Posts Tagged ‘hillary clinton’

Reality check for “insignificant” US aid

Saturday, July 30th, 2011

While the American Congress debates whether to cut aid to Pakistan, the media seems to be taking it upon itself to make the case that the US doe snot need to be sending any more money to Pakistan. No, I am not referring to FOX News, I’m talking about Pakistani media.

Humayun GauharA prime example can be found in Humayun Gauhar’s article of Pakistan Today last week that inaccurately reflects the amount of aid Pakistan has received from US since 9/11.

Hamayun Gauhar in his piece says that “Since 9/11, Pakistan has received only about $448 million net in economic assistance”. But a February 2010 article in The News (Jang Group) reports that “Islamabad has received $6 billion in civilian aid after the September 11 attack in New York”. Which is correct?

We decided to do some research of our own to fact check Humayun Ghauar and The News to find out who is telling the truth, and who is stretching it thin.

Gauhar terms US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s 27 May statement that “We provide more support than Saudi Arabia, China, and everybody else combined…” as ‘bull’. He later invites readers to compare American aid “to China’s spending of $30 billion in infrastructure projects in Pakistan”.

What Gauhar doesn’t tell is where this $30 billion from China is being spent. That’s because, there is no $30 billion in Chinese aid. What Gauhar is likely referring to is the $30 billion in trade agreements between Pakistan and China signed last year. Not only is this not aid, it doesn’t even exist yet.

The two sides inked 35 agreements; including 13 at the government level and 22 between their private sectors that are expected to bring around $25 to $30 billion of investment over the next five years.

This is not to look down on trade agreements which are actually quite important. But Gauhar is comparing apples to oranges by comparing the amount of aid US has given Pakistan since the past ten years and a promise of increased trade with China to happen over the next five years.

Let us, then, compare some apples to apples, shall we?

According to statistics from the State Bank of Pakistan and Pakistan Development Assistance Database compiled by Center for Global Development, for years 2004-2009 the US on average gave Pakistan $268 million in grant assistance. China gave only $9 million on average during the same years.

Loans and Grants charts from Center for Global Development

Additional research from Institute of Policy Studies Islamabad shows that between the years 2001 and 2006, US gave Pakistan $2,939.3 million in Economic Aid.

Year

Economic Aid, US$(2006) M

Military Aid, US$(2006) M

Per Capita Aid, US$(2006)

2001

212.1

0

1.45

2002

875.8

329

8.1

2003

362.7

287.9

4.29

2004

377.9

89.8

3.02

2005

467.8

322.4

5

2006

643

299

5.84

Total

2,393.30

1,319.10

4.62*

* Average per capita aid per year.Sources: U.S. Overseas Loans and Grants [Greenbook] and US Assistance per Capita by Year.

According to Center for Global Development and Institute of Policy Studies Islamabad, the US has given Pakistan billions in civilian aid since 2001. In his article, Mr Gauhar says that “Mr Anjum Rizvi of Vibe TV helped me put these facts and figures together to expose the myth of US ‘aid’ to Pakistan”. It is unknown where Mr Gauhar and Mr Rizvi found their facts and figures, but perhaps they could share them with the Pakistan Development Bank, Pakistan Development Assistance Database, and Institute of Policy Studies Islamabad since they obviously have their figures wrong.

Mr Gauhar also states in his piece that “50 percent of the aid has to be spent on US ‘contractors’ under US law, so this goes back to America” and that “25 percent is wasted on administrative expenses. The rest is given to the US Ambassador’s favorite NGO to be deposited in US accounts. Almost none makes it to Pakistanis”.

Actually, what Mr Gauhar refers to is a change in US aid policy under the Obama administration that requires that at least 50 percent of aid money be spent through the government of Pakistan as the US moves development projects away from US contractors over to domestic groups in Pakistan.

The administration said it would funnel at least 50 percent of the funds through the Pakistani government, rather than using American contractors. The aim was to show America’s commitment to the civilian government and help strengthen its ability to deliver to its citizens, American officials said. Moreover, the large overheads of American contracting companies would be eliminated, they said.

As far as we have been able to determine from extensive research, Mr Gauhar’s claim that “The rest is given to the US Ambassador’s favorite NGO to be deposited in US accounts” appears to have been been invented from thin air by Mr. Gauhar for sensationalizing the issue at hand.

Also as the New York Times piece notes, much of the promised funds have not been released due to American concerns about corruption.

To keep a close watch on corruption, U.S.A.I.D. expanded its inspector general’s office in Pakistan to nine auditors in 2010, from two in 2009. Already, the office has opened 12 cases so far this year — involving bribery, kickbacks and collusion on bidding — compared with 13 cases in 2010, the office said.

To this, Mr Gauhar demands “Prove it. Or shut up”. According to him, “The problem is more likely with American bureaucracy, not Pakistani “mistakes”. And so just as we have learned from Mr Gauhar that the US has given almost no aid to Pakistan, so we have learned that there is no corruption in Pakistan also. Otherwise, we might be thankful that the Americans are carefully watching where the aid money goes so that it does not fill the pockets of corrupt politicians and bureaucrats, which of course do not exist.

However it should be stated that at least one “mistake” has been found in Mr Gauhar’s maths. In the opening paragraph of his column, Mr Gauhar states that “Since 9/11, Pakistan has received only about $448 million net in economic assistance”. But later in his piece he states that “Pakistan’s ministry of finance was prompted to seek US clarifications on how $488.537 million being provided under the Kerry-Lugar-Burmen Law (KLL) were being spent”.

If US has only given $448 million in economic assistance since 10 years, how is it that $488.537 million has been spent since Kerry-Lugar-Burman which was passed only 2 years ago?

But what is a few hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars? According to Humayun Gauhar, whatever the actual number, it is “insignificant”. Let me tell you I was surprised when I first read this, that so much money could be termed “insignificant”. I immediately began researching and found that US economic aid helped Hyder Shah Fruit Farm in Sindh deliver “150,000 kilograms of processed mangos to the Middle East and earned more than four million rupees in profit”. I also found on the USAID website that US is funding additional power infrastructure and flood control systems in Pakistan.

An example of USAID’s impact can be seen at Pakistan’s power plants, and in the hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses that that will be powered thanks to infrastructure upgrades. USAID’s current energy program is designed to add 540 MW to Pakistan’s power grid by 2012.

USAID is also funding the completion of dams at Gomal Zam, Satpara, and Tarbela. USAID helped build the Tarbela Dam in the 1970s and has just completed the first phase of a turbine rejuvenation effort. When completed, Gomal Zam, located in South Waziristan, will generate electricity for 25,000 households and irrigate 191,000 acres, providing a livelihood for 30,000 households. It will also improve flood control systems, stemming serious damage that could be inflicted by future floods.

But Humayun Gauhar says this is “insignificant” and it is “the US that continues to cause problems for Pakistan”. And who are we to argue with such an esteemed journalist?

Ironically, it is US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that is most ardently defending the US aid to Pakistan, while commentators like Humayun Gauhar tell the Americans to “shut up” about their “insignificant” aid. We hope that Mr Humayun Ghauar will be willing to take a personal tour of Hyder Shah Fruit Farm and also South Waziristan to explain how the improvements to their businesses and homes is is “insignificant”. I am certain it will be an enlightening discussion.

First US Controls the Weather, Now Time Travel Also

Monday, January 24th, 2011
Time Machine

Time machine used by US Congressman in conspriracy against Jang Group?

An article by Azim Mian published in both Jang and The News claims that President Zardari has engaged in a conspiracy against the media by convincing members of the US Congress to write a letter to Hillary Clinton requesting that visas not be granted to “media men not condemning the killing of Salman Taseer”. Judging by the evidence, though, the conspiracy appears once again to be Azim Mian’s and not Asif Zardari’s.

You will recall that this reporter Azim Mian has a chequered history of ridiculous smears leveled against the president including an article of June 2010 that tried to claim a ‘well-known’ website listed Asif Zardari as a US Citizen. The website turned out to be neither well known nor authoritative, and even so by the time Azim’s article was published it did not list Asif Zardari as US citizen.

Azim Mian also reported in June that Hussain Haroon would resign his post as Pakistan’s Ambassador to the United Nations before August 2010 due to “palace intrigues and impediments in his work”. It is now over seven months since the article and five months since Azim’s prediction has proven false despite the claims of his ‘sources’. These are only two examples of the reporter’s ridiculous claims and failed predictions.

So Azim Mian has a history of making ridiculous anti-Zardari claims in apparent attempts to embarrass the government without having good facts to back up his claims. But this latest conspiracy theory is even more foolish than his past articles.

According to Dawn, the letter sent to Hillary Clinton actually requests the State Department to  “identify those Pakistani citizens that have shown demonstrable support of the assassination of Governor Taseer”.

“Some of the most prominent clerics, journalists and lawyers who have praised Mr Taseer`s death and have demonstrated support of his murderer, are people who frequently travel to the US and hold American visas.”

Obviously, this request is not aimed at “media men not condemning the killing of Salman Taseer” as Azim Mian incorrectly states. This is his first error, and probably the smallest one though it is important to note as Azim’s article could lead readers to incorrectly believe that the US is pressurizing journalists to make a statement against the murder of Salmaan Taseer which is not stated by the letter.

Azim Mian then goes on to claim that “…indications are there that the US State Department had prepared a list of journalists and others on whom entry in the US may be denied by cancelling or denying visas”. The only “list” that has been published according to our research was a group of names published by Daily Times on 20 January. But this list is unsourced except to anonymous “sources in Washington” and carries a dateline of Lahore, as Azim Mian admits in his report. Furthermore, Azim claims to have spoken with a source at the US State Department who indicated that no list of Pakistani journalists had been prepared.

If Azim Mian was simply questioning the validity of the list published by Daily Times, he might have a point – it seems suspicious. But Azim did not stop there. Instead, he added to his growing portfolio of baseless speculation and misinformation.

According to Azim, the letter to Hillary Clinton is part of a conspiracy by the president against media freedoms. Azim claims that when Zardari went to Washington to attend the funeral of Richard Holbrooke and met with US officials, he spent his time referring negatively about Pakistan’s media and specifically Jang Group. Azim claims that:

It was in this scenario that the aides of the Zardari-Gilani government taking notice of the sentiments, perceptions and also complaints of their boss lobbied with the anti-Pakistan congressmen and made them to write a letter to Secretary Clinton.

Please recall that this is the same visit termed ‘mysterious’ by Jang Group because the president did not take a large government contingency along with him. If this trip was so mysterious, one might ask, how does Azim Mian know what Zardari said in these private meetings? What is the evidence to support this conspiracy theory? Actually, there is none.

In fact the only basis for Azim Mian’s conspiracy is his claim that “informed circles are of the opinion…” This is not fact by his own admission, but merely the opinion of some people who do not even want their names associated with it. It seems Azim Mian’s anonymous sources are as trustworthy as his colleague Ansar Abbasi‘s.

This brings us to the final point, the one that does away with this foolishness for good. It turns out the error of Azim Mian is quite obvious and an easy one to prove. In fact it is telling that the reporter and his editor gave so little thought to this story that they could not realize it before they published it in two newspapers. You see, President Zardari met with US officials on 14 January during which time they discussed pressing issues, according to reports from both The White House and Ambassador Husain Haqqani who was present for the meetings.

How do we know these meetings didn’t include discussions of Jang Group followed by lobbying US Congressmen for a letter to be sent to Hillary Clinton? The letter to Hillary Clinton was written on 13 January 2011 – the day BEFORE the meetings.

letter to hillary clinton

First page of the letter to Hillary Clinton dated 13 January 2011

second page of letter to hillary clinton

According to The News Zardari was driving from New York to Washington during this time because he is afraid of heights – a ridiculous assertion, but one that shows just how desperate some people are to smear Zardari at any cost. Actually it was reported by APP that Zardari did not arrive in Washington until Thursday evening. Furthermore, if the letter is dated 13 January, it means that the Congressmen would have had to begun coordinating even before that date. Not only was Zardari not in Washington before the 13th, he was not even in the US.

If Azim Mian’s conspiracy theory could be true it would require that Asif Zardari complained about the media in his meetings with US officials on 14 January, and then some unnamed “aides of the Zardari-Gilani government” lobbied these four US Congressmen and convinced them to travel back in time to write a letter to Hillary Clinton. It simply defies all reason.

Tension between the media and the government has been present since day one. Jang Group in particular has been a loud voice accusing the government and President Zardari specifically of wanting to curb media freedoms, but certainly not the only one. And yet it is now three years into the government’s term and still these voices continue to make such accusations freely. If President Zardari intends to curb media freedom, he is doing quite a poor job of it. And I understand that some of our esteemed colleagues in the media believe that the US has a machine that controls the world’s weather, but now we are asked believe that they can travel through time also?

The government has a responsibility to be honest and forthcoming with the people and not to attempt to curb the media’s ability to inform the people. But the media has a responsibility to be honest and forthcoming with the people and not spread baseless accusations and ridiculous conspiracy theories also. Three years into the government’s term and the media is still free – how long until the media will accept their own responsibilities and stop wasting everyone’s time with such nonsense?

The Intransigent Talat Hussain

Saturday, December 4th, 2010

Syed Talat HussainTalat Hussain, a man who has (or should I say had) a reputation for being at least bearable among the insufferable lot of TV anchors, has done it again. The anchor, on his struggling-for-rating program “News Night with Talat” recently attacked Husain Haqqani, ambassador of Pakistan to US questioning the ambassador’s loyalty and motives.

He took a couple of Haqqanis quotations out of context from Bob Woodward’s book “Obamas Wars” and directly attacked Haqqani saying that these types of comments should make us reconsider the type of people representing us. Talat Hussain has picked up two things that Woodward has quoted the Ambassador as saying in the context of Pakistan and US relations; one where the Ambassador talks about “carpet merchants” and the other where the Ambassador talks about the need to “woo a woman” and importance of giving an engagement ring.

The first quote which Talat talks about out of context as directly taken from Woodward’s book, is as follows:

He [Haqqani] also warned that the Pakistanis would always ask for the moon as a starting point in negotiations. He compared it to the salesmanship of rug merchants. “The guy starts at 10,000 and you settle for 1,200″ Haqqani told the Obama team. “So be reasonable, but never let the guy walk out of the shop without a sale.”

It is important to mention here that ambassador Haqqani was talking about how people and nations negotiate. Each side always starts with a long list of issues and then as you keep discussing and negotiating you come down to the bare essentials. And what is important, as the Ambassador emphasizes, is that you need to know what it is that you want. One also needs to make sure that you never let the negotiations break down so much that you have to let go of the one or two absolutely essential items that you need out of the negotiation.

If you’ve ever been on the streets of Saddar where rug merchants are trying to sell their merchandise, you can see that they start their sales pitch from an outrageous price and come down to a much more reasonable one. That is what the norm traditionally is for selling rugs. It is a noble and respectable profession that helps people provide for food and shelter. Talat Hussain was not only taking Haqqani’s words out of context here but was also belittling rug merchants by implying that selling rugs was beneath any respectable individual and that using such an example is shameful.

The second quotation that Mr. Talat Hussain talks about clearly out of context, from Woodward’s book where the ambassador talks about “wooing a woman” is:

Pakistan’s Ambassador to Washington Husain Haqqani, a key go-between, tried several times to explain to the Obama administration how to court Pakistani leaders, comparing the dynamic to “a man who is trying to woo a woman.” “We all know what he wants from her. Right?” Haqqani said in a meeting with Jones, Deputy National Security Advisor Tom Donilon and the NSC’s Gen. Doug Lute. “But she has other ideas. She wants to be taken to the theater. She wants that nice new bottle of perfume,” Haqqani told them. “If you get down on one knee and give the ring, that’s the big prize. And boy, you know, it works.” Haqqani said the “ring” was official U.S. recognition of Pakistan’s nuclear program as legitimate.

It’s actually quite clear that the ambassador was explaining Pakistan’s complaint against US and using an example Americans can understand. Did you notice how Talat partially explained the ambassador’s statement and left out the part about presenting of the “ring” to the woman being wooed and the part where Husain Haqqani says that the ring represents America’s public acceptance of Pakistan’s nuclear status? The ambassador was defending Pakistan’s nuclear program and trying to help Americans understand how important it is for Pakistan’s security and existence and that Americans need to accept it and learn to live with it. Listening to Talat Hussain, though, a viewer would come away with a different impression than the truth.

Talat Hussain conveniently pulled out the complete opposite meaning of what the ambassador was trying to say and started implying that Pakistan is a woman and US is a man, bringing forth his sexist nature, trying to rev up his listeners emotions without real reason.

On Hillary Clinton’s latest visit to Pakistan, our ill-informed anchor who was working for Aaj TV at the time, wanted to embarrass Hillary by proving that she was wrong and U.S did not give Pakistan enough money compared to Kyrgyzstan. He kept insisting that U.S. was paying Kyrgyzstan $640 million as rent for a military base in that country. Hillary corrected the self-righteous anchor but Talat Hussain insisted he was correct. Hillary Clinton remained polite and did not pursue the whole debate further but as it turns out, Talat was incorrect and had little regard for facts.

It is also important to point out that not too long ago Talat Hussain in his column in the Urdu daily Express News targeted the famous Hollywood actress Angelina Jolie in his shameful effort to attack the present civilian government of Pakistan. He caused an uproar among most of those people who read it not because of the just the message he was trying to get across, but in how he viciously maligned Angelina Jolie’s character to build his case. His article was condemned by majority of his readers and what he actually ended up doing was show to the public his own bigotry, his sexist attitude and his own racism (he actually called Jolie’s children as “rang barangay yateem bachay” or multi-colored orphan kids). He also showed how some hypocrites in the media write in one style for the Urdu-reading public and maintain quite a different persona for the English readership.

Playing the Machismo card to rouse the emotions of viewers is the strategy of drama serials, not series news programmes. And playing fast and loose with the statements of government officials is a style of ‘hit-and-run journalism’ that may score a short-term boost in ratings but does long-term damage to national security by giving other nations the impression that we do not even respect our own representatives so why should they. All of this together suggests a disturbing trend in Talat Hussain’s reporting – a willingness to sacrifice the truth for some cheap ratings.

Grading Shireen Mazari's Faisal Shahzad Conspiracy

Thursday, May 13th, 2010

Shireen Mazari Gets Failing GradeShireen Mazari has written the master piece of conspiracy literature about the Faisal Shahzad case. I am grateful for her putting it all in order so that it can be so easily refuted. Writing for The Nation on Monday, Mazari manages to get everything wrong, right from the beginning. Let’s grade her answers in order and show her mistakes so that maybe she will learn for the future.

1. Hillary Clinton threatened Pakistan

Hillary Clinton has once again come into her own true self and issued a direct threat to Pakistan of “severe consequences” if the ‘terror attack’ of Time Square New York City had been successful and found to have definitively originated in Pakistan.

FALSE
As proven yesterday, Hillary Clinton did not issue any threat to Pakistan. This is a lie. Here is what Hillary Clinton actually said:

“I have to stand up for the efforts the Pakistani government is taking. They have done a very significant move toward going after the terrorists within their own country.”

2. US government and media are ignoring facts

Why are the US government and media paying no heed to Shahzad’s alleged connection to the Yemeni cleric and to the Taliban’s clear denial of any link to Shahzad?

FALSE
A simple Google News search shows hundreds of articles about Faisal Shahzad and Anwar al-Awlaki and also hundreds more about Taliban denying a link to Faisal Shahzad. Does Shireen Mazari not have any Internet access? Officials from the US government first said they did not believe there was any link. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano called him a ‘lone wolf.’

3. Ambassador to Washington was silent

Why did our Ambassador to Washington maintain a strange silence in the immediate aftermath instead of seeking access to Faisal Shahzad, given that despite being a US citizen his Pakistani links were being played up?

FALSE
Ambassador to Washington Husain Haqqani was on CNN News to discuss the incident. Also he was in all of the newspapers with some statements. Does Shireen Mazari not read the news herself?

4. Foreign Minister Qureshi must have known Faisal Shahzad to make a statement about the cause

More important, how did he know the cause unless he had met Shahzad, knew him earlier or had been told by him that this was the reason behind his alleged action?

FALSE
Foreign Minister Qureshi was was speaking to CBS News soon after Faisal Shahzad was captured. His statement about the atttempt being a response to drone attacks was obviously his preliminary evaluation of the situation. Also, why is it so unbelievable that the attack would be a response to drones? Aren’t drone attacks what Shireen Mazari and The Nation have been upset about for years? A government official does not have to know a miscreant in order to have an opinion.

4. Interior Minister Malik assumed Faisal Shahzad was guilty

Interior Minister also made a similar statement as if Shahzad had been found guilty already.

FALSE
Interior Minister Rehman Malik was only repeating the facts as he heard them – as was everyone. Also, Faisal Shahzad admitted his guilt. Why is is that Shireen Mazari believes confessed terrorists to be innocent, but presumes government officials to be guilty?

5. Faisal Shahzad’s father was arrested, showing that this government is as bad as Musharraf.

Why should the father of Shahzad have been arrested? Apparently it was given out that his arrest was to facilitate the FBI team but is it the job of the government to aid and abet the US or to protect its own citizens? It would appear the answer is the former for this government, in which case there is little difference in how this democratic government is treating its citizens and how Musharraf treated Pakistanis.

FALSE
This is just silly. First of all, Faisal Shahzad’s father was not arrested.

The interrogators questioned Bahar Ul Haq in the northwestern Pakistan city of Peshawar. The retired senior Pakistani air force officer is the father of Shahzad.

Ul Haq — who lives in the Peshawar suburb of Hayatabad — was neither detained nor arrested, the source said.

Second, how can Shireen Mazari compare treatment of citizens under the present government to Musharraf? That is so ridiculous that it does not deserve a response.

6. Civil and military leadership are allowing US to threaten Pakistan

What is truly disturbing though is the civil and military leadership’s silence on questioning US intent. Why are we allowing the US to threaten us while we continue to entertain their civil, military and intelligence teams/delegations? Why are we not insisting on out investigation team being in Washington if the US can send an FBI team to Pakistan?

FALSE
This is not only silly, it is offensive. Shireen Mazari may make her money by spreading rumour and conspiracy theories, but civil and military leaders have real jobs and real responsibilities. Also, why would we send a an investigation to Washington? The attack was in New York and Faisal said he was trained in Pakistan. Only Shireen Mazari would want to send investigators to a city where nothing happened.

7. Military is cowardly for not starting war with America

In the aftermath of the Clinton threat, at the very least shouldn’t the Pakistan government suspend cooperation with the US, at least temporarily? Should our ambassador not convey our displeasure at this overt threat? Stoppage of NATO supplies and the downing of a drone will send a clearer message than any apologetic mumblings from the leadership. Finally, is our military prepared to compromise our defence and security, target more Pakistani civilians, simply to do the US bidding and commence a premature and hasty North Waziristan operation?

FALSE
This is not just silly. It is insulting and dangerous. Our soldiers are every day fighting and dying to protect the freedom of Shireen Mazari to go around head uncovered and making all sorts of false conspiracies (see above). Now she has the audacity to call them cowards? Already we have shown that there was no ‘overt threat’ made against Pakistan. It is not my place here to comment on whether drone attacks are wise or not, but certainly it seems that shooting one down would make matters much worse. Why does Shireen Mazari trying to create more violence? Perhaps Shireen Mazari should let Gen. Kayani and the military leadership do their own jobs.

Shireen Mazari concludes here column with a ‘hodge-podge’ of conspiracy theories. Apparently we will see US troops invade Pakistan to destabilize the government and steal Paksitan’s nukes while the ‘US/IMF’World Bank’ works to destroy Pakistan. All of this she provides no evidence for, of course. She just says it as if wishing would make it come true. And how sad that someone like Shireen Mazari would only wish the worst for her country.

Debunking Shireen Mazari’s crazy conspiracy theories was not difficult. It only took a few minutes of Google searches and remembering articles that I’ve read in the newspapers or programmes I’ve seen on TV recently.

What did Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder really say?

Wednesday, May 12th, 2010

American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder

Yesterday, The Nation suggested the entire Faisal Shahzad case is a ‘set up’ to trap Pakistan, and that we may be facing an ‘imminent attack’ by the Americans. The evidence they present are some statements by American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and American Attorney General Eric Holder. Both statements, which were made during TV interviews, have been used by commentators to suggest that there are threats from the US against Pakistan. The Nation, unsurprisingly, is the most hysterical. But what did these American officials actually say?

Here is what The Nation wrote in its editorial published yesterday, “US attack imminent?”

FIRST it was Hillary Clinton issuing a threat to Pakistan; this has been followed by an even more ominous threat to Pakistan from the US Attorney General Eric Holder. He stated that if Pakistan failed to “take appropriate action” against the Taliban, the US will. If the message is still unclear to anyone in Pakistan, this latest threat should leave absolutely no room for any doubt that the US now intends to target Pakistan far beyond the FATA region and certainly with more than just drones.

This is a serious claim! The Nation is accusing the American Secretary of State and Attorney General of threatening Pakistan with attack. Is this true?

Let’s look first at the entire conversation between US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the interviewer on the CBS News programme ’60 Minutes’:

“With the bomb in Times Square, I wonder what your message is to the Pakistani government?” Pelley asked.

“It’s very clear. This is a threat that we share, we have a common enemy. There is no time to waste in going after that common enemy as hard and fast as we can and we cannot tolerate having people encouraged, directed, trained and sent from Pakistan to attack us,” she replied.

This is important. Hillary Clinton recognized that the TTP is a common enemy of Pakistan and US. She is not saying that there is some tension between the two states, she is saying that we must work together.

Actually, Hillary Clinton gave some praise to Pakistan for its efforts.

“But we’re not getting that cooperation,” Pelley remarked.

“Well, we are,” Clinton replied.

“The question is why is this administration not pressuring Pakistan to give up Osama bin Laden [or] his deputy Ayman al Zawahiri…,” Pelley asked.

“I have to stand up for the efforts the Pakistani government is taking. They have done a very significant move toward going after the terrorists within their own country,” Clinton replied.

This is far different from how the interview is being presented, isn’t it? Hillary Clinton actually seems very full of praise for Pakistan.

But let’s get to the moment of truth and read the full quote about ‘severe consequences’:

“Even in light of the Times Square bomber, you are comfortable with the cooperation you are getting from the Pakistani government?” Pelley asked.

“Well, now, I didn’t say that. I’ve said we’ve gotten more cooperation and it’s been a real sea change in the commitment we’ve seen from the Pakistani government. We want more; we expect more. We’ve made it very clear that, if, heaven forbid, that an attack like this, if we can trace back to Pakistan, were to have been successful, there would be very severe consequences,” Clinton said.

Asked what she meant exactly, Clinton said, “I think I’ll let that speak for itself.”

This is very different from how the statement has been presented – especially by The Nation. Actually, Hillary Clinton again gives a lot of praise. As for her words that have so upset The Nation, she never says anything about an attack on Pakistan by the Americans. Taking her whole statement in context, surely it seems more likely that the threat is against Taliban and its sympathizers. Perhaps this is what makes The Nation so worried?

As for Mr. Eric Holder’s statement, let us look at his actual words in full context. Asked about Hillary Clinton’s statement, Mr. Holder replied:

Well, in connectino with the Shahzad investigation, they have been, I think, extremely aggressive. They’ve been cooperative with us. And I think we have been satisfied with the work that they have done. We want to make sure that that kind of cooperation continues. To the extent that it does not, we will, as Secretary Clinton indicated, take the appropriate steps. But as of now, with regard to Shahzad, I think we’re satisfied with the level of cooperation we have received.

This should be shocking to anyone who has not read the full statement before. The Nation and any other journalist who is only taking three words from a statement an misrepresenting them is misleading his readers very badly. This is unprofessional and unethical and should be severely reprimanded.

Contrary to the claims of these journalists, Mr. Eric Holder actually praised Pakistan’s efforts. Actually, if you watch the remainder of the interview, he says

The vast majority of people who go to Pakistan and come from Pakistan to the United States are well-intentioned; they have relatives; they have cultural ties to both countries.

Let’s also look at what other American officials are saying. Richard Holbrooke – who is a close confidant of Hillary Clinton – assured that there will be no move to block economic or military aid

The assurance came from Mrs Clinton’s close confidant, US Special Representative Richard Holbrooke. Her remarks in no way indicated any impact on the flow of US economic or military aid to Pakistan, he told a briefing in Washington.

“As for Secretary Clinton’s interview on (CBS channel’s) 60 Minutes (programme), I think that perhaps it was not fully understood for what she was saying by some people who didn’t see the full text or didn’t appreciate what she was saying,” he said.

American Defense Secretary Robert Gates has praised our military and said that “Pakistanis are in the driver’s seat.”

Obviously, there are some media personalities who are sympathetic to the Taliban and are trying to make some problems between Pakistan and the US by the devious practice of misquoting and misrepresenting the words of officials. The Nation in particular has been absolutely irresponsible and unprofessional by mischaracterizing statements in attempt to scare the people and make some false claims of threats.

Far from putting pressure or making any threats against Pakistan, both Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder praised both the Pakistani military also and also the Pakistani government and also the Pakistani people! The way that The Nation presents their statements is dishonest. The editors should be ashamed of themselves.

The Nation Is Incorrect About How Democracy Works

Tuesday, January 12th, 2010

Courts and JusticeThe Nation’s editorial, “A democratic attitude,” says that “the practice almost unexceptionally followed by successful democracies in the world” is for everyone accused of corruption to resign and present themselves to a court. This is not true.

  • French President Nicolas Sarkozy was accused of taking kickbacks from arms dealers when he was a government minister under President Chirac. Sarkozy was never forced to step down from political office, and the accuser – former PM de Villepin – is being sued in what is known as “the Clearstream case.” In fact, former French President Chirac’s lawyer has argued that his client enjoyes immunity for acts carried out while president. Actually, there are several politicians including Ministers and Presidents who are accused in this case, and the trend is not for them to step down, but for the judicial process to proceed normally with a presumption of innocence.
  • American President Bill Clinton was accused of corruption while he was the president in what is known as the “Whitewater controversy.” During this case the president and his wife who is now the American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were investigated by the US government while they were in power. They never resigned. After many years, the investigation did not charge them with any illegal acts.
  • British PM Tony Blair was accused of corruption while he was in office and was even questioned by police. The case involved accusations that his political party was given secret loans and that donors were nominated for honours. Tony Blair did not step down.
  • Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi is actually on trial for corruption while he remains in office. In fact, the Italian government is considering a proposal to suspend the trials in preparation for elections.

This is not an excuse for corruption, or to say that corruption should be tolerated. And yes there are many political leaders who, when corruption has been proven, either resign or are removed from office. But The Nation’s suggestion that it is typical practice in successful democracies for politicians accused of corruption to resign is false. Actually, the opposite is true. In successful democracies, politicians have the opportunity to defend their name before they are forced to resign. Otherwise, it is not democracy but a coup.

Whether or not any specific Pakistani or foreign politician should resign or appear before court is not for us to say. But if The Nation wants that to happen, they should at least be honest and not misrepresent how successful democracies work.

Shireen Mazari Exposed In New Article

Thursday, December 31st, 2009

We mentioned last week that a new article exposing Shireen Mazari was being published by her former American colleague that adds further embarrassment for The Nation and making the Pakistan media as a whole look foolish in the eyes of the world. Finally we have received a copy of the article, and are providing it below.

(more…)

Shaheen Sehbai Proven Wrong…Again

Thursday, December 3rd, 2009

Shaheen Sehbai Wrong AgainOnce again, Shaheen Sehbai’s analysis has been proven wrong. With so many errors, one must begin to wonder if the problem is his sources, his analysis, or his personal agenda clouding his reason. Whatever the cause, he continues to be proven incorrect in his analysis. This time, Mr. Sehbai’s predictions about falling US support for the Zardari government have been cut down by the Americans themselves.

Following Secretary Clinton’s October 2009 trip to Pakistan, Shaheen Sehbai wrote that President Zardari’s time in office was limited and that “the Americans have pulled the rug” from under his support. Mr. Sehbai quoted a number of anonymous people saying that Mr. Zardari had lost his support with the Americans, and that even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had “her entire perceptions changed.”

(more…)

Hillary Clinton is a fascist? Give me a break!

Wednesday, November 4th, 2009

To me, the word “fascist” conjures images of World War II, crowds of people changing and cheering in support of Mussolini and Hitler. It’s a pejorative word, describing a radical perspective that supports authoritarian government and is on the far right of the political spectrum.

When I read Hamid Mir’s column, Liberal Fascism, I was completely confused by his assertion that Hillary Clinton is a fascist. I continued through it, and realized he had just finished Jonah Goldberg’s book, also titled “Liberal Fascism,” and no doubt it was weighing on his mind as he asked three questions of Secretary Clinton and found her answers unacceptable. He is, of course, entitled to his opinion of her answers but the fact remains, calling her a fascist is utterly unfounded. It continues the ugly name-calling and adrenaline-filled style we see in Pakistani media, and does absolutely nothing to improve US-Pak relations.

Let’s take a moment to discuss Goldberg’s book. He launches into rants against the liberal movements in the United States, going so far as to call Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy American fascists. For Goldberg, pushing forward the ideas and agendas of a party equals fascism. That is a grossly unfair standard and cruel label, and is applicable only to the Democratic Party. For example, he strongly condemns Kennedy’s urging of national service and volunteerism as the government controlling the lives of its citizens. Yet, the menacing horror of the McCarthy era escapes his notice. The sweeping changes of President Ronald Reagan do not make it into this book. President Bush’s bulldozing the nation with his agenda (political, economic AND social) does not show up in here, either.

To make something very, very clear: none of the aforementioned men are fascists in anyway. Goldberg fails to understand that when a political party is in power, it will do its best to push its agenda through. That goes for Republicans or Democrats. As FDR changed the country, so did Reagan. Neither are fascist. America has not had a fascist President. Goldberg should be condemned for using that label in his disgustingly partisan, biased and vicious book.

Those, however, were the thoughts percolating in the mind of Hamid Mir.

Calling one of the most liberal, open-minded and ardent supporters of Pakistani democracy a fascist is deplorable.