense on his side. He is happy about finding a spot on the Huff. Congrat Mr. Khan you made it---but at what cost. Your Faustian deals with the Huff pay little. Your soul should have more integrity and more value.

North Waziristan Taliban, under the leadership of Haqqanis, are still strong in their bases and gathering support from some elements of the Pakistani military. As the Pakistani Taliban have also joined them in recent weeks, they might launch major attacks in Afghanistan. Although the real perpetrators of this carnage remain in the "open closet", the lack of a concerted effort would hamper any half-hearted attempts of the Pakistani military. Saad Khan. Social and political activist in Islamabad. Posted: November 10, 2009 03:25 PM

Mr. Khan, you had a choice—you could use your writing power to enlighten people about the people of Pakistan. You chose to malign them. The choice is yours. Your fifteen minutes of fame will be over soon—but you have been part and parcel of Islamphobia which affects children of Pakistani origin in the West. Mr. Saad Khan, may God Bless and may he bring the love your own people into your heart. May you live long and prosper.

===========================

I will post this in the comments section of your column—of course you won’t print it—even if you do—the vultures will have at it—reducing the content to one liners…and so it goes

The Pakistani Interior Minster has finally come and publicly stated what has been common knowledge for a decade. The question is what is the reason behind Mr. Malik's recent epiphany. The Pakistan people are fed up and tired of the obsequious and subservient attitude of the likes of Mr. Malik who in the face of compelling evidence continue to waver and not directly accuse Delhi. The Prime Minister's may have brought back some good herbs from Beijing which were consumed by Mr. Malik--he has finally grown some "cahonas".

• Why Pakistan wont move troops from the Eastern border
• Swat: How the Pakistan army routed the RAW sponsored TTP
• Proof of RAW invovlement in attack on Lankan cricketers & Wagah Police station, & support for the BLA handed to Mr. Singh
• Terrorism is not indigenous to Pakistan. It is the direct consequence of American invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and American Drone attacks in FATA

India behind most terror attacks, says Malik, Thursday, 22 Oct, 2009. Dawn.com

Interior Minister Rehman Malik stressed that militants are now aiming to create panic in the country and that innocent civilians are being targeted. - File photo Metropolitan Civil defence staff to secure schools, colleges in Islamabad Civil defence staff to secure schools, colleges in Islamabad ISLAMABAD: Interior Minister Rehman Malik on Wednesday accused India of sponsoring terrorism in Pakistan, saying Delhi itself would be responsible for any terrorist attack if carried out in future on its soil.

‘We have solid evidence that not only in Balochistan but India is involved in almost every terrorist activity in Pakistan,’ the minister said after attending a meeting on security of educational institutions.

The interior minister’s statement that India was patronising terrorism in Pakistan raises a question why the interior minister had remained silent in the past and why the evidence of Indian involvement was not made public in the beginning.

Mr Malik asked his Indian counterpart Chadambharam to stop blaming Pakistan for terrorism in India, saying: ‘Mr Chadambharam should first take care of his own country and then blame Pakistan. Don’t threaten us. We can give better ones to you.’

• Swat & FATA for dummies: Who has Infiltrated the “Taliban”. Who are the terrorists in Pakistan?
• The different types of “Taliban”: The good Bad and the Ugly
• Why US forces tolerate Indian mercenaries from Afghan Consulates crossing into Balochistan & FATA. Why CIA drones rarely target Anti-Pakistan militias that is committing terrorism against Islamabad

APP adds: He said that the Indian interior minister should arrest culprits of Samjhota Express bombing, killers of Rajiv Gandhi and many more such incidents instead of blaming Pakistan for being incapable of coping with terrorists.

‘If we talk about composite dialogue, they (India) should not consider it our weakness at all,’ he added.

He said India had made it a practice to threaten Pakistan every three months, adding: ‘We are a nuclear state and not so weak. We better know how to retaliate.’

India's real intentions about Pakistan. See Indian Defense Review article

The India Doctrine by Munshi Indian intelligence: “‘the aim of RAW is to keep internal disturbances flaring up and the ISI preoccupied so that Pakistan can lend no worthwhile resistance to Indian designs in the region.”

Listing of Indian RAWs bomb blasts in Pakistan

The minister referred to the Indian prime minister’s statement that more Mumbai-like attacks could take place in India and said: ‘I ask the Indian prime minister that if they have any information about more Mumbai-like attacks they should share these with Pakistan and we will look into them, but if India does not share anything with us then they would be responsible for any incident,’ he said.

‘I have time and again said there was Indian involvement in Balochistan and we have evidence, which could be shared with India, if they agree to come and sit with us,’ he claimed.

About Mumbai attack, Mr Malik said: ‘We have yet not received the seventh dossier, but we have arrested all seven accused of Mumbai attacks.’

Pakistan would definitely take action against Hafiz Saeed if he was found guilty, but the government could not take action against any citizen of the country without solid proof against him, the minister said.

In reply to a question, the minister said that Pakistan had earlier handed over 18 accomplices of Abdul Malik Rigi, including his brother, to Iran.

He, however, said that Rigi was not in Pakistan and said he was in Afghanistan and ‘we can even point out his exact location in Afghanistan’.

To a question about installation of biometric system at the Pak-Afghan border, he said around 50,000 people crossed the border daily.

‘We have installed a biometric system on the Pak-Afghan border to check the movement of the people and the matter has also been taken up with the Afghan government and they have also agreed to install a similar system at their side of the border.’

RAW Page: Indian Intelligence machinations RAWs trail of terror: Indian bomb blasts in Pakistan

Indian imperialism: Using RAW to destabilize all neighbors

BLA is a threat to International Peace. The BLA a creation of Indian Intelligence agency RAW trying to destabilize Pakistan & Iran

Indian RAW & Afghan NSD proxy behind FATA Baluch unrest

India a major player in Afghanistan: Bases-Lashkargarh, Qushila Jadid,Khahak,Hassan Killies

India intelligence: “‘the aim of RAW is to keep internal disturbances flaring up and the ISI preoccupied so that Pakistan can lend no worthwhile resistance to Indian designs in the region.”

Pakistan’s National Crisis Management Cell (NCMC) submits proof of Indian RAW involvement in terror bombing in Pakistan. Blunt message to New Delhi to stop!

‘RAW training 600 terrorists In Afghanistan’ Senator Mushahid

Analysis: Indian terrorists attack Pakistani School a few miles from the Wagah border

107 Indian “Consulates” & RAW Intel Units in Afghanistan spreading terror to Pakistan

India’s dark shadow on Afghanistan

India’s Nuclear schemes

Plot against Pakistan: Kabul Blast near Indian Embassy

Similarities between Peshawar & Kabul Blasts

The US Civilian Aid package was crafted by Senator Joseph Biden and Senator Lugar—both of whom wanted actually help Pakistan. The original Biden-Lugar bill eulogized Pakistan. There were no restrictive conditions in the bill. After Mr. Haqqani had included all his conditions in cahoots with the Indian and Israeli lobbyists the KLB looked like diktats from Washington to Islamabad. Senator Lugar, Senator Kerry and  President Obama were stung by the response from Pakistan. All political parties across the spectrum condemned the intrusive wording in the bill. Tempers were partially assuaged by the inclusion of an explanatory letter which clarified that the conditions were non-binding blah blah blah.

Now comes the hard part. There is a military component of the Kerry Lugar Bill. Already the Indian Caucus has mobilized. Senator Menendez is one of the most viperous Anti_Pakistan Islamphobe in the US Congress. Senator Menendez doesn’t miss an opportunity to dump on Pakistan. He has already crafted some very abusive and insulting language which will be included in the bill.

• The US Congress this week may approve tough new restrictions on military aid to Pakistan
• Pakistani officials have bitterly complained about restrictions in US legislation.
• The military spending bill would impose new restrictions.
• The legislation also calls for the White House to send lawmakers a report every 180 days
• The Senate is expected to hold a procedural vote on the legislation on Thursday October 22nd, 2009

The Pakistani media and opposition will sleep over the developments. They will wake up the day that he bill has passed. The Pakistani Ambassador will keep the foreign office out of he loop and once the bill passes Congress the country will explode.

The time to oppose the conditionalties in the bill is now—before it becomes US law.

WASHINGTON — The US Congress this week may approve tough new restrictions on military aid to Pakistan, which has decried similar curbs on economic assistance as undermining its sovereignty, aides said Wednesday.

The fresh limits include efforts to track where US military hardware sent to Pakistan ends up, as well as a warning that US aid to Pakistan must not upset "the balance of power in the region" -- a reference to tensions with India.

The limits are in a 680-billion-dollar US Defense Department spending measure for 2010 that the Senate will take up after the bill cleared the House of Representatives in a 281-146 vote on October 8.

If, as expected, the Senate approves the legislation, it will go to US President Barack Obama to sign into law -- and could worsen a flare-up between Washington and Islamabad about stings attached to US aid dollars.

Pakistani officials have bitterly complained about restrictions in US legislation aimed at tripling non-military aid to 7.5 billion dollars over five years, denouncing some limits the package sets on security assistance as attacks on its sovereignty.

US lawmakers have increasingly called for closer tracking of US aid to Pakistan, amid growing concerns about US strategy in Afghanistan as Obama weighs sending more troops to fight the eight-year-told war.

The military spending bill would impose new restrictions on how Pakistan gets reimbursed out of a 1.6-billion-dollar fund for logistical and military support of US-led efforts to battle Islamist insurgents.

The measure requires that the US secretaries of state and defense certify that "whether such reimbursement is consistent with the national security interest of the United States and will not adversely impact the balance of power in the region."

The bill also says the Pentagon must certify that Islamabad is waging a "concerted" fight against Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and other fighters before it can receive monies in a 700-million-dollar package to aid Pakistan battle extremists on its soil.

The measure also directs the Pentagon to track how Pakistan uses military hardware it receives in order "to prohibit the retransfer of such defense articles and defense services without the consent of the United States."

The legislation also calls for the White House to send lawmakers a report every 180 days on progress toward long-term security and stability in Pakistan.

The Senate is expected to hold a procedural vote on the legislation on Thursday, aides said. Democratic Senator Robert Menendez and Republican Senator Bob Corker crafted the new restrictions. US Congress may set new curbs on Pakistan aid By Olivier Knox (AFP) –

The Pakistani lobby in Congress should be mobilized now. Anti-Americansim in Pakistan is at fever pitch. Intrusive Conditionalities are usually ignored by the Pakistani establishment and will backfire. If Senator Menedez doesn’t want this too boomerang, he should think again before being over ruled by his own party.

The Pakistani Majlis e Shura (National Assembly) and Aiwan a Bala (Upper House--Senate) should immediately pass a resolution condemning the intrusive and insulting conditions.